New Scotland Yard | Audit

[@koleeberks]

Follow my instagram.com/berks_2h/ $KOLEE telegram crypto channel - t.me/koleecoin Follow my editiors channel : kzbin.info/door/MQjHYbwFrF4Rd9JfLbeu_g Discord where we can chat- discord.gg/ESFcXccHmA Feel free to donate to help cover petrol/food costs that go into making these videos! www.paypal.me/koleeberks

[@Neil2022]

Too easy to use terrorism as a way of violating people’s rights. Disgusting.

[@DavidUKesb]

People warned about that when the law was introduced

[@technojoe4079]

Nice Oris man.

[@Neil2022]

@@technojoe4079 cheers, vintage that the diver 65 is based on. ? Late 50s-early 60s.

[@technojoe4079]

@@Neil2022 nice man. I'm a watch guy myself. Having an Explorer for Xmas, can't wait. I sold an Explorer almost 2 years ago and regretted it from the first day and everyday since lol. So nice to get it bk. I like my vintage pieces also. Do you have any more?

[@Neil2022]

@@technojoe4079 few newer decent watches, Breitling, omega, standards stuff. Not anything that’s appreciated too much like Rolex. I have a few more vintage. Smiths etc, again nothing expensive. Have a couple of 1990 Seiko kinetics that are still going strong!

[@Ioulou66]

So let me get this straight. As long as you are using a camera in public, the police can detain and search you on suspicion of terrorism. Welcome to Police State UK.

[@Neverod8doreveN]

This cop clearly believes that we are guilty and have to prove our innocence.

[@andrewstones2921]

He actually said as much... total disgrace... you do not need to prove your innocence

[@nazdabner2685]

They walk around with paranoia. They need to see shrink

[@bennick69]

If it's such high security why is the gate see through and not blocked from public view with a solid gate. If he thought you were a terrorist he let a terrorist keep filming. Obviously a false detention and search. Please sue them to teach them or it will never stop.

[@shookoneldn300]

They not really concerned about terrorism otherwise it will have a 15ft wall or located in a remote site. Not in the middle of a tourist area opposite London eye!!🤦‍♂️

[@bennick69]

@@shookoneldn300 Definitely. The cop should have used common sense and he should be punished to the full extent of the law as he dished out to our innocent victim.

[@borisblade564]

I think the uniforms they are wearing are getting the better of their ego's here, they are dressed like they are in a marvel comic and want to get super powers from these costumes,these interactions are a great document

[@jamesclough7656]

What do they genuinely think they are going to find? A terrorist membership card?

[@badlarry172]

exactly, any terrorist making hostile reconnaissance would not be on any watch lists, they would be what they call clean skins, therefore what were these clowns gonna find by running his details

[@robertneumannrod]

Best comment :-)

[@PeterPanoramics]

That’s an idea I’ll get some printed up, with Boris Johnson’s signature on it for verification

[@AbsoluteAudits]

When they stopped me and searched me under S44, all they found was some notes I’d made about the place I was filming. They took it to read it in case I had written down my plans... morons.

[@garethblake3941]

So true!!

[@TEXTMANNEN]

People with a camera cannot be classified as a terrorist....Then all tourists, bloggers, photographers, media people are suspected terrorists. And looking through one's pockets can not determine if someone is a terrorist. A person's ID also does not determine if someone has terrorist plans. In that case, they can violate public rights by classifying everyone as terrorists.

[@jamesclough7656]

All that gear like they're in a war zone but a camera terrifies them.

[@thehistoryhoundbabs6796]

Ssssshb,don't tell them there's cameras everywhere..

[@thehistoryhoundbabs6796]

@@Audit-The-Auditors bless.. still finding reading & thinking quite hard aren't you...

[@thehistoryhoundbabs6796]

@@Audit-The-Auditors poor you,trying so hard,yet failing in every possible way one can fail...

[@thehistoryhoundbabs6796]

@@Audit-The-Auditors are you the window licker variety or box ticker. ? Bizarre small person ..... imo. Living in your own bubble where stuff such as reality Passes you by..

[@thehistoryhoundbabs6796]

@@Audit-The-Auditors my desperation? Lolz I'm not the one showing myself up in the comment section..

[@MrAngry3232]

You are improving so quickly! Your confidence is growing, and it shows. Keep the pressure on them mate.

[@savagesand4744]

God they are a disgrace...Then they wonder why the public despise them...🤮

[@coyoluo]

They are a disgrace until a bomb goes off.

[@BeenHereBefore24]

@@coyoluo they know about the bombs.

[@savagesand4744]

@No Commentz agree but not all

[@samueljohnson4671]

The best auditor in 🇬🇧 hands down! These are the places we want to see bmt! It’s a shame that there’s no getting around sec 43 search

[@samtaurus007]

This is a prime example of what happens when you politely give the "police" information on your activities. Silent treatment makes them squirm. :)

[@booshting3520]

You'll still get searched

[@samtaurus007]

@@booshting3520 Probably, but why give them an excuse to search you?. If they're going to search you at least you'll get a laugh at their excuses/reasons when you don't utter a single word. :)

[@VadoVoodoo]

"We explained the grounds for searching you under section 43" NO they didn't, they said because he was "Photographing outside Scotland Yard" That isn't grounds at all. They abused his rights.

[@rabbit5layer]

The only reason he search you is because you stood for your rights and wouldn't give up name and he hope to find it

[@zcharged8294]

they aren't supposed to search simply because some1 refuses to give their name

[@ianking8315]

absolutely true.

[@ianking8315]

@@zcharged8294 they do what they like policing by consent what a laugh that is.

[@werhold]

you don’t have to give them your name and date of birth for your copy of search form, they try to do that to get your details - just tell them you wish to remain anonymous and they still have to give you the form - you did great though

[@philip9668]

The gates should be solid if they don’t want people to see through. Criminalising a legal activity again, and humiliating you.

[@nicholasfricker9160]

@@Audit-The-Auditors what?

[@KingKurt]

@@Audit-The-Auditors bootlicker

[@simonwallace6880]

@@KingKurt great argument, no real response haha

[@justice.wilson686]

@@Audit-The-Auditors so is that more freedom we should give up. He done nothing wrong. And you know it.

[@paulhurst8113]

The only police officer that can talk as fast as Kolee, maybe even faster 😂

[@TheFBATruth]

He said “I searched you because I BELIEVED you were conducting hostile reconnaissance” - he also said, in reply to you saying you didn’t put me cuffs “If you presented a threat I would have put you in cuffs and put you on the floor”. So hostile reconnaissance isn’t a threat? So then why bother searching? Police: Act first, make up the reason later

[@TheBILLANDERSON]

good points there ,, search , no grounds,, so questions asked , from the questions and and his behaviour of person searched was reasonable excuse was given (RECREATION) so PC searched from a """HUNCH""" ,,, Why you say :::---- ( "suspicion" is lower than "belief,, ,,,,, "belief" is stronger than "suspicion" ) ( "belief" used in college training) but on a CPS side "suspicion" can be of "nothing" "belief" can cast "doubt" so neither of the above + a "hunch" is not proof stay safe

[@nicy4655]

The more and more of these videos I watch the sadder I get about the way police act. This is turning into a police state.

[@wtc7665]

it is a polic state

[@seanglossop4777]

The way the officer is speaking so fast at the end suggests he really doesn't know his stuff about the laws...you can see he's really trying hard to defend his tyrannical actions

[@adcolt54]

it's like a cult members chant. he recites the mantra he was forced to memorize when confronted with a common sense rebuttal.

[@stephenleader8065]

Tyrannical actions? He was filming outside New Scotland Yard. How do you think terrorists get their info? If the police used their "tyrannical actions" this muppet would be down in the cells and not seen for several days. As he is so concerned about where tax payers money goes will he also film outside a fire station or hospital? No, I didn't think so. He just wants to show how brutal the Met police are by them asking him questions. Whoopie-do.

[@bigdaddysimple1]

Big up to all the auditors out there doing this. You guys are amazing. I'd love to do it myself but the sight of Officer Campbell approaching me with all them weapons of mass destruction would make my knees go jelly.

[@Vanman-ed9og]

Do the police now search everyone with a camera in London now.

[@baronvonmaximillionsnell2757]

No...U give the police to much intelligence.... There IQ score is 0,0

[@rjb2626]

Pyangyoung on the Thames for sure...

[@VadoVoodoo]

Outside of it too, it's fucking Countrywide abuse.

[@rjb2626]

@@VadoVoodoo it's your country. Do something about it.

[@williamwallace3545]

Police in this country are an organised gang!

[@geordiepower9]

i watch all your audits and i guess to myself how long it will be b4 your stopped by the coppers, i got this bang on this time, keep up the work my friend stay safe, and dont let the bastards get you down.

[@surfdigby]

9:00 "If I thought you were a terrorist, I would have put you on the floor" So, basically admitting that he didn't think you were a terrorist before searching you under Section 43.

[@davidclare7494]

Whats wrong with here's main name here's my adress just doing a bit of tourist photography? Not being funny whats wrong with giving your name and address? What can they do with it thats so wrong?

[@surfdigby]

@@davidclare7494 why would you volunteer to have your personal details put on file under the heading "suspected terrorist"?

[@davidclare7494]

@@surfdigby surely the point is it would not be put under the heading suspected terrorist if you are not acting shifty refusing to give your details? And no I'm not plod too many health problems.

[@surfdigby]

@@davidclare7494 Section 43 means that they're asking for his details BECAUSE they (claim that that they) suspect he's an actual terrorist. Refusing details doesn't make a difference because by asking, they're already claiming that they have reason to believe he is one. This "I'm just going to say I thought you were, so that I can get my own way" is why Section 44 doesn't exist anymore. And putting "suspected terrorist" next to an innocent person's name is why some poor Brazilian electrician got his brains blown out.

[@sunburstfender]

@@davidclare7494 you just don't get it do you??

[@jonathandwoolley8768]

I like this guy! Good audits, doesn't lose his cool, doesn't start swearing, very respectful.

[@Sn00zeDog]

Maybe you should of asked for HIS details. Because, "how do you know if he has an internal investigation against him?".. "You can't JUST take his word for it"

[@Robbie-fq9zr]

What I don’t understand is if they thought you were performing hostile reconnaissance then they search you and find nothing then they say it’s alright to carry on filming who’s to say you then use that film for bad intentions. It doesn’t make any sense.

[@dalvirrana6564]

His face when you said I'm not giving my details....

[@gonnabeok]

it got black indeed, crazyyy

[@fritzstudios8571]

This is crazy how quickly they default to this. You are filming an iconic site in London, one of the most heavily visited tourist cities on earth and they react like this wow.

[@CraigDavies.]

We could of done with officers like these at the Manchester arena when the bombing took place.

[@TheSadButMadLad]

That's the only positive thing PC Campbell and PC Martin could do.

[@126makin6]

I bet he would of been as much use as a chocolate teapot - bully boys like him dont touch the 'protected' ones.

[@TheSadButMadLad]

@@126makin6 True, bullies tend to be cowards when they are out of their depth.

[@johnsmart5317]

No he had a 20k backpack a bit different than a camera

[@davidclare7494]

@Kai Houston would have been very usefulif he had been in the right place at the right time, just as he went to detonate it thats when all that gear becomes necessary.

[@presentoccupier8085]

Look at the police uniform 20 years ago. White shirt, smart tie, a respectable face to the public. Look at them now, all tooled up like the hostile thugs they are.

[@Hulks92]

Have you been asleep as to why armed police like this are needed, especially close to Westminster bridge.

[@Edeskenney]

England is a military state, reminds me of the hunger games.

[@suzyqualcast6269]

Nearly A State of Danmark, not much further to go go go.

[@gregsmith7821]

Balls of steel Kolee. Well done for making the point. As much as you are at odds with them, I think you got some cracking coppers too.

[@XCILE625]

Is that terrorism act the most abused piece of legislation

[@MrMichaellee5353]

You do a very good job Kolee, but try to use the law, which is in your favour, to better rebutt the officers claim that you are a terrorist -ie, that public photography is NOT a crime - Im sure you are aware of Focus Pocus, who's audits are superb and funny - I have never seen him searched, as his knowledge of the law is excellent - keep up the good work!

[@HAIL-WAR.C]

England police sound just like what the Nazi's would say

[@dave_ryan]

They're not English they're british, England is a common law jurisdiction, time to end the 'act of union' and get rid of the usurpers.

[@gc6855]

It’s the Gestapo, they’ve already got the black shirts and the jack boots

[@dave_ryan]

@Telepathic Membrane No you're wrong, they're working for the government of the united kingdom, there is no 'English parliament' unlike the Welsh or Scottish that have their own parliament the English do not, if they was English they would operate under common law only.

[@dave_ryan]

@Agent 47 Playing with words,,, you idiot, in law words matter, you obviously have no idea.

[@dave_ryan]

@R W Sorry fella i haven't said anything about the Nazis, my point was about the term british, being the institution overriding our common law rights, our constitution witch is English, i think maybe direct your question at the original poster.

[@rayhall7932]

No laws broken no crimes commited

[@robertmawby3021]

The soldiers that invaded Poland didn't have that amount of weaponry hanging on their jackets!!!

[@rayhall7932]

They love giving us money , solicitor has lawsuit ready

[@maveric5381]

"What you filming" What a thing to ask in London!

[@julianchamberlain5399]

Re watching Koleeberks videos and they are top class.

[@IN_THIS_DAY_AND_AGE]

They do love their s43.

[@burnz7690]

Another one of king 👑 John’s Thugs things haven’t changed much in 800 years

[@HahaHaha-xz6xr]

Another illegal search really start to think you guys need to start saying coz I can and nothing else

[@HahaHaha-xz6xr]

Interested to see what happened at Kentish Town 👍

[@soylentblue6924]

As of 2011, the Section 44 powers effectively no longer exist (see above), and police must "reasonably" suspect an individual of involvement in terrorism before intervening. It's very clear that this public servant was acting out with the provisions of the act stated above! Please make a complaint into your rights being violated by the public servant/s

[@RonSeymour1]

I didn't hear him quote Section 43 before he conducted the search. If he didn't, then the search was unlawful. All I heard him say was the Terrorism Act. He was also supposed to identify himself and say what station they were based in, before the search. Contact Ian Gould, solicitors and see if you have a case to sue them for public humiliation, etc.

[@Scouser89Liverpool22]

He would be a solicitor i would recommend as well

[@TheSadButMadLad]

He should also state what they are looking for under s43. They can't just search vaguely.

[@justanotherviewer4821]

As an armed officer in London, Terrorism Act is his bread and butter... he should know the legislation inside out.

[@RonSeymour1]

@@justanotherviewer4821 They get lazy and believe that the average person does not know the law. Any slip up in procedure means that you can sue them. It is better to be searched under Section 433 if you do not have ID on you. When they find nothing they cannot then go to Section 5 or 50 so they are stuffed. I also think it is a bad idea for the auditor to quote the act before the search. Let the police get it wrong. Don't remind them.

[@mrr9395]

​@RonSeymour1 Yea let them mess up before they do the search then get solicitors onto them and the IOPC and professional standards

[@Carmarket247]

Thoroughly enjoyed this mate keep it going

[@TheSadButMadLad]

11:56 "Our job is to know our powers" and that is when PC Campbell totally failed. He clearly doesn't know how to use s43 properly, just like he doesn't know how to use his powers to ask for ID right at the start.

[@843idfa]

Isn’t lying to the police about your name and dob a punishable offense? He had the right to forfeit the ticket.

[@mattiascarson1386]

If he hasn't commited a crime or an offense how would it be punishable? If this was taken to court the Officer unlawfully detained and searched him. Furthermore if Kolee was trespassing instead of public land it would be a civil dispute anyway.

[@843idfa]

@@mattiascarson1386 The lie itself is the crime.

[@simong6049]

What the hell is that guy wearing he thinks he’s batman

[@badlarry172]

Bart Simpson had a toy bat man utility belt with direction indicators on the back very similar to his big boy gear made me laugh

[@ianking8315]

put you on the floor another wannabe tough guy all kitted up.

[@coolseeker]

Policeman: "That's not Scotland Yard it's the Houses of Parliament, Scotland Yard is down there". He's now helping a suspected terrorist carry out hostile reconnaissance.

[@Hulks92]

But he was still wrong, so he is either confused or trying to confuse a suspected terrorist.

[@pappy9892]

PINACI. Tell them you're carry out a lawful activity. And walk away. And tell them to back off and stop harassing you. Outrageous abuse of an Act that was brought in to protect the public not to harass people going about their lawful business.

[@strickostricko]

Bit of a shitty video, then, isn’t it?

[@Bric_Flair]

@The life of Coal the way focus pocus does it. Hes the messi and Ronaldo of auditing

[@martinlanigan9202]

Lucky dudes

[@MultiGleni]

you’re better off telling them you have a youtube channel and this is your work

[@stick6860]

Next time an officer attempts to search you under section 43 - ask them to articulate how they got from suspicion to reasonable suspicion to believe your a terrorist. Also, if they can’t tell you what they’re expect to find on you the search is illegal. Bit of advice - if you’re not willing to pursue these violations through the ipcc or court systems you should probably not do audits as the officers that do this aren’t going to learn or change anything.

[@Benny10001]

The basic concept is: do you need to prove innocence, or do they need to prove guilt. The police often see it from the incorrect angle. I would love to see their reaction if you say “I’m here doing a documentary on how police abuse section 43”. Then let’s see if they proceed to do exactly that or not.

[@mrsolodolo5770]

Big up, just found your channel. Support the Auditors!

[@ianwilliam3811]

If Campbell insists on wearing a mask he should at least read the instructions on the packet.

[@DenD]

she knew. he was right - look at how nervous she is cause of that other bully cop. I get loyalty but facts always shine through.

[@Oakland510]

That’s why there’s no thing as a good cop. They are complicit in what the bad ones do

[@andreholder5120]

My friend, they took charge of you straight away, as they are trained to do. They got the upper hand. No Q&A with you. AUDIT IN LONDON TOWN is for the advance auditor. The armed reponse don't mess about. GOOD SHOW. Keep it up. Got my LIKE. All are aware of KZbin .

[@koleeberks]

So does that make me an advanced auditor ?

[@robturner4912]

Kolee,Kolee,Kolee...how many times do I have to suggest you read, digest and speak at the appropriate time...Section 1Terrorism: interpretation. (1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where- (a)the action falls within subsection (2), (b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and (c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause. and it goes on into Section 2, also worth learning. £ to a pinch of shit they won't know it, then make them think twice and quote..... Section 26 of Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. Corrupt or other improper exercise of police powers and privileges (1)A police constable listed in subsection (3) commits an offence if he or she- (a)exercises the powers and privileges of a constable improperly, and (b)knows or ought to know that the exercise is improper. (2)A police constable guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or a fine (or both). You'll confuse most of them and maybe they'll think twice before gobbing off about Sction 43. You could also, as you film in London, print off the Met's policy regarding photography in public.

[@Stuart_George]

That is the interpretation of 'terrorism' for the purposes of the Act. You also need to know the interpretation of a 'terrorist', which is used for Part V of the act, which includes section 43 powers. The interpretation is explained in section 40. "40 Terrorist: interpretation. (1)In this Part “terrorist” means a person who- (a)has committed an offence under any of sections 11, 12, 15 to 18, 54 and 56 to 63, or (b)is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. (2)The reference in subsection (1)(b) to a person who has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism includes a reference to a person who has been, whether before or after the passing of this Act, concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism within the meaning given by section 1." Both bits of interpretation are relevant, and should be understood. As usual though, it seems this was a search not based on any objective facts, intelligence or information, and based on 'behaviour' alone.

[@frankgardiner5002]

morning Rob yup your 100% right the only problem is that the IOPC are just as corrupt, the police will investigate themselves if they pass it into the IOPC they will investigate and guess what the outcome will be 1 no case to answer or 2 he was retrained / managerial talk. and sweep it under the carpet.

[@Abuzwebstar]

Im sure you figured out by now that you dont need to give your details to get the search slip from the feds.

[@iangrassby]

8:20 when he says about videoing through gates if its that secure they should have solid gates

[@jamieprice23]

The problem is, they are under trained...they are rushed out into the field and learn from officers who abuse their powers..and the cycle goes on

[@garyrowe58]

Amazing how a search can decide whether or not you are performing hostile reconnaissance! ;)

[@Feverstockphoto]

Edited: So how did him searching you confirm you were not carrying out hostile reconnaissance? It didn't!!! That was his excuse he used for searching you which is nonsense literally. He also said something like 'How do they know you're not a terrorist?' Exactly! They should be going on what they do know not on what they don't know - Objective facts, intelligence that relates, connects you to terrorist activity, terrorism. Photography is not a crime! They need flooded with complaints on this one! And he is in your face with a chin nappy on! Does any of these police know how masks should be worn!? Hope you are seeking legal advice.

[@thetone79]

When they say we needed to search you to make sure you aren’t a terrorist. Are you supposed to have a badge on you saying ‘yes you got me mr officer I am a terrorist’. It’s laughable

[@koleeberks]

Subscribe to my #Shorts channel! kzbin.info/door/CoPrfpxVt6aolUaon4mvTA

[@campbellmurphy6095]

So if ever you were confused that you live in a free country this video should end your confusion, if you won't identify we will illegally search and intimidate you because you will not conform to the STASI! And what is the point of a mask if you wear it on your chin while spitting all over a suspect while under interrogation!

[@mentalhamster9921]

Always film them in a live stream even if its unlisted, and if they make wrong move, just make sure you lock your phone. That way you will kill the stream and they will have no way to delete your evidence where will help you after to sue them

[@1stklass]

12:25 Police man: "And your false name?..." 😂

[@DaveRavee]

Bro as soon as I saw the title to this video, I knew you’d be detained 😂😂

[@kridgwell]

I used to work next door, and I think that you got off lightly. Did you spot the 2 officers armed with MP 5's come close at 12:48? + you could see his ego switch kick in quite plainly....LOL

[@eatmykwad]

put a gun on somebody's hip and watch them change, put a camera in somebody's hand and see the change first hand. Respect brother.

[@peteswing8511]

how do you tell the difference between the the current crop of thugs and the ss ,you cant,

[@floyd4736]

Total disgrace to this PIG! 😤

[@emzt5289]

I hope you take it further or they’re just getting away with it.

[@79Sarwar]

Did this go to court?

[@andrewgarner2224]

You were filming a wall which is a secure gate. Have we just discovered the plot of the next Harry Potter novel

[@Eireann.]

Hahaha. Gonna run head first into it see what happens

[@colonialclive]

Got this from the home office today in response to a complaint. The wording of section 43 of TACT 2000 remains clear that it requires officers to reasonably suspect the individual being searched to be a terrorist

[@njp3729]

You need to do a collab with auditing Britain...

[@kevh6948]

AB has lost the touch recently.

[@koleeberks]

Have I

[@leathleyg5995]

Yo !

[@MegaLynchman]

@@kevh6948 in what way has he lost touch?

[@DhavalPatel-jy7qy]

@@kevh6948 lol u stupid

[@theonlywayisfootball7579]

how has no asked that “why would a terrorist wait around to get stop & searched” comical 🤣

[@wildfrank]

Dressed like a paramilitary organisation, all too eager to use the Terrorism Act as an excuse to bully and harass, those officers should hang their heads in shame but they probably can't even see what they are doing is a stain on the uniform they wear.

[@MeColinYouWho]

Abuse of the public, because they feel like it.

[@Jimbo_Jumbo]

This lot are meant to be the "intelligent" police aswell 🙄

[@jimmytoffali9861]

11:05 her face after she heard you say, “ how the police deal with public photographers” 🤣👍

[@MarcTerryPhotography]

Now the section 43 is being used to easy...

[@thepeadair]

He knew "weren't a threat" but tries to justify himself anyway.

[@1samq]

The last bit made me laugh, you are recording in public so I am going to search you and try and extract your details, while filling out the form the police office switches on his bodyworn camera, without telling you. So in essence I can record you but I will pester you if you record a building

[@tonyjones7372]

Wearing a mask with your nose not covered was the only danger here.

[@TheSadButMadLad]

The more they abuse s43, the more likely they'll lose the section, just like they lost s44.

[@ianhill4585]

They'll just revert to sec 50.all this attention is just for control and dominance.

[@steverowe3]

So even after the search how did he determine you weren't a terrorist 🤷🏻‍♂️🤣must have expected you to have a note in your pocket with I am a Terrorist on it🤣🤣

[@wonhur885]

Herpes and cold sores are now very easy to treat through the help of a doctor. Contact him if you need any assistance concerning herpes. 👉Email:([e-mail])

[@albertaaardvark966]

What I find interesting in all of these section 43 searches is that no matter what you say about why you are taking pictures/video, they never believe it. Ever. Which leads me to ask why they bother even asking questions if the answers are automatically not believed. Numerous examples exist on You Tube of this bizarre behaviour.

[@polarbear2335]

They ask questions in the hope that you incriminate yourself. There are no positive outcomes to answering questions. You might inadvertently lie. You might say something that gets you into trouble for something else e.g Public Order offense. Something you say might be taken. the wrong way - deliberately or otherwise. Not answering questions does not give them reasonable suspicion by itself. Most of the police on audit videos seem somewhat clueless about this. Am guessing many of the searches are really just a way to try and find someones identity. But I also wonder what they are hoping to find to prove hostile intent? An ISIS membership card, perhaps?

[@2119mr]

The smilles and the many questions and them taking turns is to incriminate you

[@justanotherviewer4821]

I always enjoy the audits when the officers agree there is no law breaking, stay for a chat... and then try digging to assume they have a grievance with the police. Then there is those confused about what "public interest" means.

[@thatblokeinthehat1263]

It goes back to the training. The acronym for it is ABC. It translates to: Accept nothing (the suspect says as being the truth), Believe no-one (no matter what they say), and finally Challenge everything (because everyone is a liar) Pretty soon, when photographers get stirred up about it enough to demonstrate and the like as they did with sec 44 we will see this sec 43 act repealed too. Sooner the better.

[@polarbear2335]

@@thatblokeinthehat1263 Not so sure S.43 will be repealed. S.44 was repealed, not because it was abused so much (n 2009, over 100,000 searches were conducted under the powers, but none of these resulted in people being arrested for terrorism offences), but because of a ruling by the ECHR.

[@redsrollingnow1]

Well, that one didn't quite go to plan me thinks! Kolee, are you tempted to forward the video to the Chief Constable of the Met, namely Dame Cressida Dick for her information, comment and feedback? Having said that, her office will probably suggest you do so by way of a formal cimplaint through the IPCC. As far as I can gather, you didn't inform the officers that you may well forward a copy of the video to the Cheif Constable which might have tempered the ferocity of the interaction perhaps but at the end of the day it's your call and you're the one going through the wringer. Well done for having the balls to do such important auditing! I think yours and Focus Pocus are by far the best auditors but sadly lots of people are trying to jump on the bandwagon and making an absolute balls-up of it with no real idea of the way to behave to audit which is damaging the true cause of filming in public. M

[@keithedmundson6262]

Unless you do something about searches your wasting your time

[@AJGeeTV]

Just been on Google street-view and the image of that gate is much clearer than the video, making the stop and search by police absolutely ridiculous!

[@magsmaggie]

He said he had to search you to make sure you wasn’t a terrorist or wanted, but even after conducting the search, he was no better if than before he started it, he found out nothing that he didn’t already know, so that was a fruitless search and misuse of powers, just so he could say I did because I can!!! And yeh he was polite, but why, because he knew you was right 🧐

[@peterbrodie5069]

No other reason but to humiliate him for not giving up his details.

[@julianchamberlain5399]

I bet they've never caught a terrorist filming outside a police station. Not once.

[@markrent3269]

Yet another misuse of sect 43, this needs stopping

[@read-ts2cd]

He implied that by not giving your details he can't prove you aren't there for terrorist activities. That implies that to avoid suspicion you should give up your rights which is completely incorrect.