Police, Drones, & Auditing: When is it legal?

[@zedeeyen30]

The hilarious thing about auditing is, it would vanish in a second if the cops just stopped taking the bait. No one is going to watch footage of nothing happening. One email to every PC in the land could end the entire concept tomorrow.

[@laceandwhisky]

Not all auditing is done on police many on industrial estates, building sites for example

[@stuartb4525]

Every police force in England,Wales and N.Ireland were sent a memo, updated last December, about photography and videoing. The problem is it appears it isn't passed to the police on the ground.

[@lezquinn]

The same with young people that show off on mopeds. If the audience is not there then they will go away. ✔️ TOC No Comment

[@snuggleseal]

except they already did this and the pigs still respond the way they do

[@Bungal0wBen]

An email doesn't desolve egos.

[@Rob-eo7ku]

The Police overstep the mark on many on these audits, mainly fueled by ego and ignorance. A 16 year old auditor was recently assaulted by a police officer abusing section 43, he was recently found guilty of assault. DJ audits also won a settlement recently and again, ego and ignorance of the law was the cause.

[@Sthilboy56]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, how many times have we herd the police say that to people

[@Nigfis]

.... and especially, "If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear.". FTP

[@DJWESG1]

It's been said to a few coppers too.

[@pauladams9896]

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse". Except, if you are are a police officer.

[@sparxy1968]

Last time I was ignorant of law I got 3 points on my license!!!

[@juliandavies1974]

@@Nigfis so why don't these 'audits' show their faces or give their names....

[@TheSadButMadLad]

5:55 Part of their job is to protect the police station. But part of their job is to protect everything else. Concentrating on protecting the police station is not part of their job. Auditors don't mind constables coming out and conversing with them. What they don't want, but unfortunately do get, is constables coming out and accusing them of hostile reconnaissance and various other things with no evidence to back up their opinion but purely on the act of filming. Then searching them under section 1 of PACE or section 43 of the Terrorism Act and sometimes even arresting them. As Inspector Dean Gittoes did and who has just been found guilty of assault and unlawful arrest. Even the NPCC have said the act of filming per se can not be seen as suspicious. There has to be more than that, such as the activities of the person filming.

[@Ian-xt1mb]

The Gittoes' case is the exception to rule.

[@TheSadButMadLad]

@@Ian-xt1mb It's the extreme end of the rule, but not the exception.

[@Ian-xt1mb]

@@TheSadButMadLad Let's not get pedantic. 😁

[@richardh1764]

If they don't know the law they shouldn't really be in a job that relies on them knowing it.

[@Treblaine]

"it's not really fair to ridicule (law enforcement) for not knowing the law" it's not really fair to try to enforce a law that doesn't exist. Any other job would rightly face ridicule for such incompetence, to not ridicule police is to hold them to a lower standard as if they are small children who cannot be expected to know better.

[@marinka424]

I didn’t realise ridicule makes someone a better person, I always thought education and explanation was key.

[@Treblaine]

@@marinka424 Why would you bother to learn if you fear no ridicule? If we will sacrifice the european tradition of ridiculing authority figures for failure then what corrective mechanism would you replace it with? None, I suppose. Just blind faith in authority.

[@alexanderevanska4274]

But in 99%,of all those auditing vids, its the police who show the aggressive behavior, ie, "if you don't stop what you are doing, (a legal and lawfull activity) and move on I will arrest you." Or,," I don't have the power to demand your ID, I will search you under pace or the terrorist act in the hope I find your ID, something I don't have the right to demand and which you have a lawfull right to refuse to give to me. " The police need more training. But what worries me is, its the police who have had the training who choose to ignore it and make crap up in the hope of getting their arrest quota up. They walk about wistfully wishing it was 1930s/mid 1940s Germany. Edit, Anyway, if auditing and public photography were to banned under law. At least the unemployment rate would go down. Think about it, all those people needed to remove all those cctv cameras from every nook and cranny in the land. Whats good for the goose huh?

[@noelward8047]

I have been horriedfied by the police actions in some of the vedios I have watched. That said, it is heartwarming to see the numbers of videos with 'crack on mate' increasing.

[@PINACI]

Oh come on ! If "anyone" was wanting to record a police station for the purposes of hostile reconnaissance then they're not going to stand outside with their camera or drone in plain sight. All hostile reconnaissance is done covertly and all data regarding hostile reconnaissance will support that data.

[@lindsayheyes925]

Er... how do you know that all hostile recce is covert?

[@PINACI]

@@lindsayheyes925 Terrorists and people who are looking to harm the police are not stupid people. Any terrorist worth his salt wouldn't put himself in a position where he could get arrested before he carried out his terrorism and any other person with half a brain wouldn't wouldn't either. And not that a police station in Britain has ever been attacked by terrorists ever either.

[@CBikeLondon]

more importantly, what makes a police station even worthy of 'hostile recon' in their view? Is there a specific intelligence that police stations are targets??

[@noelward8047]

@@lindsayheyes925 Haha. Maybe the one at the gate is distracting them from the baddie in the bushes ?

[@PINACI]

@@CBikeLondon Police stations are not targets, they are just drama queens trying to play the victim.

[@nathanaelsmith3553]

If I found a police station I would take a photo of it because it's so rare to find one that has not been shut and sold off by the Tories.

[@snowflakemelter1172]

Yawn.

[@noelward8047]

Oh dear.

[@zenex1741]

Hahah you triggered a Tory voter, and ironically it's name is snowflakemelter xD

[@nathanaelsmith3553]

@@zenex1741 what used to be my nearest police station is now a Travelodge. The ones that are left near me often are unmanned and force you to use the entry phone to talk to a call center. If I was a criminal I'd vote Tory too!

[@DJWESG1]

@@zenex1741 it's mad innit :^))

[@zeb3144]

Whether you agree with auditing or not-its the Police who are the ones in the wrong when they throw a hissy fit. If someone grinds your gears with a camera-ignore them. Its really that simple.

[@ArminGrewe]

I'd like to see your reaction if someone stands outside your house filming it for hours on end ro follows you for a couple of hours with a camera.

[@cowardsallaround98]

Zeb you total tool

[@Nigfis]

@@ArminGrewe Auditors don't go to people's houses to film mate. Strawman argument. Not even relevent.

[@ArminGrewe]

@@Nigfis who says I'm talking about auditors? But congratulations to winning this year's missing the point award, well done.

[@zeb3144]

@@ArminGrewe Its still legal

[@dave_ryan]

A man with a camera is under no more of an obligation to answer questions than a man without, exposing police lack of proper training on our laws and abusing their authority is a service to the public, there are cameras everywhere, get used to it.

[@dave_ryan]

@Non-Stick Pan Only person here with hurt feeling and seemingly offended is you, Nowhere did i state "the question couldn't be asked," did i now? any good lawyer worth his salt would give the same advice, now run along and find someone more your childish age to behave petulant with.

[@thorgrimb2416]

@Non-Stick Pan It is not ODD behaviour to take photos or videos in public if that offends you tough it happens more times a day than the majority of people do not understand the level of camera surveillance on our streets. The police are more than welcome to come out and ask questions there is nothing stopping them doing that and the vast majority of those auditing stay polite yet the police escalate the situation and ultimately arrest a person for a non crime,that is illegal ignorance is no excuse. I have watched some fantastic interactions even with police who do not understand drone or photography law but are willing to listen to learn and to check/verify what the person with the camera is saying. Others though their ego will not permit them to admit they do not know they become defensive, they then become confrontational and at that point their ego is such they can not back down and escalate the situation to an unlawful arrest and abuse of power. These should not be employed as police because police should never have an ego.

[@Challis1989]

If your standing filming in a balaclava or masked up you're gonna be asked what your doing. I feel the auditors are gonna make it harder for emergency spotters in future to get pictures without challenge

[@havenrail]

These two just reinforce the problem, so often they are justifying the aggressive behavior of some police officers by ASSUMING that there is an offence before the interaction even starts and then trying their darndest to fit something to justify themselves. Only a few occasions have I seen officers back down and act respectfully towards an auditor.

[@garrycroft4215]

The two officers in the video clip are a clear danger to law abiding citizens and should be removed from contact with the public until they are retrained. I can’t believe what came out of their mouths, the sad thing is they believe in what they were saying. Dangerous

[@DJWESG1]

Seems to be a tendency to use 'provoking' as an excuse to commit violence. I've seen it more and more in recent years. Mirrors the rittenhiuse thing in U.S too. Suspect some judges and rwers have been at this for a while.

[@17crescent]

Why would you think that anyone performing hostile surveillance would stand outside a building pointing their phone?

[@TheGerkuman]

Reverse psychology. If everyone assumes that no-one who was doing hostile surveillance would be silly enough to record a building using their phone, then it becomes good cover for them. So in the situation it's better not to assume either way and go and ask.

[@gteaz]

@@TheGerkuman Officer "Why are you recording?" Terrorist "I'm an auditor" Officer "OK, have a nice day."

[@scorpionking7454]

Excellent point but also the auditors are quiet rightly to expose tho who like yesterday (inspector) who bully and abuse their powers

[@TheseH0esLoveChiefS0sa]

Hostile reconnaissance is inherently covert, I think there was a memo by the NPCC about this not long ago; ergo, if you're recording in a public place, in a way which is overt, then surely no inference should be made on that basis. I could certainly be wrong there, but that's my understanding.

[@dlevi67]

@@TheseH0esLoveChiefS0sa No inference should be made either way... The problem is that hostile reconnaissance _can_ be done quite overtly and/or the person doing it isn't quite as skilled as they could be.

[@fatmavis]

If the Police are worried about the Auditor’s recording their personal number plates, then they will have to seize all the dashcam and CCTV footage in that area.

[@MikeEves]

I've got a database of registration plates belonging to police officers.

[@johnvienta7622]

Perhaps they should not be using the car park at the Police Station for private vehicles. Once they enter onto the public road they should have no more protection than anyone else, as they certainly are not reluctant to record the information of our vehicles.

[@yorkiemike]

@@MikeEves bit weird

[@punkeasy]

@@johnvienta7622 Great logical points 👍

[@juliandavies1974]

Cctv footage is not usually plastered all over social media...

[@purplerabbit874]

I say a big Thank-you to auditors, beforehand I was as ignorant of the Law, as well as the police Codes of practice as most of the police are. If they are in doubt they result to Bullyboy tactics to cover up their insecurities. I have lost all respect for the justice system. Amen.

[@TheSadButMadLad]

10:47 If you have someone dressed all in black wearing a mask then they aren't being very covert and trying to hide themselves. All they are doing is hiding their face. They are in fact drawing attention to themselves in their garb. It is not hostile reconnaissance. Hostile reconnaissance would mean someone dressed like everyone else, holding a mobile phone as if they are talking to someone but maybe just recording voice notes about what they are seeing. That person is hidden in plain sight and not drawing attention to themselves.

[@auditnerd8767]

Or........someone posing as..an auditor..!!!

[@tonyb1223]

Quite amusing that Sad, you just defined an Auditor there 😄

[@DJWESG1]

Sounds like a county court g4s/serco bailiff.. lock the doors.

[@tonyb1223]

I should add that the definition of "Hostile reconnaissance" is totally incorrect also.

[@SuperSetsquare]

Note to all terrorist:don’t wear black, all white if possible.

[@canveyhistory]

Not all auditors are the same. Some I cringe when I watch, but on the other hand I look at how some police also react then it opens my eyes to the law and how police abuse their powers. They give a very forceful instruction on something that they are not entitled to do. ie. Turn that camera off now, Show me your ID, arrest you under the police code. If you want a public to be engaged with the police, then the police need to stop abusing their powers.

[@noelward8047]

The 'police code' one was epic Haha

[@joes6088]

If you want the public to be engaged with the police, then the clowns pushing them for reactions should be slung in the river in a weighted bag…

[@kizzmiaz]

"Police need to stop abusing their powers" Therein lies the problem I'd go further and say they also need to stop covering up for colleagues that abuse their powers. I know first hand how expensive, time consuming and problematic it can be to hold police to account through the courts. These auditors, at least the better ones not the obnoxious fools, do it with the simple use of a video camera and a good knowledge of the law using the court of public opinion, few of them bother to follow up with legal action they'd likely lose in the lower courts anyway. Not to mention brass balls, retaliatory arrests are far more common than you'd like to believe and it appears being made easier by new government legislation. It's not easy debating a point of law with someone that either doesn't know, doesn't want to know, or is just flat out wrong especially when that person has the power to take away your freedom.

[@noelward8047]

@@kizzmiaz I like your words.

[@joes6088]

@@kizzmiaz codswallop. They’re only in it for the money, nothing else.

[@johnvienta7622]

The best one involving drones and auditors was when one of them stood across the road from a Police Station holding a Playstation controller and looking into the sky. The aggressive reaction of the Police was hilarious.............................. Loved the interview bit at the end where the PC spoke about people dressed in black and wearing a mask, did he mean just like the Police?

[@laceandwhisky]

Just like higab wearing Islamic people

[@RichiePearce]

Trying to find this and can’t see it, any chance of posting the link please

[@johnvienta7622]

@@RichiePearce , I didn't take note of who or where it was, but i know that others have also mentioned it. I have Reggie in my head but not sure, and it would have been at least a year ago.

[@johnvienta7622]

@@RichiePearce , found it....... Reggie Photo. The title is " detained for holding a X Box controller, no drone" posted 24.3.22. I surprise myself sometimes.

[@sylviaelse5086]

Even if auditors are doing no more than weeding out police officers with a short fuse, that's a positive.

[@cowardsallaround98]

Nasty layabout

[@philfyphil]

Chip on shoulder

[@cowardsallaround98]

@@philfyphil Jog on benefits scrounging tool

[@EIonMusky]

@@cowardsallaround98 Cop-gobbler

[@cowardsallaround98]

@@EIonMusky dont forget to sign on

[@secondchance6603]

I think the main thing for me is the demand for name and address and them failing to identify.

[@ToasterDude1]

Police performance in the UK is poor to put it mildly. Auditors, if they conduct themselves lawfully are much needed oversight and they bring attention to the issue which media does not seem to report on sufficiently in my opinion. As far as I’m concerned, encounters with them would either be lawful or not. There is no way police should be afforded any dispensations. They should be held to the highest standard. So, I don’t appreciate that you are suggesting that one should entertain being forthcoming just to make it easy for them. Polite, yes. Banding over, no! They are not to be trusted until they prove themselves.

[@dave_ryan]

100% 👍

[@noelward8047]

Agreed. I feel some of the police are unwilling to give up the 'powers' given to them during the scamdemic.

[@WillCamx]

I worked in the courts for years. I've found that the average criminal has a better understanding of the law than the average police officer does.

[@WillCamx]

@@davidhooper1767 I was a Court Registrar.

[@matthewsmith2787]

That’s sometimes why you see criminals get away, because they know the laws and loopholes. They would actually make good lawyers

[@uknighthuntingvision93]

I have a very good understanding of criminal law, and without going into details, it was because the police believed me to be a very naughty person, who ended up before Judges in crown courts. Most times I was justly found innocent of any crime not because my wig presented credible evidence but because the case was dropped due to either the Police proven to be concluding in evidence against me or the CPS totally messed up the case in the first place.

[@rogersmith8339]

It is far more advantageous for a crim to know the law than for anyone else.

[@rogersmith8339]

​@@matthewsmith2787No such thing as a good lawyer in many people's books, specially the victims of crime!

[@outlaw6421]

If your not breaking the law and it's a legal activity what's the problem,it pathetic officers who just like to bully to save face break there own codes of practice to achieve that goal..

[@abu6072]

One of my biggest concerns is that police are being inculcated in the belief that they are "extraordinary". That is, they are different from the public. I say this because the language they use obviously flows with their behaviour. Take for instance the officers at the end saying that a confrontation with a person filming a station would not be called "aggressive" but categorised as "assertive". Ok, but would the same language be applied to the member of the public if that person "asserted" their right to do something legal, but not desirable to the officers. No. All comments would be biased. The reason why Sir Robert Peel was lauded as the founder of the modern police force is because he helped eliminate the thuggish, illegal activities of the previous iterations with one essential premise...officers are public servants, doing a task, with the same position and expectation of position, as the members of the public they serve and protect (my own words for Sir Robert's statement). They had the same expectation as members of the public and were at all times to remember they are also members of the public. They should never consider themselves excluded from, or above, a member of the public, to ensure they do not become the criminals in office they were replacing. I see in the language and actions of the modern police by individuals and by the action of the force as a whole to support those behaviours as a return to the policing attitude that existed before Sir Robert. They, rightly, therefore can be argued to have degenerated to the state of believing themselves above the law and fail their raison d'etre. I applaud good auditing because it not only highlights this behaviour and attitude, but also provides the necessary opportunity to confront and change it. BBB, please use the "reasonable" yardstick to your own response and way that you view the actions of auditors because without the initial auditor, Sir Robert himself, we would not have received the police force capable of allowing our modern society and the Law you practice.

[@A2Z1Two3]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse ( particularly if you are a law officer)

[@ianlloyd100]

Ignorance of the law is ABSOLUTELY a defense for the Police.... How can they be expected to know all the laws that they are enforcing?. What?.. We have to know them all?..... Oh thats right. WE don't get that defense, only those clowns in uniform.....

[@KemPeck1701]

ESPECIALLY when you are Police Officer

[@tedebaer1]

If you are engaged in a lawful activity you shouldn't be punished if you don't want to be part of any kind of conversation.

[@byMRTNjournals]

Or approached and then subsequently coaxed into swearing or anything else perceivably illegal

[@auditnerd8767]

Many auditors think trespassing is lawful...

[@Jim--Bob]

@@auditnerd8767 Maybe so. But trespassing is not a police matter. If an area is publicly accessible there is no trespass until they are asked to leave. Even at this point it has nothing to do with the police.

[@auditnerd8767]

@@Jim--Bob It IS a matter for them, if its on police property. Normally police don't involve with trespass, but on police premises they CAN enforce civil trespass. That's because they're acting not as police officers, but under the authorization of the landowner - the police commissioners. Auditors shout a lot about "publicly accessible" but it actually means nothing. It doesn't magically make private property public. trespass law still applies.

[@Jim--Bob]

@@auditnerd8767 Unless signage clearly states 'no access' or an area is fenced off then an implied right of access exists. It doesn't become trespass until you are asked to leave and refuse.

[@stephentilley6645]

I subscribe to many auditing channels and the best parts are the interactions with the Police etc. We live in a society that has got used to surveillance with the number of cameras doubling every year. Yet when an individual videos part of the establishment they are treated as criminals, the Police need to wisen up an go back to interacting with the public in a way that makes us trust them. Everyone has a story about a crime that wasn’t investigated and equally a friend that has been victimised by the Police. We need a reset, engage with communities and listen to people. Get out your stations and cars and talk to the people you are employed to protect.

[@geekiejesus8482]

A lot of auditing isn't necessarily a form of "gotcha" but is genuinely designed to identify police who abuse their powers. They don't like being watched and don't like being intellectually challenged.

[@iangascoigne8231]

Really? They purposely do it to get a reaction. If they didn’t nothing would happen, no one would watch and they wouldn’t make money out of it.

[@geekiejesus8482]

@@iangascoigne8231 don’t get me wrong - some do and are not the people to watch. I see no benefit to instigating an incident. Take a look at Police Abusing Powers channel, you’ll be shocked what police sometimes do when they think they aren’t being recorded.

[@iangascoigne8231]

@@geekiejesus8482 I’m sorry most of them are. If there’s no reaction people won’t watch. I never said there’s no bad coppers out there but a lot of these auditor’s deliberately go for confrontation.

[@geekiejesus8482]

@@iangascoigne8231 I think you’re asking the wrong question. Most of what I have watched - which is quite extensive is that the police overreact to a camera. If this wasn’t true and if they were all goading reactions then the ACPO guidelines memo wouldn’t have said to leave these people alone and to stop using terror legislation except for sensitive sites like MI6 for example.

[@iangascoigne8231]

@@geekiejesus8482 I am not asking any questions, wrong or otherwise. I am just saying the majority of “Auditor” films I have seen, the people making them are going out of their way to antagonise people. If they don’t, nothing happens, people don’t watch, and it doesn’t get monetised. What’s the purpose of filming outside a Police station? It’s guaranteed to provoke an idiot Policeman. How would you feel if they were filming outside a Primary School? These Auditors are the new Roger Cook.

[@archstanton5603]

Incident outside of a Railway station. - "Why are you filming our police car?" - "Because you have pulled up and stopped right in the middle of filming" Doh! (Filming was historical in nature).

[@ewhurstgreen]

😂

[@esecallum]

filming the next block buster

[@jacksmith7726]

Reminds me amtrak in US had a photography competition for taking pictures of their trains. Train people being how they are some out there with fancy camera and tripods getting harrased by the railway police accused of being terrorists. But you literally asked us to take pictures of the cops are clueless about that

[@TheSadButMadLad]

7:35 Not saying anything to the police can not be used as grounds to assume hostile reconnaissance. Hostile reconnaissance is by its very nature covert. Police have to go on what they do know, not what they don't.

[@lindsayheyes925]

Not so... hostile recce can be overt, and published speculatively as open source material in the hope that activist or terrorist groups - unknown to the publisher - might find it useful. In a similar vein, you might innocently record footage with your drone, which copies it to a drone manufacturer in some hostile state where that company is legally compelled to share information with their intelligence service for military use. You have become their unwitting secret agent. The Black Belt Barrister has a DJI drone... has he been spying for China? Do you know what DJI Fly updates really do? You may think it fanciful, but German airliners carried high definition cameras before WWII over the factory where my Dad would later work - which I have seen in a museum - and the images were used to plan air raids. NOTAMS geolocate sensitive sites, so would be technically easy to gather intel from flights near the fringes of those zones via cloud storage. Unwittingly hostile surveillance by proxy.

[@gteaz]

@Kens UK Adventures Same could be said for Google and Apple. Not only that, a terrorist can FOIR cctv footage from a police station, including footage from inside.

[@TheSadButMadLad]

6:03 Filming personal vehicles is not a crime. If the person filming recorded the car 100 yards down the road it could still be easily deduced that it belong to a member of the police. So it doesn't matter if they are at the gate or down the road. Either way nothing can be found out about the owner of the vehicle from publicly available information. All that can be found out is that the car is taxed and has a MOT. To get more information requires the use of form V888 which is for people to use for insurance purposes, tracking down parking evaders, etc. The registered address can then be retrieved, but that address could be anywhere, even the police station itself if the police officer was really concerned about their safety. And as to the number plate being on the internet, what kind of criminal will search through billions of videos to find a particular number plate when it way easier to find it through covert means such as just being on a street corner and noting number plates in a notepad.

[@geordiewishart1683]

You are very naive. Depends on how determined someone was. Or how well connected. All it takes is to know someone who works in DVA or in any other office or dept with routine access to vehicle databases. Insurance companies, even. Or you could submit form V888 to DVA yourself, having made up lies about the reason for your search. Certain areas are known generally for police living there. All it takes is a drive past houses, checking cars against a list

[@TheSadButMadLad]

@@geordiewishart1683 As you just said drive past houses and note number plates. So not using a camera. As for the V888, it's tracked, registered, traced, logged, and has to paid for so only a stupid criminal would use it. Other methods are also be traced, tracked, and logged - all info leading back to the criminal.

[@Domingos1878]

Camera's nor drones have been the main weapon in a terror attack, yet cars have. On all the auditing vids, cars are sailing by and not one officer is worried or concerned. This proves it is their ego that feels under assault, not their safety.

[@dangerousdavecox]

I'm a drone pilot. I've recently discovered a KZbin channel about drone auditors. Flying over prisons, when there's a million other places to fly, whilst wearing a mask to disguise facial features, refusing to hand over drone ID, then arguing points of law with Police, trying to belittle them on camera isn't constructive. It appears to be to deliberately antagonise police.

[@wojciechpytlak8532]

The problem with police and security is that they not just disagree. Very often their approach is kind of "What you doing? Its illegal to wear white t-shirt!!!"

[@kathyotoole4608]

In the US, you can film in most court buildings but not in court rooms. I think you have to check individual states and jurisdictions. Same with any public building. Anything you can see from the public view can be filmed. No one should be questioning it. There are already cameras everywhere!!

[@auditnerd8767]

That's a mistake auditors constantly make. They think they're in the USA. They're not.

[@markdunkling1604]

I See poster 7 is also updated for postal staff - big fan of u s audits furry potato and sheep show really opened my eyes to the true underbelly of human nature - Its the fruit loops without cameras that always go paws on

[@Rancorous_Ryan]

Filming inside court rooms in the US is up to the Judges discretion it's not automatically prohibited, but the majority of the time it is in order to protect the identity of jurors.

[@A2Z1Two3]

Hostile reconnaissance is by its nature COVERT.

[@lindsayheyes925]

Including open source surveillance? Pull the other one, its got bells on.

[@juliandavies1974]

Maybe years ago.... but why now? They will blend in well with the 1000000s of KZbinrs

[@garybrindle6715]

Its not reasonable to explain how real threats are spotted and monitored on an open source channel but i can assure you that well trained people know how to observe the threats. They do not behave like many misguided police are recorded doing.

[@lindsayheyes925]

Well, how did this lot get arrested then? kzbin.info/www/bejne/eGqweZV8l6yIn9E

[@Simon.0000]

Why don't they leave them alone like the chief of police has told them instead of wasting tax payers mone on compensation when the make all their lies up

[@giantputt7066]

For a police officer doesn’t know the law that’s a level of incompetence and they should leave well alone. I fly my drone in accordance with the CAA guidelines so believe there should be no need for any police officer to question me

[@laceandwhisky]

Lack of training and in their heads they are above Joe public power mad 😁

[@TheWtfnonamez]

I am wholly opposed to the way the Police often act illegally to harass and punish innocent people legally filming. But then there are auditors. Lets not forget that criminals and terrorists conduct recon and surveil their targets prior to attacks. Criminals particularly love to know who is coming and going from police stations so they can identify undercover police officers. And if I was a police officer, I would be wary of sketchy guys loitering outside my police station, filming everyone coming and going, and then posting all the footage on the internet. I never see auditors giving a shit about the fact they are doxxing people and putting people at risk. Many of them seem to have some kind of mental health issues. Under all of this there is a real legal concern about rights. Auditors are not helping, they are making case for anti-filming laws.

[@TheWalrusWasDanny]

Woah!! It is perfectly reasonable to film in a public place...in fact CCTV is rife across our towns and cities...the Old Bill should be embracing auditors and indeed thanking them for their assistance...and not challenging them about what they are doing and threatening them with s23... Danny

[@toxicmale1744]

When police blatantly, knowingly break the law not only should they have zero immunity but, they should be held to a higher standard in law, given that by doing so they are guilty of additional crimes as police officers. Accountability must be propartionatal and evenly applied, regardless of the individual involved.

[@matthewsmith2787]

I used to work in a garden centre, we had people come on-site with drones and looking around in person. I found one in a restricted area which the public were not allowed to be there. I kindly asked them to leave, but they were very aggressive and refused to leave.

[@emicons]

Maybe for parity you should have the same conversation with an auditor such as DJ Audits or Focus Pocus or the godfather of auditing Auditing Britain.

[@noelward8047]

That would be interesting.

[@Gilberto90]

@Kens UK Adventures If they have a 'weird fantasy version of the law' then how come the courts have awarded these individuals thousands of pounds in damages?

[@emicons]

@Kens UK Adventures it's strange that you don't think a barrister would correct someone on his / her KZbin video regarding law, or are you afraid the "auditor" might actually be legally correct. No need to answer as I think we all know where you stand.

[@pw7010]

I haven't watched a huge number of these, but a frequent thread appears to be failure by the police officer to follow a policy of informing the auditor that they (the police officer) are recording the encounter. I'm sure it's tedious to do and probably the camera is on all the time and people probably assume these days they're always on camera in one form or another in public places, but what is disturbing is the propensity to reach for a lie when questioned about it - e.g. that they haven't had an opportunity to inform, in an often polite conversation lasting several minutes

[@altonhants]

On the vast majority of audit videos l have viewed the auditor is not breaking the Law. The police however almost always conduct themselves unlawfully.

[@juliandavies1974]

Maybe not breaking the law, but usually very arrogant and speak to the police like crap. All to provoke a reaction.

[@altonhants]

@@juliandavies1974 true but please bear in mind that until the Law is broken or there is reasonable suspicion if a breach then the police have absolutely no authority whatsoever. They are require to engage with the public on a polite and respectful manner. The problem occurs often when an officer perceives he has authority.

[@DBIVUK]

The key problem of 'auditing' in the UK is that English law does not have the kind of positive rights which the US constitution has. The US courts have made clear judgments interpreting the rights in the Constitution to allow filming police officers etc, so if one tries to stop you it does not matter what law they think they're enforcing, it has to be interpreted to allow you to continue. But in the UK there's just no law specifically against filming police officers; you can't just rely on that to say that another more general law does not apply to what you're doing.

[@markdunkling1604]

Police inspector Dean gittoes GUILTY of assaulting a vulnerable 16-year-old ..auditing wales ----------- clearly a hostile retaliation to auditing - so that now i believe stands as case law in favour of auditing as a beneficial activity

[@bongoloid101]

The law in the uk is that unless it is specifically prohibited then it is presumed that it is a lawful activity

[@DBIVUK]

@@bongoloid101 Indeed, and with the added protection of Article 7 ECHR requiring certainty about what is illegal. But the courts accept broad definitions of some offences (for instance a common law breach of the peace) under which police may act against someone who is causing problems. The common law offence of public nuisance has only just been abolished this year.

[@adrianstealth340]

I like the auditing vids , there’s some very very good police people then there’s some total melons I know they (police) do a difficult job but they should know their job & their role as a public servant , Politeness goes a long way

[@ricp1984]

Watching the two police officers talk was scary. The comment below that ignorance of the law is no excuse is something police should take note of also. When the guy in the video says that if police are challenged then that's what going to happen is shocking. Is he saying that if police are doing something wrong they shouldn't be challenged? I think police need to be much more accountable for their actions. If there is wrongdoing, then compensation should come out of their pockets and not police insurance and ultimately the taxpayers. When the guy says there is a point the auditor knows what they are doing is right or wrong I wonder if this applies to the police also because they seem to do things wrong a hell of a lot of the time and just brush off the wrongdoing or hide behind the thick blue wall. Having friends in the police and having worked for them myself in the past I recognise the need for police, but I think the service we have needs a massive reset.

[@woodgatejack]

I never heard of this practice until my place of work was audited. My boss (who is a pretty nice guy and has only just recently became the manager of the place) didn't come off well, apparently being defensive, obscuring the camera (which led to the auditor saying "Don't touch me!") I felt sympathy for my boss. He, like I would've been in the situation, was wrong-footed. Here was a guy filming his place of business, for who knows what reason. Naturally, he was defensive. The auditor himself, came across as passive-aggressive and more than a little condescending ("Allow me to educate you") in my opinion. Probably against my better judgement, I checked out his channel. His auditing videos were separated into those in which he got a reaction from the business owner from ones that didn't, so this says to me that he intents or at least expects to provoke an interaction. I watched another one of his vids on another local business I'm familiar with in which he pointed out 'vulnerabilities' in their security ("One could _easily_ drive though this security barrier", one could _easily_ break these windows) I mean, what was his goal in this? To have the business refurbish itself in steel, barbed wire and concrete? To encourage dumb-ass chavs to go ram-raiding?

[@KemPeck1701]

the point of that is to educate 'security' guards about the law.. too many people THINK they know the law... and have no idea until schooled.. same as the police, who regualy quote laws that dont exist because of a power trip

[@retroclickmedia4422]

I started watching audits about three years ago..... I did not know the laws re photography. I spent some of lockdown doing OU courses in law and know a lot more about my rights than I did three years ago. As with so much in life it is about education, sadly a lot of security guards and some police are not educated to a reasonable level

[@noelward8047]

So, said 'chavs' are to use youtube videos to case a joint !?! (You won't be getting a keyring) 😆

[@dave_ryan]

@@noelward8047 😂

[@auditnerd8767]

@@KemPeck1701 Don't be so ridiculous. Not one auditor in the UK can correctly explain about their "rights" with regards to filming. They're all brainwashed by watching other auditors into thinking they are allowed to wander where they like filming. Proper auditing, as it was, is all about filming in public. That's "street photography" on public roads , footpaths, byways, bridleways, market squares, common land, footways. It's NOT about trespassing film-baiting on private property. The auditors themselves are the ones that really need educating.

[@wazxdrfv]

If/When an arrest happens , the rights are read. The right to remain silent . But before if you remain silent and avoid their questions, they abuse the power and use that as a reason for arrest . Why is it not a right from the start if you don`t talk to them ?

[@grahamthegreat2680]

No point E Mailing police, they obviously can't read. If they could they'd have read the NPCC memo on public photography.

[@juliandavies1974]

You mean the 'guidelines'. And that's all they are.

[@martinkeats4429]

How is it possible to ascertain a persons address from a number plate? The only organisation that can do that is the Police. It is possible to check if a vehicle has a Current MOT or Tax but nothing else.

[@lindsayheyes925]

If the audit channel is monetised, is it not commercial? And if so, surely subject to GDPR?

[@noelward8047]

You are incorrect.

[@lindsayheyes925]

@@noelward8047 Oh... that's alright then... if you say so...

[@aireboat7988]

Shhhhhhh...! Talk like that scares the hell out of the top auditors. It changes all sorts. And would seriously reduce their filming rights and drone usage. If channels are monetized and they're "going out" auditing with the intent for financial gain..- YES. They are commercially filming. Ignore Noel...he's an infamous audit channel troll.

[@classicraceruk1337]

Please explain flying within the rules could be an offence. I am a lapsed PPL/IR and that remark is ridiculous.A typical police response.

[@Amathusukx]

The Police have no one to blame but themselves they way they behave today. As soon as they decided to become political and not neutral with the general public was the day they lost all respect. When I was a kid the Police Policed and nothing else and they gained that respect from the people. Human rights and liberalization are good things, unless like today you let areas of society take it too far.

[@jpest]

You mentioned recording vehicle number plates, other than checking the spacings are legal and if the car is insured, MOT & Tax. I'm not aware that you can find the owners details and registered address? VRNs are in the public domain and recorded every day and you should have no expectations of privacy when it comes to recording VRNs. Discuss.... Please discuss

[@juliandavies1974]

There's a form on the DVLA website to obtain a registered keepers details.

[@jpest]

@@juliandavies1974 not so straight forward as just filling in a form, evidence is required to support your request:- Crime No or insurance claim No, photo of the car is causing a problem, the list goes on

[@PERCYxyz]

6:03 - I am curious, perhaps you could offer a legal perspective. I have heard this argument before - how would a civilian without access to the DVLA computer systems or the PNC be able to determine where somebody lives with just their car registration number?

[@geordiewishart1683]

It only takes someone to know someone who works in the likes of the DVA. Years ago, there were republican sympathisers working for the DVLNI who obtained personal details of police and army via number plates. You could even submit form V888 to DVA yourself and get details.

[@Nigfis]

I believe you are wrong when you interpret auditing as having a basic premise of, every policeman or security guard should know the law. This is completely incorrect as far as I am aware. The basic premise of auditing is one of push-back against the police, or security guards extending their security zones, where the public isn't allowed and photography is forbidden, out into the real world where the rest of us live. It’s about stopping the creep of unlawful instructions, and the control assumed by security personnel over members of the public. Ultimately though, auditing is about the ‘Us versus them’ attitude of what seems to be the majority of police staff and others in an ‘official’ role. You know, perhaps, if the police changed their behaviour towards the public there would be no auditors. There would be no need. No arguments about where a person can walk in freedom or capture the light reflected from a building they happen to use. All of the above is alterable. It's just that no one in the police force seems bothered enough to make that change stick in the head of your average plodder. Until then. More power to the auditors of the UK, and elsewhere.

[@smithbrownjones]

The "reaction" that we all want to see is one that is professional, and Lawful. There is no such thing as a "Provocation" by someone carrying out a Lawful activity.....when the Cops react badly, it's because they have no control over their ego or their emotions. In order to justify a Search under Section 43 the Cops have to have reasonable evidence in the first place; so pretty much all searches under that premise are unjust, and unlawful. Police need to get their shite together and start Policing within the boundaries of the Law. They are our Servants after all. 🤷🏼‍♂️

[@tonyb1223]

They so not serve you, they are the Crowns servants and as such serve the will of the crown and government, do not confuse US cops to ours who have the motto "protect and serve".

[@smithbrownjones]

@@tonyb1223 Triggered much. I'm not confusing anything. They are Public Servants. Get over yourself already.

[@oldsquashmonkey]

I'm just wondering how as a member of the public I would be able to find someone's address from their vehicle registration plate? Isn't that something only the police can do?

[@tonyb1223]

Criminals have their methods, the dark web would be one of the places they could use for this.

[@geordiewishart1683]

If it's for a legitimate reason then you can complete a form V888 and send it to DVA. Costs £2.50

[@lylecoglianese1645]

If Law Enforcers don't know the law - how can they enforce the laws?? They should find a job they are qualified to perform!!

[@divineangel5774]

My friends and I always remind people it's not the theory of the law it's the word of the law.... And explaining that to people is painful sometimes

[@honestchris7472]

I am convinced that these so called auditors are not really auditing anything, what they are doing is just trying to make a security guard or the police approach them and question them, they know that what they are doing is legal but they want the confrontation just to get the video for KZbin. I think that the police especially should be informed of why they are doing this and be themselves aware that photographing or videoing in a public place is legal, if they all knew this, then the auditing would stop and the reason that it would stop is that they would have not footage of a security guard or policeman being made to look silly. These auditors are just a bit of a menace and achieve absolutely nothing.

[@matthewsmith2787]

Some do exactly that, some are decent but I think it’s to provoke people

[@honestchris7472]

@@matthewsmith2787 All I can say is I have not see a video that has any content about what they are auditing. They start the video talking about a company that they are there for, they talk a little about the lorries coming out or what the company does but then the security guard approaches and then they can start on the video that they are actually there for, hopefully the guard will ask him what he is doing, to which he can reply "I don`t have to tell you what I am doing" and so it goes on but there is never a full video about a company because if a security guard does not approach, they go to another company and try again.

[@justkerry173]

It's a shame that so many auditors get so aggressive. More auditors like Focus Pocus would be great.

[@smiffy788]

It's a good way to get all drone flying band once the CAA get enough complaints from services like the Police.

[@stuartb4525]

@@smiffy788 There are a mere handful of cameramen with drones that go near police stations. There are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of everyday drone flyers. They won't get banned. Next you will want phones banned,in case you use it in public.

[@smiffy788]

@@stuartb4525 What are you talking about getting phones banned? Its the few who got all the current regulations imposed on us.

[@stuartb4525]

@@smiffy788 If you want one thing banned, if they did that, then they come for something else. That is how we are creeping closer to a police state. The list is endless. Genuine question, what is the issue with drones?

[@smiffy788]

@@stuartb4525 I don't have an issue with drones i own several myself. People need to fly them with some sort of respect to others, doesn't matter if you have the "right" to fly somewhere its a matter of common sense. People getting into arguments with the Police or security guards etc aren't doing the hobby any favours.

[@barneybiggles]

My view is in the UK you can do anything you want as long as there is no specific law against it.

[@101Mant]

Yes, but some of the "specific" laws are horribly vague, stuff like breach of the peace and loitering and public order laws usually mean there is something they can arrest you for if you are making any sort of commotion in a public area.

[@matthewsmith2787]

I believe the police can detain you for no reason at all, even if you looked at them the wrong way or even just passing them. I remember once I went to the local shops and there was a police officer passing me, and he said what are you doing here? What is your purpose of being here today? I said I was buying some milk. He said no problem and let me go

[@altonhants]

It appears that you would answer that walking down the street might be considered suspicious and require the police to address this action because you might be on your way to rob a bank. The police act with hysteria and paranoia regarding the security of their stations. None if them nor you could define hostile reconnaissance. It is a ridiculous term to justify that paranoia. During the early 1870s l belonged to a team which carried out risk/threat assessments for both police stations and individual officers and taught and instigated the relevant action to reduce that threat to as low a level as possible. Please believe me when l tell you no such actions take place here today. The police have very little or no clue.

[@ArminGrewe]

I disagree with your point at 6:20 that flying a drone over a police station isn't necessarily illegal. I believe it highly likely is. For the simple reason that in most cases you're not allowed to fly your drone over built up areas and the vast majority of police stations are probably in built up areas. You also need to be at least 50m away from people. So you'd be breaking the drone code and the related laws (unless you've got one of the tiny drones below 250g, but even then certain restrictions apply).

[@stephb8178]

I think this video is slightly biased. You are clearly demonstrating alliance with the system and casting doubt about your supposedly impartiality. Not your best video……

[@philipdart1611]

What does the BlackbeltBarrister make of the arrest of Auditing Britain on 13/01/2022 at Kidderminster Police Station under the quote " POLICE LAW "? and the official apology by a senior serving officer from West Mercia Police force published on line on the 15/01/2022? For the unlawful arrest and detention of Auditing Britain.

[@aireboat7988]

And what would he make of ABs arrest at Wellingborough in May last year for filming into the courthouse? Or maybe, his conviction, in June at Northampton Magistrates?

[@safirahmed]

Some people think about the good old days when auditors were just specialist accountants looking over financial accounts.

[@oldgitsknowstuff]

A Police auditor! A Smart arse with a drone and a KZbin channel ! ! Any Police Officer can ask you for your ID. it's a reasonable request. If you refuse then the officer can arrest you on 'The suspicion of committing an arrest able offence. Another arrest able offence is that of 'Loitering....either with or without intent'. Another offence is under section 5 of the public order act. causing alarm or distress which, if somebody shoves a camera or similar recording device in your face would cause a reasonable person alarm or distress,I wouldn't like it. If you want to film a Police station up close and personal then the reasonable cause of action would be to ask if its OK. sorted, nobody gets arrested or gets upset.

[@vidcrit1187]

The big problem as I see it comes form those self-styled "Auditors" who go out with their camera or drone to deliberately provoke a confrontation and then appear to enjoy the aggression which ensues. If that's what gets their peckers up then all I can say is that they need treatment.

[@michaelthwaite3282]

Thanks for this - saves me typing out the same response.

[@davidbarnard1126]

Surely that says more about the training & professionalism (or lack of training & professionalism) of the police officers. Or the people that employ them - as an example, a police officer who lied on his application forms, and it went unchecked. Only revealed when he was up in court on other charges.

[@snuggleseal]

except the auditor is doing nothing wrong, theyre merely taking the place of a public photographer,

[@Ian-xt1mb]

In 99% of cases it is driven by the desire for money. It's that simple.

[@snuggleseal]

@@Ian-xt1mb and there's nothing wrong with that.

[@ianlloyd100]

9:15 HOW DARE YOU CHALLENGE US!! Don't you know we are the police?. We cannot be wrong.. "while you are following all the rules, you might still be acting unlawfully"??? Bollocks.

[@benrevell]

When did the meaning of the word "audit" change? I thought these were it's meaning - noun: an official inspection of an organization's accounts, typically by an independent body. verb: conduct an official financial inspection of (a company or its accounts). Am I missing something?

[@Ndqar]

Quality audits dont necessarily look at money.

[@outlaw6421]

If there enforcing a law then they should understand it.come on BBB!!!!.

[@tonyvenn5238]

Misleading to state that someone can get address details from number plates. Only details from these are whether the vehicle is taxed and MOT’d.

[@zappababe8577]

I thought that The Auditors from Terry Pratchett's Discworld had crossed over! I was disappointed.

[@noelward8047]

Clever. I must read Hogfather again.

[@larry365]

As per planning laws, fences and walls are restricted to a height 2 metres without planning permission. This was introduced as a balance of maintaining privacy and minimal visual impact. Therefore, as per the law, using a ladder to see over someones fence and taking photos of a property is in breach of privacy laws. This then is also true of drones. If we are to now move forward under the assumption there is no expectation of privacy with one's own fenced boundary, the planning laws that are based on privacy are null and void. I believe this is grounds for the legal construction of any building without planning permission in order to maintain one's expectation of privacy.

[@stevenbrindley2469]

I've seen some of these auditors who seem to just film police stations and just want to provoke police officers. I can see why the officers get annoyed.

[@franceleeparis37]

No law against filming public building from public space.. the coppers need to have anger management..😏

[@laceandwhisky]

@@franceleeparis37 exactly and police need to brush up on laws before interrogating and coming up with charges that don't exist.

[@davidbarnard1126]

The response from the officers - whether good or bad - IMO should be of more concern to the public, than the actual properties they are videoing. Unfortunately, at this time, the bad response seems to be outweighing the good response, by a very big margin.

[@timothyduggan2263]

I think there's probably a bias based on what we see. I doubt the auditors bother posting videos of police being reasonable and not reacting to the bait. Of course police officers need to act legally and reasonably but, at the same time, some of these auditors definitely go out of their way to provoke a reaction and whilst, maybe not illegal, is also poor behaviour and pretty sad IMHO.

[@noelward8047]

@@timothyduggan2263 You are incorrect. There are many videos of brilliant interactions between auditors and police.

[@whiskeysnwireless]

2 Guys from the counter drone unit, giving an explanation, but why, oh why do they have to be wearing the thin blue line badges on their shirts. I have family who fought in wars to allow us the freedoms to have the union jack flag flying over the UK, so why do these individuals feel they have the right to not only deface the flag, but to use it as the "Gang Badge" that the thin blue line is. How many people have lost their lives in police custody or following an interaction with police?? We need to get the chief police officers to act to stop this gang badge being worn on police uniforms, its offensive!!!!!

[@Lord_Ronin_The_Compassionate]

The head of the ACPO sent a letter (August 2010) to all police chiefs regarding public photo/videography. He pointed out that it was legal and that the beat cops should leave the photo/videographers alone unless there was an obvious illegal act occurring. That the cops should remember that photo/videographers were a useful source of information and that the current police behaviour could screw it up (paraphrasing, but I’ll try to leave a copy of the letter). The cops ignored the advice completely and made many officers look like vindictive jerks with nothing better to do. They were throwing around multiple sections of PACE to illegally obtain information even when no crime was committed - shocker, I know! Who would’ve thought the cops would behave this way? Result - photo/videographers learnt the laws regarding photography in public, when/if consent forms were required, showed that “press credentials” don’t exist, showed that accusing a man with a camera isn’t “hostile surveillance”** when done in clear view of everyone in broad daylight, etc. Cops changed tactics, because judges had stopped them from using a bit of the anti-terrorism laws to bully people, so the cops became more creative and started using Section 43 of the Terrorism Act, under threat of arrest etc in order to view images, delete images, and obtain private information, all pretty dodgy and just another reason to not trust the cops - always record your interactions with them. If only the cops would spend their time preventing actual day to day crime instead of looking at the laws and getting creative in order to screw someone over, but perhaps that’s expecting too much of them to do the job they’re so well paid for (including that very cushy index-linked pension they get after 25-years? I reckon I’d be smug in that situation, with no likelihood of ever being held to account for my actions - which brings the topic right back to auditors and a phrase that the BBB will have encountered before - Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? [basically - “who watches the watchers?” or “who guards the guards?). It’s supposed to be the IPCC that holds officers accountable for their actions, but unfortunately it’s a toothless entity totally unfit for purpose.

[@jackiegosling2605]

I watch Long Island Audit and in one of his blogs he has been invite to talk at a police station...he is very good.

[@lylecoglianese1645]

So standing up for your rights may lead the cops to become suspicious?? That is just SO wrong!!

[@lylecoglianese1645]

@Kens UK Adventures, the obnoxious one is/are the cop/s interrogating and/or arresting people for committing no crime and merely viewing and recording the property that is owned by taxpayers. The cops DO NOT OWN a police station!! The PEOPLE own it!! 🤔

[@lylecoglianese1645]

@Kens UK Adventures, oh, a myth?? Ok.

[@AndrewNeilBaird]

Once stopped in an audit outside my house , where are you going , Ball green Avenue I said , where have you come from , ball green avenue I said , what's the purpose of your journey , to drive up and then down the road I said . Come here boys we have a comedian here the auditor shouted over to his colleagues. (⁠•⁠‿⁠•⁠)

[@mpmansell]

The correct answer is "None of your (insert optional expletive here) business", then take out the phone to film him before calling the police to say you are being harassed on the street, then resuming filming until they arrive.

[@matthewsmith2787]

I used to do security patrols around the garden centre site, there was always break inns. It was my job to question anyone who was acting suspiciously or in no access areas. When we had auditors standing filming in the car parks, and outside the warehouse. I would never be aggressive to them, and I just tell them that they can’t film on site. Sometimes they argue the case. Unfortunately we don’t have the resources to escort people around the premises.

[@stu0508]

Sorry BBB, but you are talking some serious bs in this video. No one can take a registration number and get someones address (except the police themselves or DVLA staff) so you are absolutely wrong about that. Also a regisitration number on a car is mean't to be displayed in public, police car park is most likely viewable from a public place and certainly their entrance/exit will be by definition. If they are so worried about their plate being visable they need to ride to work or catch public transport. Or perhaps ban all CCTV and dash cams or maybe just blindfold the entire population when in public? Ridiculous. Also carrying on from this point, the police are there to enforce laws- that's their job. If they want to interact with the public or an auditor filming a police station then i would absolutely encourage AND expect it. However, in that scenario and with the amount of incidents (and civil claim payouts for not following proper procedure- which, remember, is taxpayers money!) they should absolutely by doing things by the book. They should know the 249g drone laws inside out, they should know that filming anyones number plate is not a crime and they should know they can't just accuse someone of being a terrorist and then misuse Section 43 of TACT 2000 which allows a constable to stop and search a person whom he/she "REASONABLY" suspects to be involved in terrorist activity. I am not sure how many auditor videos of this you have seen but i have seen literally hundreds and hundreds. The police don't except the publics ignorance of the law in my experience so I don't get why you are being so apologetic on their behalf- they are law enforcers for godness sake! They must absoultely do things by the book. Of course occasional mistakes are made but the shear number you can find on youtube is unaccepable. The Police's own guidance clearly states "it is important that police officers do not automatically consider photography/filming as suspicious behaviour." Countless videos show this clearly being flouted. Add to that a disturbingly large number of openly aggressive approaches from officers, failure to idenitfy and the misuse of section 5 public order offences. There there's the failure to notify the auditor that they are being filmed using their body worn cameras as per: " Under data protection legislation, officers must inform people that they’re being filmed and will do so unless the situation means it’s not possible." As a data handler they HAVE to do this and i have seen countless officers utterly deny this or tell the auditor who they have been speaking to for 20 minutes that there was not a convient time to tell them! That's just some of the issues. I love your videos, i really do but i see a clear bias here. Either that or you just haven't watched enough videos to really be able to say you have researched this subject throughly and have an opinion. Have a look at Focus Pocus, Auditing Britain, Power to the Proletariat, mat12128 to name just a few. The fact that all these auditors have had successful civil claims should tell you there is a problem. The fact ALL police forces have been passed numerous memos about this and continue to mishandle situations (in fact the movement is growing) tells me there is a real problem. The fact they are being "provoked", as you call it, makes matters even worse for the police. It is no different from a mystery shopper- they are being tested to make sure the act accordingly and often even when they know this they fail to do so. It's disturbing! The Police's PR is at an all time low, fixing that starts with being honest about it's failings and you aren't doing that i'm afraid.

[@BlackBeltBarrister]

There is a serious problem - that's my point. Google "DVLA V888 form" and use your imagination as to how that could be abused. I've seen it abused and officers stalked to their home address; I can absolutely see why this might be a concern.

[@stu0508]

@@BlackBeltBarrister Interesting, however it does say " If you want to request information about the registered keeper of a vehicle which is registered to someone else, you must show ‘reasonable cause’ for wanting this information and how it will be used." That is down to the data handler to protect that information. Similarly it's down the police to lobby for changes to the law in the way that information is handed out. It's not ok to complain to every single person who they see outside a police station with a camera. Consider this, they will not speak to someone walking by with no camera and they will not know about covert filming either by a passer by or a covert small drone. In short if someone wants your reg they will get it so actually I still think questioning people in the manner they do is pointless especially as, as you discussed, it's not illegal anyway. All anyone needs to do is say I do audits or I like filming marked cars and they will leave you alone. There is no common sense being applied here. And as I said, there are so many other breaches. Demanding someone's name just for filming outside a police station and telling them if they don't it's illegal. They often absolutely lie through their teeth. I appreciate there are two sides to this but the Police need to be a doing a much better job and shouldn't be being compared to us mere mortals. Remember they are enforcing the law!

[@gteaz]

@@stu0508 BBB is like a poorly trained officer, he's wrong some times.

[@dave_ryan]

@@BlackBeltBarrister then maybe they should use public transport or get a bike, i question why they get free parking when our nurses have to pay, never mind the parking of police vehicles on double and single yellow lines so they can park freely in the yard puts others lives in danger, do they care...

[@steve10]

Did he just say , and this is from a copper BTW, "that not all police know the laws" ITS THEIR JOB FFS , its very worrying and dangerous to have A) an aggressive copper and B) one not knowing the law on to of that. These are police talking about other police not knowing the law. The idea a copper going up to a terrorist and asking them "are you a terrorist and why are you filming" and the likehood that terrorist saying "yes I'm a terrorist" is idiotic, surely rather than an idiot copper asking a question A) no one needs to answer if they are innocent and B) no one will answer if they are a terrorist Just put a copper on watch , covertly at a distance studying, an auditor will move in a completely different way to how a terrorist would Seriously police shouldn't be wasting their time asking , either study the behaviour on camera or from a distance. I'm actually more frightened of police now than I ever was , police by their very nature are a vile suspicious lot that believe too much in their own power , no longer does a coppers nose sniff out criminals, it goes round speculating someones guilt or innocence and more scarily still is if they believe in their small minds you are guilty then they will force a way of locking you up. As an innocent 50 year old I would film any interaction with the police for my own safety and my own evidence , because as Monday follows Sunday if a copper takes a dislike to you , well the you are the target It's about time police realised in 2022 we have more knowledge than ever that police can act corrupt, its not the 1980s where people tripped down the stairs and no one knew , the amount of innocent people in prison because of some areshole copper with a chip taking an arrest and a stitch up a bit too far must be in the thousands. There are 2 types of copper, ones that try and do a good job or the second that uses the uniform , their arrogance, ignorance and lack of knowledge to terrorise this country. I'm still on the side of good cops , and if I saw a criminal giving one a hiding I'd like to think I would help But if I saw a copper instigating an arrest for petty reasons and they were starting to lose the fight , I would happily walk on by and sleep easy , because its time police officers learnt a lesson , you work for us , you work within strict boundaries to keep us safe , your coppers instinct isn't the law , so next time you ask someone filming, the idea is a) an auditor won't tell you what they are doing because they are testing your idea of suspicion, thus is because touchy feely cops are itching to be suspicious or b) they are a terrorist and I imagine is about 1% of all terrorist acts has someone stood outside a police station. So ease in your ego, hold your nose and THINK , your best bet is to be sensible and observe, not be a tw@. Having said that , there are only two or three auditors that do it properly ,I would like to get rid of the idiots doing it for views , i detest the ones that start swearing and acting like idiots , or there are 3 or 4 of them ,they are embarrassing . Overall, the sad thing is , is from warltching the good auditors I no longer respect or even like the police , im 50 and never once been in a police station for antlything other than reporting a crime I saw. So I should be a firm police supporter , the fact I don't trust the police speaks volumes of their behaviour I think

[@TWOBITONEGUY]

Police always Melt when they feel like their personal vehicles are being recorded

[@MikeEves]

The whole purpose is that registration plates can be filmed

[@juliandavies1974]

Many police are followed home. Someone may see a reg on a car outside a house and assume the person who lives there is a copper and may decide to do something to the house or people in it

[@ThatGoth]

I always thought banning photography in or on court precincts was an odd law because it bans photography on and in "Court Precincts"... The problem is that precinct means "the area that surrounds a building or place" and it's very broad, it could mean "on the grounds of" but it could also mean a whole part of a town, this essentially means you could be done for contempt of court for filming a police station (or other building) that is connected to or near a court house.

[@byMRTNjournals]

Geeksvana is trash. Titles his videos things such as "Police versus auditors" to draw views and comments. Not helpful. Meanwhile auditors are out there changing policing. All this talk about auditing and no coverage of auditing Wales? Maybe worth countwrbalancing this video with similar advice for the police. As an inspector has just been found guilty of common assault on a 16 year old auditor. Sad sad silence on that one

[@auditnerd8767]

Nah, he's good, professional, and trying his hardest on behalf of all drone users. He s human though and doesn't get everything perfect.

[@auditnerd8767]

A couple of auditors have been victims of injustice. AW is a particularly bad example. There have been a handful of payments for wrongful arrests, detentions, and searches. But there's also a mass of convictions following justified arrests, imprisonment, fines, community service, community orders. Is it a balance?

[@byMRTNjournals]

@@auditnerd8767 I feel geeksvana has a preconceived ideo of what auditing is without any knowledge of what led up to it, the back and forth between police and public photographers predates auditing by a good few years. Following 9/11 the police in the UK adapted a new mindset which isn't exactly in line with British ideals of freedom in a public forum. Section 44 of the terrorism act being repelled is a story in itself in respect to recording the police and holding them accountable. More interesting is that before sec 44 was repealed, the police and security industry were briefed in what was called "operation pegasus" which gave informal advice as to what is a potential "terror threat". You might have remembered around the time of 2006-2010 organisations such as colleges, shopping centers and other large buildings made a big deal about photography inside their buildings and then that attitude faded away over the next decade. I feel a lot of what still persists is almost an old ghost of post 911 security hysteria.

[@auditnerd8767]

@@byMRTNjournals I agree with that. Geeksvarna, Blackbelt Barrister and others have featured auditing but there always seems to be "an angle" like they're trying to make a point. I also get the impression they're just brushing the surface.....not getting to the real core of auditing.

[@byMRTNjournals]

@@auditnerd8767 same with most auditors. I love dj but he doesn't get why auditing started. Live free knew, but he let the fame get to him, and is also not a swell guy, I have heard. Some of the simpler smaller channels get it bang on.

[@clivewilliams3661]

Can someone please tell me what auditing is, as used here? My understanding comes from the dictionary definition that cannot be applied to any of the situations. The summary of an audit is to make an official investigation and compile a report, whether that be in respect of accounts or some other quantitative or qualitative aspect.

[@jonwyatt3694]

Review other dictionaries. An audit is a formal examination. Amongst other things.

[@grantharris7741]

Could you do a video covering *S.44 on the terrorism act* as I still hear police using this as grounds to search although it got repealed by the *protection of freedoms (ss59)* about 10 years ago.

[@HoratioChinn]

it has been repealed so no longer exists. Some police quote s44 in error instead of s43

[@scorpionking7454]

I am a avid fan of this brilliant channel (BB) but on this I disagree with what is said and the police view - the law is clear there is no crime in recording the police as long as the auditors stay outside areas which are not restricted but more importantly the auditors are being assaulted on a daily basis by the police and this video further indication of the absolute contempt they have for the British public , these two officers are the face where if challenged they will subject auditors to false charges, lies ,and assault-they the police have supposedly to abide by a code of conduct and they take an oath non of which they abide too . Only yesterday I saw a police inspector in Wales being convicted of assaulted a 16 years old lad you only have to look at the way they conduct themselves on auditors you tube channels like (auditing Britain and PTTP) who do a brilliant job in exposing police disgusting behaviour -my final point the gentleman who asking the police questions is not the law he does not need to know why someone is dressed in black with a camera it’s really showing how poor and how the police abuse their powers is what they are afraid of .

[@hadrianjohnstone6578]

In amazed and rather upset that a barrister doesn't know what hostile reconnaissance is shame on you sir.

[@DJWESG1]

That's a different subject. It's aslo a practice the government and police use themselves to stiffle dissent and opposition to their iligitmate power, and profile those they deem undesirable. I'm sure he knows what it is, but ud have to be actually accused and charged of that separate offence in relation to some real world risk.

[@StreakyP]

Here is an interesting one... Like there are minimal restrictions on sub 250g drones, bicycles require no user qualifications & apart from motorways can be used pretty well anywhere. I'm also pretty sure Tesco's rules probably don't mention them... Does this mean I'm entitled to arrange a bicycle race in the aisles of Tesco's?

[@johnedwards4176]

Stop paying auditors dole money and they would have to go to work and wouldn't have time to play silly games. I have never had issues with the police because i always carry my driving licence ,and have always been polite and answered any questions.

[@Jim--Bob]

The biggest nonsense the police often come up with is suspected terrorism. Who in their right mind approaches a suspected terrorist unarmed to ask them what they are doing? If they truly suspect terrorist activity. Then call the anti-terrorist squad ! It proves to me they are abusing their powers when they drop 'suspected terrorism' into the discussion

[@Jim--Bob]

@Kens UK Adventures Not a lot they can do with or without them.

[@franceleeparis37]

Typical lawyer… too much waffle… should cut to the chase… but guess he is counting his fee..😂😂

[@noelward8047]

Haha ... could it be that you become bored with anything that takes more the 30 s ?

[@jim2677]

so if you can't take photos or video's in court ,why are the tv allowed to film court cases?