Arrested, charged, guilty, grounded. It's a fair cop, or two.

Despite my obnoxiousness PC 1919 looked after Oscar for me and even initiated in some friendly conversation back at the nick along with other members of the custody suite to the point i felt like this one was a bit vice versa to my others I.E. me being reasonable while some pratt makes an ass of themselves. Video earned me my tag a couple of years ago.

[@geoffcarlton4047]

I think legally they have you here unfortunately, 2 different instances of you approaching the van could constitute harassment. No judge will buy the 'happened to be in the same place as you taking pics of hillsides and cars' reasoning. Hope it does go your way but bit of a silly one IMO.

[@mat12128]

By coincidence it was the third time i bumped into the same fella, hence you hit the nail on the head, live and learn.

[@Lee.Willcox]

Geoff, what section of law did they arrest Matt under because I didn't hear it ! Section 4383857 Of the coincidence LAW 🤣😅😂😆

[@geoffcarlton4047]

@@Lee.Willcox I'm guessing Section 154 of the Criminal Justice Act, Matts defence will be if his conduct was reasonable, whilst I think it was, many might disagree. I'd have to check on the legislation actually used to obtain details for the above offence.

[@geoffcarlton4047]

@@Lee.Willcox section 24 of the Police and Criminal evidence act was probably used to gain ID details.

[@Lee.Willcox]

@@geoffcarlton4047 Another abuse of power. Under section 24 your house bound grandmother whilst you help her sit on her outside bog can be arrested under this act.

[@Malpriorvids]

“You’re intimidating him by taking pictures of his vehicle”. So by that rationale, the guy in the van who is specifically pointing his cameras at privately owned vehicles is intimidating every single person who is driving past!

[@kevinoakes1171]

Yeah, I was thinking exactly the same thing !.

[@Rabmac1UK]

I certainly feel intimidated every time I see one of these 'money maker' vans, which have absolutely Nothing to do with Safety. Big Brother by Civilian Wimps is most certainly intimidating, they have taken no Oath, nor are they subject to IPPC Complaints. @Mat...you should have filmed the registration of every private vehicle in that car park, which entirely Lawful. Don't let them win Mat

[@Dave-fi4nz]

Man with a camera feels intimidated by a man with a camera.

[@pskourides]

No they have batons , cuffs, camera's , pepper spray, tazers, and guns.....and an attidude problem

[@t5jerry]

@@pskourides "attidude".....clever use of words 😀😀

[@dean6816]

You couldn't make it up!!

[@tomcomb6173]

All the Barrow coppers know Matt aswell ' Its just Matt from Walney' etc and he is one of the more respectful auditors out there.

[@ChuManfufu]

How dare you get in the way of their cash-cow

[@Gus0898uk]

It's about time the arresting police officers paid compensation out of their own pocket rather than the money coming from public funds.

[@johntracey4196]

yes this would prevent revenge arrests

[@movarvo1217]

Your dead right, they would think twice about things like this and go and do some proper work. Wasting our money should be the crime here.

[@t5jerry]

do you think he`ll get a "brucie bonus" this time ? i think not😥😥

[@ifyouvote.5005]

You can, just most people don't know how to do it.

[@lakelandfilmsweddings7228]

Sue them directly, that would hurt them.

[@SergeiFedorov77]

If logic dictates that you can be arrested for intimidating someone, by accident or on purpose, then every single cop can kiss their freedom goodbye.

[@HondaWanderer]

wrong.

[@johnbell8553]

How can you obstruct an officer when they say he is a civilian

[@Audit-The-Auditors]

No, they have the same legal status as a regular officer regarding obstruction due to changes to the Police Reform Act 2002 which makes it an offence to obstruct a camera van. S38 Police Reform Act 2002, makes it an offence to obstruct a Police Support Officer (Camera Van Operators). Up to 51 weeks in Prison & a fine or both.

[@philldownes8685]

@@Audit-The-Auditors wow your so wrong there . that only applys if it is a POLICE OFFICER, or pcdo. he is niether

[@Audit-The-Auditors]

@@philldownes8685 No, you are woefully misinformed. The legislation changed five years ago: Man landed with £383 court bill for obstructing speed camera operator 'simply doing his job'. New legislation to protect speed camera operators has secured its first Teesside conviction. Craig Mason, 27, of Salter Walk, on the Headland, in Hartlepool , appeared at Teesside Magistrates' Court on Friday in connection with obstructing a civilian speed camera operator in the course of their work. New legislation to protect speed camera operators has secured its first Teesside conviction. Craig Mason, 27, of Salter Walk, on the Headland, in Hartlepool , appeared at Teesside Magistrates' Court on Friday in connection with obstructing a civilian speed camera operator in the course of their work.

[@johnfellows2867]

I'm 72 years old, and I cant believe how low the filth have sunk since the days when they were totally respected !!

[@happydog4862]

It's a bit frustrating seeing how they attend this incident but won't show up for a burglary.

[@davidstjohnwelsh6190]

When was that then ? Stop making childish stories up

[@jimstroyan1903]

if these cockwombles could get a life they could get on with their job

[@happydog4862]

@@davidstjohnwelsh6190 They police the Internet for comments that offend.. instead of fighting actual crime.

[@davidstjohnwelsh6190]

@@happydog4862 you have no proof of this . Its just what you think

[@happydog4862]

@@davidstjohnwelsh6190 yes...Harry Miller.

[@goodyeoman4534]

All the police/establishment need to do is fit a person they don't like up with any crime they can. It can be a trivial one - doesn't make a difference. It then stays on the record forever, negatively affecting a person's career prospects and earnings. The courts certainly pick and choose what they consider serious. Alex Bellfield getting 5 years, for example, compared to almost all of the grooming gang members not even being prosecuted. Weird.

[@cliffordbuttle4529]

It’s normal with this lot

[@Audit-The-Auditors]

The new Section 38 allows a Chief Constable to designate civilian camera operators as “policing support officers” whilst performing their duties operating from within camera vans. Once designated, they have the same powers and duties as constables and the same protection from obstruction. Section 46(2) of the Police Reform Act 2002, again as amended in 2017, now makes it an offence to wilfully obstruct a designated person in the execution of their duty. The maximum penalty is a term of imprisonment.

[@trevorferguson6222]

How can someone locked inside his big yellow van feel intimidated by a man outside armed only with a camera (or is it a phone?) A man who neither threatens verbally nor makes any threatening gestures. He doesn't bang on the sides of the van and is carrying out a perfectly legitimate activity. If Matt was standing there eating a packet of crisps and making too much of a crunching noise is that also intimidation? There's nothing to stop him being anywhere he wants to as long as he doesn't block the traffic camera.

[@juliandavies1974]

We only see a heavily edited video. You don't know what happened off camera.

[@Audit-The-Auditors]

It is all there in the uploaded clip history - check previous encounters. They involved more than the usual camera nonsense.

[@Audit-The-Auditors]

They have the same legal status as a regular officer regarding obstruction due to changes to the Police Reform Act 2002 which makes it an offence to obstruct a camera van. S38 Police Reform Act 2002, makes it an offence to obstruct a Police Support Officer (Camera Van Operators). Up to 51 weeks in Prison & a fine or both.

[@EmperorLVL999]

He didn't obstruct nothing! You are a hater and need to be banned from this channel!

[@Audit-The-Auditors]

@@EmperorLVL999 He ended up in court and was found guilty as this was only once instance, there being three. He was quite rightfully sentenced to a 7pm to 7am curfew for the eight weeks, plus a restraining order banning him from any contact with Mr Burns and from approaching/filming safety camera vans, or blocking speed cameras. Do your homework before typing your biased misinformation.

[@FC-ce7ij]

At that moment in time, there was no evidence that Matt had obstructed the view of the camera van operator, except for the lowest form of evidence on this planet - ie, another human with "their" opinion. So did these officers do due diligence to perform this particular arrest? I think not.

[@FC-ce7ij]

@Brian Mooney still doesn't legally justify a detainment & arrest. Ends up in court with a lack of evidence and a thrown out case. Yet another waste of public money. Like the public purse can afford it these days!

[@t5jerry]

NO roy, just because the video was clipped by matt, does not mean the camera operator does not have evidence, your immideately believing matt, there`s 2 sides to EVERY story.

[@FC-ce7ij]

@@t5jerry NO t5jerry. The officer did not say there was indisputable evidence (ie video footage from the camera van operator) to uphold his side of the story. He had nothing to view otherwise he would have said. People unfortunately lie through their teeth in situations such as these so the officer had no evidence other than that which I referred too originally. Lack of evidence = illegal detainment/arrest. I would suggest given the commentary throughout, the officers arrived and had their backs up immediately and all reasoning was off the table from the start.

[@t5jerry]

@@FC-ce7ij well as billy joel once said in 1 of his verses......."you MAY be right, i MAY be crazy"...🙃🙃

[@CymruEmergencyResponder]

@@FC-ce7ij Arrest is on suspicion of an offence in the UK. The complainant made a complaint and officers had enough to arrest on suspicion of the offence. Arrest is an investigative tool in the UK. There was nothing unlawful about this arrest.

[@jaunosvaldo9481]

As Matt said the bloke in the van is NOT AN OFFICER so being arrested for preventing an OFFICER from doing his duty would be an illegal arrest. Simples

[@Audit-The-Auditors]

No, they have the same legal status as a regular officer regarding obstruction due to changes to the Police Reform Act 2002 which makes it an offence to obstruct a camera van. S38 Police Reform Act 2002, makes it an offence to obstruct a Police Support Officer (Camera Van Operators). Up to 51 weeks in Prison & a fine or both.

[@HondaWanderer]

he doesn't need to be an "officer" I can get you arrested for stopping me from doing my job, no matter what it is. Matt is a fucking Karen who does nothing of value, other than annoy people. He deserves to get arrested each and every time.

[@ianrosie4431]

Wearing a defaced flag of my country. How sad.

[@thestrengthwithin4249]

Absolutely agree 💯 percent with you, I find it racist to the British public who are patriotic.

[@terryweight9949]

how can someone who's job is taking pictures for a living be intimidated because someone else has a camera

[@EyeSpyAudit]

How are they going to pay for their donuts if the hatch is closed 🤣

[@michaelwalsh9782]

The speeding camera man is classed as a civil servant so how is it executing lawful duties

[@davidfinney2693]

Matt, you must take this further, it would never stand up in court....if it did then there is no justice whatsoever.

[@Voivi]

Unfortunately Matt was prosecuted in May 2021. “District Judge John Temperley sentenced Matt to a 7pm to 7am curfew for the next eight weeks. The judge imposed a restraining order banning the defendant from any contact with Mr Burns and from approaching or filming safety camera vans, or blocking speed

[@Voivi]

@@ruperttristanblythe7512 Rupert, I believe hat's the name of the camera operator inside the speed camera van. I can't post the link to the press article here sadly. But it appears Mr Burns laid it on thick to the court as to the effect Mat is alleged to have had on him , during his presence outside the camera van.

[@Audit-The-Auditors]

@@Voivi You could copy and paste it though. Barrow man harassed police safety camera van operator 'A POLICE safety camera operator says he now feels ‘anxious’ visiting Barrow after he was harassed by a man filming him on a mobile phone, a court heard. Stuart Burns was targeted three times by defendant Matthew George Turnbull, who filmed the camera operator to post online ‘for entertainment’. The 44-year-old defendant admitted a charge of harassment when he appeared at South Cumbria Magistrates’ Court. Turnbull, of Mikasa Street on Walney, has been banned from approaching safety camera vans under the terms of a restraining order.'

[@bobcat2378]

@@Voivi Professional victim?

[@bedpansniper]

How can they claim harrasment, how could you possibly know who is the van? This was all about getting your details, I bet he would have written it down and you would not have heard anything else . It will be interesting if this ever proceeds anywhere near a Magistrates Court.

[@awhisperinthewind4253]

they were out to get you from the moment they arrived

[@stephenbaker5686]

I wonder why the sergeant needed to wear two gang badges, it’s disgusting that their bosses allow it.

[@GodlikeLFC97]

The filth aren't allowed to modify the costume we pay for in any way and this should be reported every time we see a little piggy wearing one! 🐷

[@GH-lo8vl]

Thomas Hobbs (a 17th century philosopher), came up with the "Social contract theory", in that he said that people feel secure in groups (or gangs), so when a police constable meets another police constable wearing the same defaced Union flag, it gives them a sense of security and protection. Typically, people who enter into the social contract theory are usually very insecure and can't understand why others are reluctant to do the same, so they will argue with you when you stand against their authority, which is why they get so aggressive when you ask them about their "gang badge".

[@Audit-The-Auditors]

Any evidence of gang badges and not what they are designed to indicate?

[@GH-lo8vl]

@@Audit-The-Auditors - do the British army use a defaced Union flag, or do they use something like a poppy?

[@Audit-The-Auditors]

@@GH-lo8vl Whatever does this have to do with police? Do you know that both the fire and ambulance services also have flag badges with different colour stripes? Are they gangs too?

[@marshman5184]

“Very helpfully from the prosecution's point of view, Turnbull uploaded footage of the offences for all to see.” I just love the above quote from a local paper last year. A fool in every sense.

[@PillSharks]

So if I drive past the same police camera van a few times can I have the speed enforcement person arrested? They causes me distress every time I see one of the bastards!

[@bitterpilloftruth1851]

Apart from restricting the safety camera vans from achieving their purpose, and the operators doing their job (keeping speeds down and the public safe), under Section 46(2) of the Police Reform Act 2002, it’s an offence to wilfully obstruct a designated person in the execution of their duty, carrying a sentence of up to 51 weeks imprisonment.

[@free7062]

Matt this was clearly a BS arrest , at least it wasn't violent but your rights were violated , thank you for all you do on behalf of the people ✌️

[@ArthurDentsTowel]

*Man with camera feels harassed by man with camera.* 🤡

[@Voivi]

Here's The Case: A POLICE safety camera operator says he now feels ‘anxious’ visiting Barrow after he was harassed by a man filming him on a mobile phone, a court heard. Stuart Burns was targeted three times by defendant Matthew G Txxxxxxx, who filmed the camera operator to post online ‘for entertainment’. The 44-year-old defendant admitted a charge of harassment when he appeared at South Cumbria Magistrates’ Court. Txxxxxxx, of Mxxxxx St on Wxxxx, has been banned from approaching safety camera vans under the terms of a restraining order. The court was told Txxxxxxx had filmed the safety camera van operator on September 30 and twice on October 8. Prosecutor Lee Dacre told the court: “On September 30 Mr Burns was working at the location of Park Road in Barrow. “At 11.05am he was approached by a male recording on a mobile phone. “He was pushing the phone in the hatch at the back of the vehicle.” Mr Dacre said Txxxxxxx made a comment on police camera vans being used as ‘cash cows for the Government’. “Mr Burns told him to stop recording and then closed the hatch,” Mr Dacre. The court heard Txxxxxx then blocked the safety camera laser preventing Mr Burns from working. Another similar incident happened on October 8 at around 9am on Walney, causing police to be called. Mr Dacre said that again Txxxxxxx came to the van to film and blocked the line of the safety camera. The defendant then harassed the camera operator again later that day on Park Road, asking him questions and blocking the camera’s laser. Mr Dacre said the victim had suffered a stroke following the incident and was concerned about his blood pressure. He said Mr Burns felt ‘anxious’ having to work in Barrow after the harassment. Defence solicitor Karen Templeton said Txxxxxxx did not have a ‘vendetta’ against one man and did not mean to repeatedly target the same camera operator. She said Txxxxxxx was part of an online community that shared videos of themselves ‘interviewing’ safety camera operators ‘for entertainment’. “He should’ve thought through the consequences,” she said. “District Judge John Temperley sentenced Txxxxxxx to a 7pm to 7am curfew for the next eight weeks. The judge imposed a restraining order banning the defendant from any contact with Mr Burns and from approaching or filming safety camera vans, or blocking speed cameras.

[@Voivi]

@DimFM Agreed

[@jedimaster7953]

Can the drivers driving down the road feel intimidated by this man in a wanna be police van taking photos of them and their cars? Only going off the police officers logic

[@johnstevenson7462]

So they can all film you and us all for the cash cow but film them and your nicked welcome to the uk 2022 ,, then the police wonder why they get no respect . i have also watched a few of these audit vids now mat and some of the behaviour and lack of basic knowledge of the law is shocking , disturbing and frankly worrying i think we're at the point now where its best to film every police interaction or the chances are your gonna get abused or fed some bs law , some of them are way out of control now just making up their owns laws up as they go along

[@daytona1212]

You could have expected something like this after doing this. No clue why you were beating around the bush about filming the "officer".

[@mrcoolsdream1]

I would of said to the cop, "is the guy in the van carrying out his duties at this present time", the cop will have to say that he is, because Matt couldn't be obstructing if he wasn't carrying out his duties. So therefore how can you obstruct someone from doing their duties if they are still doing their duties. To obstruct is to stop.

[@johnvienta7622]

This would be one of those times when saying absolutely nothing would be a really good idea.

[@Audit-The-Auditors]

Actually it was over a year ago, it went to court and he was found guilty.

[@johnvienta7622]

@@Audit-The-Auditors , yes, i was aware that it was an old video, however the concept of not trying to explain your conduct to Police still stands. Personally I cannot see how he was convicted as no physical action was used to prevent the highway robber from continuing with his revenue raising. Oh hang on, I can understand because the majority of Magistrates see themselves as being there to support the Police.

[@Audit-The-Auditors]

@@johnvienta7622 You misunderstand, this was the continual harassment of the same serving member of the constabulary. 'Stuart Burns was targeted three times by defendant Matthew George Turnbull, who filmed the camera operator to post online ‘for entertainment’. The 44-year-old defendant admitted a charge of harassment when he appeared at South Cumbria Magistrates’ Court.' No physical action? How did Turnbull get there? Have you even seen the previous clips that demonstrated the deliberate obstruction?

[@johnvienta7622]

@@Audit-The-Auditors , yes I have seen the video. Not quite sure what relevance "how he got there" has to what is under discussion. Did he physically touch the operator? Did he physically cover the vehicle in a way that prevented the highway robber from operating the speed detection device? Did he make threats that he would drag the operator out of the vehicle and give him a decent kicking? In fact he did none of those things. I see nothing wrong with speaking to a public servant regardless of how often it is done. Perhaps the filth and their associates should not be so thin skinned.

[@Audit-The-Auditors]

@@johnvienta7622 Harassment isn't just touching. The court saw things differently to you based upon the presented evidence.

[@grahamnutt8958]

This incident; compared to the 2 others recently posted; appeared relatively mild/harmless. Most unfortunate that it was the same 📽 operator. They weren't going to let that one go without a Nicking. Bad luck there Matt.

[@mat12128]

Yep 100%, it was unintentional meeting him 3 times in a row but nevertheless i did and i came a cropper

[@tomcomb6173]

@@mat12128 Its good earner for them on that corner as people often pull into the outside lane from Currys and then often need to speed up to overtake to get back on the left side lane before the traffic lights.

[@secretfacekid8920]

The pigs in Barrow-in-Furness are never around, I can’t remember the last time I saw a pig even in a van.

[@whosasking0o]

One minute the van man is an officer parked on the pavement, then he's not, then he is again when they claim obstruction! Also how could you know it was the same person inside the van?

[@Audit-The-Auditors]

The person in the van told him?

[@EmperorLVL999]

These thugs deserve the worst! They are animals!

[@Griffster_A]

Please sue the shit out of them.

[@mat12128]

absolutely no case mate, i messed up here....

[@luciiza_2116]

@@mat12128 how?

[@longballplease]

@@luciiza_2116 because he was obstructing

[@Audit-The-Auditors]

No, they have the same legal status as a regular officer regarding obstruction due to changes to the Police Reform Act 2002 which makes it an offence to obstruct a camera van. S38 Police Reform Act 2002, makes it an offence to obstruct a Police Support Officer (Camera Van Operators). Up to 51 weeks in Prison & a fine or both.

[@Griffster_A]

@@Audit-The-Auditors Alright boot licker, calm down.

[@MrStaffy01]

depends on what evidence they have on you mat, if he recorded your actions, or if they siezed your cam and footage for evidence, or even if they use items you uploaded that may assist them in proving the offense, when a person wilfully obstructs: a constable in the execution of his duty, or. a person assisting a constable in the execution of the constable's duty. it doesnt even have to be a police officer to be reported or charged with obstructing police even a civilian with no connection to the police so long as they were acting upon the instructions of a police officer at the time.

[@5183adam]

The police have a higher threshold of being alarmed, harassed and distressed

[@cliffordbuttle4529]

Snow flakes

[@Audit-The-Auditors]

No, police staff are not caught by Harvey v DPP.

[@ifyouvote.5005]

If you had never spoken to those domestic terrorist, there's nothing they could do, stop talking to them.

[@jamieprice23]

the problem is that the police put themselves on a pedestal and look down on everyone else.... entitled, or so they think.

[@clivewiddall3430]

Take the numpty in the van to court for false police report!

[@Audit-The-Auditors]

This was last year, it went to court and Turnbull lost!

[@markosmith8037]

People need to understand that WORKING doesn't necessarily mean getting PAID. People may get paid to work but it is not a requirement. mat12128 could be WORKING even if he was making little or no money via this work.

[@dunboozin]

Is he intimidating the public by filming them in the cars

[@stevefranks1957]

Matt, I really like your calm style, whatever the circumstances, whereas some of the other auditors get really agro, you still make your point and explain your job, all the best.

[@DJ-Brownie-UK]

if your not careful when playing with fire your raising the odds on yourself getting burnt.

[@martingibbons7070]

If that gentleman in the camera van is not a police officer surely he should not be parked in a bay clearly marked POLICE. These thick clowns all need to be held to account

[@Audit-The-Auditors]

Doesn't need to be a police officer, he is a specialist employed by the constabulary. This was last year, it went to court and he was found guilty.

[@axw016]

6:43 - “obstructing an officer” … but I thought he was police staff not an officer / constable?🤔

[@simonwallace6880]

(2)Any person who resists or wilfully obstructs a constable in the execution of his duty, or a person assisting a constable in the execution of his duty, shall be guilty of an offence. I had a look at the law and found this doesn't have to be an officer, hope it helps

[@Audit-The-Auditors]

No, they have the same legal status as a regular officer regarding obstruction due to changes to the Police Reform Act 2002 which makes it an offence to obstruct a camera van. S38 Police Reform Act 2002, makes it an offence to obstruct a Police Support Officer (Camera Van Operators). Up to 51 weeks in Prison & a fine or both.

[@axw016]

@@Audit-The-Auditors wow … best thing to do then is get a sign saying “police camera ahead” and move down the road 100m

[@Audit-The-Auditors]

@@axw016 You clearly have no clue about the auditing agenda.

[@axw016]

@@Audit-The-Auditors 😂 wow … nothing like jumping to conclusions

[@carllockpick6179]

If this is harassment, what about the threatening letters, the BBC send out, as well as tv licence goons knocking on your door.

[@cato9433]

Matt i love your work. Would you please ask when confronted by these tyrannical pieces.... why are they all so conceited and anachronistic. As for the speed camera cash cow. Dick turpin was a highwayman but atleast he wore a mask.

[@ianhill4585]

Turpin wore a mask, these people "wear a van," that's their disguise.

[@cato9433]

@@ianhill4585 🤣 in the dandy van man who youre to scared to mention I get my cash From a camera flash Without grabbing you attention Adam ant. Going back to my youth🤣🤣

[@cato9433]

@Brian Mooney nothing he does has ever warranted an arrest. Its only the polices conceited arogant egocentric ways thats got him detained and arrested. They should face prison . A hard prison that would telk the inmates they was pork chops

[@ianhill4585]

@@cato9433 Intereresting, I'll have to Google that one. 👍

[@cato9433]

@@ianhill4585 youtube stand and deliver adam ant👍

[@rob0749]

There was certainly intimidation attempted here but it wasn't Matt. They should have told the guy to grow a pair and move on.

[@samhenwood5746]

These cops are disgrace to the force, shame on them 😡👎Thanks Mat 🤗

[@cruiseylee]

Tbf if you are constantly blocking a police staff from doing duty you deserve it

[@gheewhizz3847]

Stood in front of speed trap van. You’re asking for it there mate. Get a proper Job Matt. Starting to look like a clown.

[@Krazyjakeuk]

Filming in public is not illegal sue them

[@Audit-The-Auditors]

This was last year, it went to court, he lost and was convicted.

[@richardmcnally4560]

How does walking on a public road taking pictures or video of vehicles including public vehicles ( police vehicles) and public servants ( policemen) constitute harassment? You can video or take pictures from public land of anything the eyes can see. If anyone was harassed it was Matt by the officers questioning him doing something that was very legal to do. He could of stood there all day video taping them. They're public servants and no expectations of privacy in public.

[@jamesrye5333]

Please advise we viewers of the outcome of any and all consequences of this arrest. Your viewers are intrigued by your action and those of the police.

[@concernedindividual7056]

Just a thought. Matt was on the curb, doesn't the lens have to be pointing at the road.

[@mat12128]

Yep, made sure i was not blocking it and hence they never attempted to follow that one up

[@philip9668]

With unpleasant police like that , who would ever want to assist them.

[@Ray.388]

stop annoying people and let them do their job.

[@t5jerry]

you could have tried to convince them that you were ONLY standing in the vicinity of the camera van (great bit of kit btw) because the types of vehicle you were "trying" to snap, would of course be far easier to photograph as the presence of the camera van "slowed them down" sufficiently to allow you to take quality photos 😏😏😏😏

[@peteramsay7149]

Is someone's word now good enough to arrest without any evidence or witnesses. Ridiculous.

[@paulhodgins]

Thugs protecting their own. They would nod do the same if it was a member of the public who had reported a similar incident.

[@paulhodgins]

@Brian Mooney So Brian, are you saying that I am not allowed to voice my opinion???

[@sciwriter1]

The word of an employee isn't proof of an offence. There was no investigation whatsoever, they just went on the word of a colleague. Thus unlawful arrest.

[@Audit-The-Auditors]

Yet he lost in court because of all the evidence he had uploaded to YT.

[@EmperorLVL999]

We need to unite against these thugs and tyrants! These animals don't deserve to live here anymore!

[@kellydoyle8611]

That's brave the one copper saying ur filming so you have it for future reverence... he's not bothered about having a telling off 🤔

[@Anton-Kant]

they tried obstruction with me - to do with a speed camera - i was a KM away. Obstruction really needs an assault section 89 heading is " Assaults on constables" that is the intention of this act.... my case was thrown out at court 1st day

[@rachael2908]

According to article online about this incident. The guy in the police speed van, suffered a stroke not long after due to stress.

[@Audit-The-Auditors]

Is it illegal to have a stroke?

[@colinpryor4290]

1/ If you think that Plod intend to arrest you, do yourself a favour AND KEEP QUIET. You cannot talk your way OUT of being arrested, but you can always talk your IN to being arrested. 2/ If you encounter Police wearing those trash Thin Blue Liars gang colours, expect that they are more than willing to arrest you. 3/ Approaching the van window and intentionally obstructing the cameraman IS obstruction. And it is probably on the van's footage. Probably best to film these guys from the side and a reasonable distance of a few feet.

[@sumikamal8898]

So let's get this straight. The police are filming Matt, who is filming the van, which is filming the private cars, which are filming them all on their dashcams. Maybe they should all turn off their cameras, go home and have a nice cup of tea.

[@TheBrawlBox]

The contention is that Matt is the only one getting arrested for filming! PINAC

[@freedomwithoutreason9943]

He didn't get arrested for filming, he got arrested for repeatedly obstructing.

[@TheBrawlBox]

@@freedomwithoutreason9943 True but I doubt he would have been arrested if he did not have his camera.; the bearded constable was very 'interested' in Matt12128's filming.

[@lipbrent3887]

The grounds of intimidation that won’t stand. They need to prove without a shadow of doubt that you did obstruct him from stealing from the public for a LIMITED CORPORATION. And the police lied said he’s not an officers then said he is an officer multiple times, get the OFFICERS number who was in the UNLAWFUL REVENUE COLLECTION BAN via the arrest slip. You should have refused everything max they can keep you in 24 hours.

[@Audit-The-Auditors]

This was last year, it went to court and he was found guilty.

[@Aj3185-x4j]

It’s a lawful arrest. They suspect you have committed an offence, gave you the option to be reported on summons and you chose to decline that option and not give your details so therefore there was a necessity for arrest under s24(5)(a) of PACE 1984. The court may not find you guilty of this offence. However, it does not make an arrest unlawful. A police officer just needs reasonable grounds to suspect you have committed an offence, which he has from the information that staff member has provided and then reasonable grounds to believe that your arrest is necessary, which you did yourself by not providing your details

[@SnakePliskin762]

Was thinking it's an old vid,x26 taser on the arrester.

[@Audit-The-Auditors]

Yes, last year.

[@nigelbrown6382]

Keep us updated on what happens Matt

[@Audit-The-Auditors]

This was last year, it went to court and he was found guilty.

[@thecandyman2812]

Didn't they obstruct you from carrying out a lawful actvity?

[@TheBILLANDERSON]

Obstruction of an officer in course of duty has not defined by statute, however, the courts will take into account what was necessary for the police to do to protect life and limb, to keep the peace, to prevent crime and to detect crime👀 BUT it does have 3 elements , all three must be present (not alleged) (1) Obstruction; for instance, making it more difficult for an officer to carry out his duty ((2) The obstruction must be ‘wilful’ ie. deliberate or calculated. (3) The police officer (not constable) staff must have been acting in the course of his duty. (no power to arrest )👀🤔 AS The constable acting under PACE CODE G 2.1 ( 2 elements MUST be met) before getting to "necessity criteria"" The problem here the PC's were not present ,,, witness and also the "constables in office" are breach of PACE procedure :- maintained by HS CODE C 10.1 as soon as incident/crime has ""OCCURRED"" a ""CAUTION" must be announced before questions asked @1:07 = no caution= breach of CODE C 10.1 ((code of practice under section 66 PACE 1984 )) then told committed of an offence (before arrest) absent of a caution @1:07 and @3:14 ,, = absent of "caution" CODE C 10.1 combines with section 58 PACE = Access to legal advice , and they/police also know once "caution " has been presented , they cannot ask questions ,, that come out of PC's mouth cannot be used because the "absent of caution "🤷‍♂ The biggeeee here is @6:45 = "report you for summons " police do NOT have that power to issue/say there will be a summons ,, police are NOT Judge , Courts or CPS. CPS only have the power to issue a summons or NFA ,, police do NOT have power under PACE to decide NFA ,, only the CPS decide NFA which is in the public " interest " problem is they have got away with this far too long The problem is ,, WHY have they/police departed from the "code of Practice" ( maintained by HS ) without a very ,very good relevant reason & explanation, as to WHY they from that guidance under section 66 of PACE..................... 🤷‍♂👿👎 rant over all the best mat12128 🙏 EDIT ,I suspect reason for arrest ( redacted) is under section 50 PRA 2002 for ASB It is not enough for the police to say they believe you are ‘going to’ engage in Anti-Social Behaviour. S50 powers do NOT apply to possible future actions - only if a person ‘has been acting, or is acting in an Anti-Social Banner’. which HAVE to be ""adduced" by CPS in court of law ,, as will/would be "Direct evidence " CPS know it cannot be interfered (unless multiple/s) as will/would be Circumstacial Evidence keydifferences.com/difference-between-direct-evidence-and-circumstantial-evidence.html where CODE 4:13.1 (c) states :- the police have NO POWER to stop the filming or photographing of incidents or police personnel 👀 therefore cannot be classed as ASB 🤷‍♂, if it was ASB the GOV. HS (and others) would have to redact ,,that code 4:13:1 (c) to allow section 50 to used 🤷‍♂

[@extremeways2930]

Your ‘report for summons’ claim is rubbish. It’s part of a process. An offender is ‘reported for summons’ or ‘reported for consideration of the question of persecuting them for …..,,,’. A decision is then made to continue with the process and then information is laid before the courts and a summons issued.

[@wolvoman1]

So why doesn't it work both ways ? You point a camera at someone in a van who feels intimidated by it. He points a camera at someone driving towards him, so why cant they be intimidated by the camera pointing towards them ? Next time a camera van points towards you, call the police, you feel intimidated.

[@paddiorm]

Still can't believe the police state the world I'd getting in. Its a sad and horrible path we are walking where will it end .? 😞

[@kevintraynor4508]

It's different when they intimidate us and abuse or rights

[@denisoleary5302]

Another bad looser! Matt how do you find them?

[@ChuManfufu]

Loser

[@AD-ht9nk]

Love it. Stand firm Matt

[@Audit-The-Auditors]

This was last year, it went to court and he was found guilty.

[@christopherthorne8133]

I upload to Flickr. Mat I've checked, the last time you uploaded to Flickr was back in 2018 so this statement is well out of date mate. Unless you have a different account that is under another name? I sympathize with your negative interactions with the old bill but you don't help yourself with the lies mate. Your videos and photos are for the purpose of auditing, not for kids ect the way you say it. Or at least that's what the evidence suggests. All the best fella, I wish you well

[@sandrapritchard6035]

THIS IS POLICE RETRIBUTION FOR WPC GETTING HER MARCHING ORDERS OFF YOU AT THE OTHER VAN YOU DID MATT.

[@mat12128]

Yep, kind of, she/they were very unsure on how to handle it and this was a few hours later and i imagine they had a bit of a discussion on how to handle it and this is the result

[@dbcooper7326]

I have been done by police cameras loads of times. Can I have them arrested for harassment, alarn and distress ?

[@deryckevans8877]

This pair are talking you down the garden path.

[@kateL58785]

Hi from Australia Matt what have you got yourself into now? Please be careful, how's Oscar? I thought you said you're going to do police stations anymore?

[@mat12128]

This was a couple of years ago now Kate! xxx

[@kateL58785]

@@mat12128 ok you had me worried, how are you?

[@kateL58785]

Matt don't know your feelings about the Queen but I loved her I'm sorry for the UK'S pain.

[@daytona1212]

If the guy in the van is paid by the government/police, he can be filmed as as you want, because that makes him a civil servant.

[@Audit-The-Auditors]

It was far more than filming, look at the clips in uploaded history.

[@powertotheproletariat]

Complaint for the fingerprinting, they can only take biometrics for an indictable offence!

[@DanSmithBK]

You couldn’t make it up... intimidating a man with a camera, with a camera. What a joke this lot are. I assume, then, that if I see the same camera van twice, I can call the filth and they’ll come and arrest him for intimidation?

[@danidelaney3555]

Are we not allowed to film and document our public workers in the course of their duties, after all Matt was in public filming a service that comes from our taxes (albeit designed to extract more "taxes") I know in the USA its perfectly legal to video public workers in the course of their duties, and if Matt came across him in different locations then isn't that the nature of the beast, if the van moves about then Matt has to move about to gather footage??? just wondering 🤔

[@Audit-The-Auditors]

Nope, speed enforcement is paid for by those who attend the course option, not out of taxation. It is 100% self-funded. He had continually harassed the same person and uploaded the resulting footage, this was last year, it went to court, he lost.

[@danidelaney3555]

​@@Audit-The-Auditors So if a man and a van sit there for weeks or months without catching a single speeder who pays for the vehicle maintenance and the drivers wages? those schemes are law enforcement entities and publicly funded from the get-go and any money generated from the speeder is pumped back into a wider public system, normally allocated and decided by local government to where the cash is needed most

[@Audit-The-Auditors]

@@danidelaney3555 You are woefully misinformed. The above is funded by those who attend the courses. Every cent from speeding fines goes in to the Consolidated Fund and pays for hospitals and schools amongst other things.

[@danidelaney3555]

@@Audit-The-Auditors Its not directly funded by attendees, I already stated that if no-one was caught speeding for X numbers of years it would still exist and continue to be funded by local government (through our taxes) what the attendees pay is funneled back into the system and allocated to whatever needs re-funding, whether or not it's a private contractor or government run scheme its base funded, it's easy to have the wrong idea about how these schemes are run, funded and by who! it's like the common misconception that vehicle road tax goes solely to paying for the upkeep of roads, but hey, what people believe and are told is not always as it really is

[@Audit-The-Auditors]

@@danidelaney3555 It is directly funded by course fees. Drivers are caught and they fund it. There are no outside contractors, speeding hasn''t been decriminalised. ONLY police operations deal with speeding.

[@markhamilton9834]

Can win em all bud,,,but you made a decent fist of it,,,👍

[@donmacrae3855]

Easy unlawful arrest claim here! The silly constables contradicted themselves countless times, your solicitor will rip these clowns to bits. Keep us updated.

[@Audit-The-Auditors]

You are woefully misguided. This was last year, it went to court and he was found guilty.

[@Nrgodzilla]

@7:46 Arrest me for what??? the vacant look for a tiny second from the bold headed bully, which you can see straight from the on set of him approaching you, he doesn't know but lests see how this goes but the speed camera man has defiinatly give bad details because this is the third time you've seen him (unfortunatly not lucky this time).

[@jadens9569]

9:43 I wouldn't say they were reasonable with you if the custody Sergeant agreed with that arrest. Did you pursue this one? I know they got you tagged and everything, but did you go after baldy for the unlawful arrest?

[@Audit-The-Auditors]

This was last year, it went to court and Turnbull lost!

[@geoffhunter7704]

Cops don't like cameras and auditors unless they're using them!

[@robinelliott-ni2eh]

Why is there never updates?

[@davidwatson9124]

Did they fine you or when is your court date.

[@billnewby9082]

I know you were found guilty Matt but for goodness sake you need to tool up with a good solicitor. The camera van bloke is either a police employee or not. If he is then there's no intimidation. If not, then why's he parked in a bay marked "police"? If you are obstructing someone "doing his duty" then surely he's a police officer? Well, what is he? The court system will favour the police's view rather a lone maverick who may be innocent of any crime. Be careful!

[@Audit-The-Auditors]

The new Section 38 allows a Chief Constable to designate civilian camera operators as “policing support officers” whilst performing their duties operating from within camera vans. Once designated, they have the same protection from obstruction. Section 46(2) of the Police Reform Act 2002, again as amended in 2017, now makes it an offence to wilfully obstruct a designated person in the execution of their duty. The maximum penalty is a term of imprisonment.