Shame On You, Auditing Britain!

[@seanoriain6477]

AB done nothing wrong the police over reacted they had no reasonable ground's to carry out a search and they knew it the he was acting within the bounds of the law the second lot of police used common since I've no idea what your problem is with AB and other auditor's is but you don't seem to be gaining much support on KZbin from running people down I wonder why!

[@streetvideoreviewer]

I've pinned your comment, so that we can examine your statements (the atrocious spelling and grammar are all your own):- "AB has done nothing wrong..." - that is a statement of bias. One of Auditing Britain's methods, used here, is to deliberately act suspiciously around police stations in order to provoke a reaction from the police. That is wrong. If you doubt it's wrong, I suggest you find a copy of Volume 1 of the Report of The Manchester Arena Inquiry and read what they say about hostile reconnaissance, which is the activity that Auditing Britain is simulating. "...the police over reacted they had no reasonable ground's to carry out a search..." - I beg to differ. Simulating suspicious behaviour so as to provoke a reaction from the police that you can then film for KZbin content is an offence contrary to section 89(2) of the Police Act 1996. While I would not go as far as to say that it is also an offence contrary to section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000, I do think the police would be well within their rights to use their powers of stop and search in these circumstances under section 43 of the same Act. I think they could also make use of their powers in section 50 of the Police Reform Act 2002. "...and they knew it the he was acting within the bounds of the law..." - except he wasn't. See above. "...the second lot of police used common since..." - what you really mean is something like this: 'The second lot were really nice to Auditing Britain, so I like them.' You have this childish notion that niceness is a prerequisite for being dutiful and civil. In reality, the first officers took their duties seriously, while the second officers didn't. The first officers get it in the neck because they - quite rightly - approached Auditing Britain with a sceptical bearing, whereas the second officers are OK in your book because they were nice and accommodating towards him. Personally, I don't want to get blown to bits - or suffer lesser violent crimes, for that matter - so I'd prefer the first officers, if you don't mind. "...since I've no idea what your problem is with AB and other auditor's is..." - Then can I suggest you pay more attention to what I actually say in my videos, of which there are now 95, and actually watch some of them and actually listen to what I actually say, rather than jumping in with your own personal opinions based on your own biases. "...but you don't seem to be gaining much support on KZbin from running people down I wonder why!" - It is not a matter of 'running people down'. Besides which, it seems to me that auditors do a lot of 'running people down'. Auditing Britain sets out to embarrass and humiliate people for entertainment value. Shouldn't he and other auditors expect to be criticised for this activity? This channel has been going for around six months and has more than 2,000 subscribers. That's a respectable number, lots of people take years to gain half that number. This channel will never gain the typical subscriber numbers of auditors because it is not primarily an entertainment vehicle. I actually analyse things and share real knowledge - that will never attract tens of thousands of subscribers, and that's not the point anyway. Subscriber and viewer numbers of content do not correlate to the truth-value of the content.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@BaxterShaw "No police station has ever been the target of a terrorist attack in Britain" - that's not true, and even if it were, it's not a reason to have lax security at police stations. Hostile reconnaissance is not covert by its nature. It can be overt or covert. The terrorists who carried out the Manchester Arena attack carried out overt hostile reconnaissance of a similar sort to what Auditing Britain simulates. Read the report of the inquiry into the attacks, if you don't believe it. It was a major point of criticism of security at the Arena. If police officers know they could be made to look foolish on social media, they may develop an in-built reluctance to approach and challenge suspect individuals who could be posing as photographers while carrying out overt surveillance of potential targets. Auditing Britain hasn't considered this or doesn't care. Generally, nobody is being prevented from photography or filming in this country. I am an amateur photographer myself, so in a position to know. Auditors are not photographers, rather they use cameras to cause trouble. They are the ones abusing people's rights. I agree that the police will commit abuses as well. That's not a reason, justification or excuse for you to commit abuses against the police or anyone else. What you're doing or supporting is wrong and can only make matters worse. For instance, we may see calls for laws to clamp down on public photography as a result of these activities.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@BaxterShaw The people who have spent nights in jail are usually those who are 'auditing'. Auditing is not photography and you know that. Your defence of these people relies on selective thinking. I have been a serious amateur photographer for most of my adult life (I'm in my late 40s) and I can count on one hand the number of times I have had problems. My specialism is street photography, so the activities of auditors are highly relevant to me. I don't always seek consent from a subject prior to photographing them - it's not typically required - but if somebody voices an objection to me, I immediately comply unless there's a good reason. The 'problems' I have had are of a minor nature and always resolved amicably. I have never once shouted at anybody or called somebody a 'muppet' or tried to humiliate or embarrass anybody. I have never been arrested. Please, do explain, why is it that I and most other street photographers are not having our liberty to pursue our hobby challenged if what you say is true? The point about Auditing Britain specifically is that he is deliberately simulating suspicious behaviour in order to attract official notice. He then proceeds to embarrass and humiliate the officers and portray them as 'tyrannical', when they are not, they are just performing their duties and rightly questioning him. This is an offence: it is obstruction of a police officer. He ought to be arrested and the matter should then be tested in the courts, because what he is doing is wrong. The fact you find it entertaining or in some way illuminating and useful is not a defence. Nobody in this country who is sensible is having their liberty to photograph in public places seriously challenged.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@BaxterShaw I will answer you one last time, but any further posts from you will be deleted. Please respect me, just as I am showing you respect by replying to you, and kindly heed that warning. Please don't waste any more of my time playing these games in which you act 'dumb on purpose'. I am a very busy person. We're not kids at high school. I have already answered all your points (including the hostile reconnaissance one) and given you more opportunity than auditors would on their channels. Auditing Britain would have deleted all your comments by now. I have already explained everything about simulated hostile reconnaissance and Auditing Britain's methods many times over collectively, to you, and in videos and other comments. All you have to do is look and listen to what I have said, and think about it from an objective standpoint and use your brain. What difference would it make whether the terrorists had a camera? The point is that Auditing Britain simulates hostile reconnaissance by deliberately acting suspiciously in order to attract the attention and involvement of the police or security staff or others. That is literally what he does. You know very well that is the case. That's the whole point of his channel. It's been his modus operandi for years. It's not bias to point this out. It's simply facts. The bias here is coming from you. That he euphemistically dresses it up as defending your rights is neither here nor there. If he genuinely wanted to defend people's rights, he wouldn't have any subscribers. The purpose of his channel is to engineer and provoke confrontation and drama for clicks and cash. If you have not understood this, then you are naive, but I don't believe you are that naive. Most supporters of auditors appear to be of low intelligence and have not really thought about it all very much, but you clearly are capable of thinking it all through, so you have no excuse. The reality is that auditors are not photographers and you know that full well. Defenders of auditors like you rely on selective thinking and you are not being honest. If you were honest about this you would admit that what I say is true and if you then still want to defend him on some basis, then fine, but I won't tolerate any more of your cut and paste propaganda on here. If you still disagree, that's for you, but you've now had your say. Thank you very much.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@BaxterShaw Deleting comments just for spite is what auditors do. If this was an auditing channel, your comments would have been deleted long ago. I have given you far more freedom here than any auditor would give you. However, you must appreciate that there does come a point when someone has 'overstayed their welcome'. Before you comment again, I would ask you to take an honest look at yourself. For some reason, my channel and my comments have got you into a real tizzy. Why is that? Why are you so emotionally vested in these auditors, who go round bothering innocent people? I must now politely ask that you cease commenting on my channel. I have given you a fair go and further comments from you will be deleted. I do think that's fair now.

[@Bosie24]

That “policeman” should not be in the Police, he completely undermined his fellow officers and shook that idiots hand when he was being questioned and if he thinks it’s okay to watch his fellow officers being humiliated on film, then he should be booted out 🤬

[@streetvideoreviewer]

I wouldn't boot him out, but I would want the incident reviewed and a professional discussion conducted with the officer concerned, and also a review by the CPS of AB's channel and whether he should be prosecuted for obstruction under section 89(1).

[@RedPillRachel]

I find your approach to these "auditors" refreshing and well-informed. Please keep on doing what you do, thank you.

[@mandystaunton9474]

AB doesn't harass police officers unless they harass him first🤣

[@bflat1784]

Bollocks I’ve seen him many times harassing for no reason

[@davidthomson2686]

Shame on you Street Video Reviewer, AB is doing a lawful activity and no one should be interrupting him while doing his legal right to film what ever his eyes can see and you should know that he just films and if the police choose to pull him and make a right arse of themselves then that’s their choice to put their time on him and not on proper crime 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿😎

[@ronspannermanread]

Hes of his fu?king trolley goading the police is kids stuff, And all the dopes watching aint well

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@davidthomson2686 He is NOT carrying out a legal activity. The basic problem here is that you don't understand the true nature of what he is up to. You're naive. You're treating it as if he is either an innocent photographer of some sort or a passive auditor genuinely out to test the police. Those activities are fine and you would hear no criticism from me if that were what he was doing, but he is not those things. He has a modus operandi and engineers these confrontations on purpose. I have tried to explain it, spell it out to you, in the video itself and here in the comments and in pinned comments. I can only try so much. If people don't get it, I suppose we will just have to accept that things have sunk this low, social media is bread and circuses in which innocent people are humiliated, and certain 'special people' can waste police time at will without consequence. That's depressing but if society is going in that direction, at least we know.

[@neilbarber6905]

Well done mate, 430 subs and counting! Remember your first few! lol

[@kevinsancto1574]

I have subscribed as I think although I don't always agree it's a great way to discuss and express opinion.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

Good for you!

[@gtagerry2896]

14:22 thank god you are just some guy makeing these videos and not a cop.

[@davidknowler4719]

Their job is to uphold the law . There was no unlawful activity . Btw , are you a cop ?

[@janneroz-photographyonabudget]

Looking at the grammar, spelling, illogic, the type of argument , yes, probably is a police officer.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@davidknowler4719 There was unlawful activity. I am not a police officer, never have been, and have no connection to the police. In fact, I don't even like the police.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@janneroz-photographyonabudget My arguments are detailed and make reference to the law. Auditing Britain is deliberately wasting the time of the police, which is an offence of obstruction contrary to section 89(2) of the Police Reform Act 2002. In my view, the police and CPS should be looking very closely at his channel. If you disagree, then I would kindly refer you to the report of the Inquiry into Manchester Arena attacks, and in particular the section on hostile reconnaissance. Please read it carefully, then come back and tell me that I am being illogical and Auditing Britain is doing no wrong. Better still, go and tell the families of the people killed - including little children - and the people who have been left permanently scarred and maimed, go and tell them how much you enjoy Auditing Britain's channel. I'm sure they will love to hear from you. My grammar and spelling are impeccable nearly-all of the time, so I cannot think what you are saying. Your punctuation, on the other hand, leaves something to be desired, if that post is anything to go by. Finally, for now, I note that you still have only a handful of subscribers on your own channel, despite starting that channel in May last year - some 16 months ago. This channel has been going for only some four months and is almost at 1,000 subscribers. Not that subscriber numbers are always an indication of quality, and normally it wouldn't even occur to me to mention such a thing, but the manner in which you make your criticism suggests an arrogance on your part that may not be warranted given your performance as a KZbinr. You really do need to gain some altitude before you start coming on here giving it mouth.

[@janneroz-photographyonabudget]

@@streetvideoreviewer Once again, you are missing that really, truly, easy to see fact that YOU CANNOT MAKE AN OFFENCE OUT OF A NON CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. It's that simple. You CANNOT criminalise a lawful activity. If you cannot see this, then there's something quite wrong. If legislation changes and what he does becomes unlawful, then fair enough. Until that point, what he's doing is okay. If the law changes, he stops, an end to it. If, after that point, he continues, he would no doubt be penalised. Until that point, he is within the bounds of the law. The specific offence of wasting police time cannot include anything lawful, which is what he does. Hence why Chief constables have agreed with this, hence why notification has been sent out to every force, every police station in the country. Hence the other point, when something does happen, something illegal, they ask people to come forwards with photographs, video footage and so on. I cannot understand why you cannot understand that you cannot criminalise something which is not illegal. I fear you have a bee in your bonnet about Auditing Britain, dislike him, don't agree with him. It has been deemed that anything overt, filming, photography etc cannot be seen as hostile recon. You have completely misread the legislation, Police Reform Act 2002. Why do you think there's been so many civil claims made against the different forces with reference to "auditing"? Why do you think the Chief Constables have sent out directions to al officers? Until you have that haze of dislike lifted from your vision, then you will no doubt continue along this blinkered path, seeing non offences as unlawful. You need to wake up and see what is really what. Use your time to lobby your MP, seek a law change if that is what you want. But for now, you will probably continue along your blind path.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@janneroz-photographyonabudget I am not criminalising a lawful activity. He is one breaking the law. Long rambling posts full of waffle don't change the simple fact that he is doing wrong.

[@OakieDokey31]

A lot of these channels are nothing to do with auditing tbh. They just get some sort of sexual thrill from arguing with strangers and wasting their time. If he was that determined to put across the point that its perfectly legal to film public buildings why does he always lie and say he isnt filming them. I think it just makes them feel tough and they enjoy the attention

[@mandyward5372]

Its because they litrally have no other hobbies in real life, all they want to do is disturb the working people in between their job centre appointments lol

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@mandyward5372 Yes, but they're also encouraged by KZbin who allow monetisation of the content.

[@GabrielsWings1968]

He doesn’t lie about filming? Stop making shit up.

[@scruffyalice-ff5pz]

If your happy that the Police turn up quite quickly, when called by either a public service, or a private company, because a person is taking pictures/ or filming from a Public place, a perfectly legal activity. Yet, Mr & Mrs Bloggs have just been burgled. Sorry, no officers available. They are dealing with an extremely serious incident at the moment. A man with a camera is taking 100% legal photographs. We will have to possibly detain him under section 43 of the Anti Terrorism act. But, no worries, we have to priorities so, here's a crime number for insurance purposes, though.

[@kevinsancto1574]

So he doesn't tell anyone his lawful activity does article 8 not apply for someone's feelings. The young officer BTP was rude entitled and ignorant of the law. His paranoid thoughts and feelings of both of these was driving their attitude which was not proportionate in my opinion. I have never seen someone filming a police station does not mean it does not happen several times a day. Why not hello sir good morning how are you and make a decision. Stating someone is lying and they are not aware or right of mind is rude or may even escalate unnecessary. Then why more than 2 for someone not breaking the law. I am not saying that I agree with filming a police station however not illegal. Remain silent ask under what powers they are using and ask for a solicitor. Then after all that not verbally identifying is not professional in my opinion.

[@harryharrison658]

I LOVE YOUR CHANNEL & THEY DO NOT KNOW THE MEANING OF FRAUDITING. ALL IDIOTS OUT FOR HARRASING PEOPLE 4 VIEWS ON KZbin, KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, CHEERS HARRY FROM YORKSHIRE

[@SodiumInteresting]

Didn't like the "you live in london, so I'll stand where I like" or the way he goes "are you unwell". They also can't know for sure if he was filming or not, even if he was which he probably was 😅

[@heroldable]

He is the best one. Police have policies that infringes peoples right, and using them very actively. If this should go to on, the policestate emerges. Cant you see that, or is it all about complying no matter what??

[@jedross2136]

Agreed; big difference between annoying workies on an industrial site and showing people how dangerous the police have become.

[@richghost2897]

AB is the hero we need. The police need to check themselves before they wreck themselves.

[@TheLowerIntestine]

AB is a waste of space. End of.

[@TheLowerIntestine]

AB - the waster's waster.

[@TheBirdLovingMan]

AB is awesome, he has thousands of subscribers and many people love his work... He's doing nothing wrong whatsoever by filming a police station and he didn't have to answer one question... The police here were trying to make it a crime to film a police station...

[@streetvideoreviewer]

So you admit he was filming a police station. Good, we're making progress because in the video, Auditing Britain denies it, which means he was lying to the police.

[@k88m1]

​​@@streetvideoreviewerYou sound like a policeman

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@k88m1 But I'm not a policeman. Do you agree it was wrong of him to lie to the police in those circumstances? While lying to the police is not in itself a criminal offence (nor should it be), would you agree with me that his actions amounted to obstructing the police? Would you prefer that the police ignore suspicious behaviour around important or sensitive public buildings and events? Since you think you're clever, maybe let me have your answers. Would you like to be killed or maimed in a terrorist attack? Or for a member of your family to be a victim? Would you forgive the police or security staff if they explained that the reason they didn't bother approaching individuals acting suspiciously is because they were worried about being made to look foolish on social media? Would that explanation be enough for you?

[@k88m1]

@@streetvideoreviewer what made things worse one of them admitted they knew he was an auditor. What I have done what AB did know I'm black so I would get away with what AB does lol.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

For the benefit of those who are still sceptical about what I am saying in the video, let me explain. What AB is doing in his videos is applying a very simple but effective blueprint that he has refined over the years, as follows: Do something weird/strange like pretending to film the back of a police station. Hang around and wait for the police to confront you. Then film the confrontation, and gaslight and goad the officers to make it as entertaining as possible for your viewers. If all else fails and you're arrested, nothing will be found on the camera. That's what he does in most of his videos and it's what he did here.

[@davidthomson2686]

It is down to the police to come and abuse the public for doing a legal activity and act the way they do I have never met a kind constable in my life they are all out to get you if they are not happy with what you are doing even though it is legal 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿😎

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@pauldoherty4382 To get rid of the claim.

[@lc1429]

@@streetvideoreviewer police bait people all the time but when members of the public do it to them that's where you draw the line......

[@slapdashdumper]

This police officer in the middle shows the indiscrete link within a certain community,,,,,,he just threw his colleagues under the bus......he needs to be sacked

[@streetvideoreviewer]

Not sacked, but he should have been spoken to about the incident., He did not do his job.

[@endangerdpeanut3133]

Agreed that some sort of action should of been taken, but to bring race into this is pretty far fetched dont you think?

[@robertreed4337]

Your wrong when you said if he was a foreigner "He is a foreigner"

[@streetvideoreviewer]

That's what I said.

[@JohnTustin-pe8lj]

That depends on how long he’s been live in England because if it’s past so many years then he classes as British 🙄 Another one that needs to go to school

[@nogelserv]

Great videos - he definitely goes beyond the law and in my view regularly causes breaches of the peace. It surprises me that they don't look to use that method.

[@karlchapman7754]

I agree that some "auditors " are absolutely terrible, however AB isnt one of those, yes he may act a little strange however this shows the police and security in their true light

[@happyguy201]

Yes your right

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@karlchapman7754 Consider this hypothetical: you are a police officer and happen to notice a strange man loitering round the back of a police station, and it looks like he's filming the building and cars, and even filming inside cars. What would you do? Please answer completely honestly.

[@karlchapman7754]

@@streetvideoreviewer you are correct that he may manipulate the situation, however he does highlight the misconduct in especially the police

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@karlchapman7754 But what misconduct is there in the video Karl?

[@mandystaunton9474]

💯👏agreed

[@catherinelee4648]

You obviously don’t watch him enough to see the lies and corruption that is used against him. He has my follow not you.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

I have watched his channel since the beginning, so I'm pretty sure I've watched more of him than you. When has he been the victim of lies and corruption, ever? Just name one single occasion.

[@charlottewilson8740]

He has won compensation against the police ffs 😅😅

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@charlottewilson8740 That does not mean he has been the victim of lies and corruption. For your information, receiving a settlement award from the police does necessarily imply fault or blame on the part of the police. It will often be simply a nuisance payment to get rid of the claim.

[@capio78]

I gave that genre a go, but they're 99% entitled bums who refuse to work. All these auidtors answer questions with questions to annoy people

[@JohnnyT-p4r]

How creative, to use someones video and add a mono-tone voice - props to you clout chaser

[@streetvideoreviewer]

I love the monicker clout chaser. Thanks.

[@k1dn1ce76]

What a great idea of yours - instead of the middle officer deescalating the situation like police should, he should have let the BTP officers wrongfully arrest him and once again allow AB to be awarded over 2 grand of tax payers money like happened before. Once again, what a great idea!

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@k1dn1ce76 I did not say that AB should have been arrested on this occasion. I said that the officers would have been within their rights to effect a stop and search, and in any event, should have given words of advice. However, my opinion is that he was committing the offence of obstruction contrary to section 89(2) of the Police Reform Act 2002, and is committing this offence in every video that he tries the same trick (which is frequent). As for paying him taxpayers' money, I cannot help it if the police are burdened by a compensation culture that weakens their resolve and initiative and I cannot help it if the police employ lawyers who are quick to settle claims on technicalities. The police, like bodies, institutions and businesses in society at large, are burdened by compensation culture and political-correctness when what we should have is a culture of personal responsibility. AB is not some innocent photographer who is just being randomly picked on by the police, and if AB really is going to enter into the spirit of what he does and be consistent, then he should accept that he will sometimes be inconvenienced by the police and he should take it on the chin. Instead, he hypocritically seeks compensation when he knows that he brought such incidents on himself - and worse, his behaviour is usually criminal in that it amounts to obstruction.

[@k1dn1ce76]

@@streetvideoreviewer Fair enough, and I don't totally disagree with some of your points, but what would a stop and search accomplish? He's an 'auditor' so he won't be carrying anything that could result in an arrest...

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@k1dn1ce76 The officers don't know that and I think there is merit in inconveniencing him anyway. I would like to see him held at a police station for 12 hours and released in the middle of the night with his equipment confiscated ("Terribly sorry sir, it's in our store, you can collect it next week. You need it? Oh dear, sir.").

[@k1dn1ce76]

@@streetvideoreviewerVery true I suppose - there is no way the officers can KNOW that, but I worry him being held for 12 hours then released without charge would result in another large payout. He'd probably love nothing more than for what you state to actually happen to him once again.

[@k1dn1ce76]

@@streetvideoreviewerPeople have received compensation of over 2 grand just for 'wrongly' spending 10 minutes in handcuffs! It's not good for anyone... Edit - It's not good for anyone other than the person (rightfully or wrongfully) collecting the cash.

[@User-3O3]

14:29 He should be dismissed and never allowed to police again as he is not fit for purpose. I would not feel safe if he was policing the streets where I lived if he let's criminals get away with their behaviour.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

I think dismissing him would be harsh, but I would hope somebody has a 'word' with him.

[@MrWalbudri]

AB knock down bully police a peg or two

[@medbad5150]

Bully police? But he's a woman beater? You're a fan right? Inbred worm?

[@nomadsteve5297]

@@medbad5150AB is the top and you are a FANNY 😂🤣

[@medbad5150]

@@nomadsteve5297 support a woman beater? Yeah sums you up prick

[@ukmeetthetyrantsisanARSEHOLE]

​@@medbad5150 So he beats up women then.

[@JaneDoe-bo9tz]

They were rude to him, arrogant. It’s only their job if he was doing something wrong, he wasn’t they should just have observed him

[@streetvideoreviewer]

That's where we disagree. I believe he was doing something wrong.

[@G1ZQCArtwork]

Defamation is a crime. This video is accusing AB of lying. AB in fact does a very good job of weeding out misconduct by police who ought to know better.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

Defamation is not a criminal act in English law and I live in England. But you've got it half right, I am accusing Auditing Britain of lying - and worse. He is wasting police time, which in this case is the offence of obstructing police officers. He is doing so on purpose and ought to be punished for it - because it is a very dangerous thing to do. Real terrorists could take advantage of it. As for police misconduct, I saw none in this video, unless you count the officer who forgot he was a police officer and acted like a star-struck teenage girl when he should have been warning Auditing Britain to stop wasting the time of the police. Anything else you want to say or is that enough rubbish from you for today?

[@G1ZQCArtwork]

Boy you are argumentative when you are proven wrong. AB is neither wasting Police time nor obstructing them. They approached him when he was doing nothing wrong. Accusing him of what.? Looking in the back yard.? Not a crime, so no need to ask silly questions. AB does wind them up, and rightly so when they clearly display ignorance of the law they are supposed to uphold. AB has his Solicitor on speed dial, and claims thousands in compensation when the police get it wrong. A valuable lesson. AB often gives the Money to the homeless, buys hot drinks and warm clothing. Its our Money, and I like to see it used in this way. Yes he had a Holiday, why not.?? Your ball Sir.... BTW you will lose the game, so quite while you can. @@streetvideoreviewer

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@G1ZQCArtwork Your posts show that you have not understood what Auditing Britain is actually doing. Let me try to educate you about this, assuming you will listen to me. He is committing the offence of obstructing a police officer. He is deliberately engineering incidents with the police by acting suspiciously around police stations. That is wasting police time in purpose, which is the offence I have just mentioned. The police have no choice but to confront him due to the way he behaves. If they didn't, they would be risking a real terrorist attack as they don't always know who he is, or even if they suspect who he is, they can't take the risk of assuming things. That is it in a nutshell. I've now explained it to you as best as I can. If you don't understand, it's because you've been sucked in by him and can't look at it objectively. The fact he may have successfully claimed compensation and has the assistance of a solicitor does not mean he is in the right. The police are hidebound nowadays to compensation culture. You may not be aware, so let me explain that often the police will pay out compensation in cases where the claimant has an argument and they want to get rid of the claim rather than put the taxpayer to the cost of a trial - it can be cheaper that way. I don't agree with it. I think they should make Auditing Britain prove his case in court, but my point is that simply receiving compensation settlements does not necessarily establish that he was legally in the right in any instance.

[@alanjones7545]

The evasive behaviour heightens concerns, if he was open and honest from the outset it would never escalate. But then he wouldnt have a video. Its all self serving.

[@dannyross-wo4rm]

well done auditing britain

[@GarvenAnderson-fr9vs]

Go away

[@xlprop6687]

AB is a prat. Nothing more needs to be said on that. At the same time, the fact that a brown skin officer gave support to a member of the public with the same skin tone because it is how things work in the UK with the law taking different SOP's with different ethnic minorities. Nothing new here. The problem is not AB or the brown skin police officer, but the law system that does not support police officers in this situation with folks taking photos of soft/hard core targets. As a former British Army Rifleman, we regularly had security briefings and made sure we reported or stopped anyone from filming our camps and cars back in the day. Getting caught doing as a male would result in some justice being issued out while awaiting the RMP's to arrive. Since the shift in the government to release and compensate IRA terrorist, while locking up soldiers who followed orders, the country has been basically been seen to set up the UK to fail. This can be seen with how immigration is set up and these laws which give powers to any person with a camera. Think about the changes the UK has gone threw. The moment the government dropped the dress code for uniform services and started to allow turban head gear was already the start to ending what we all knew of what the UK was. So, forget AB and all these fools undermining UK security, go to the government.

[@jons9721]

Don't have this problem in Scotland if the police act in a reasonable way its generally legal unless it can be shown to be grossly disproportional

[@davidthomson2686]

My grandfather was a soldier and he spilled his red blood to put on our British flag to give it its vibrant red colour and he became a soldier to give us our freedoms and fought for our rights so we can walk about GB and film or take pictures of anything and not be harassed for it if he was still alive he would say NAZI’s to them all for trying to stop us doing what he fought for OUR FREEDOM to do anything we want within the law BIG UP to every soldier who has fought for our rights to be free 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿😎

[@xlprop6687]

@@davidthomson2686 I hear you. I also served and been involved with the after aftermath of what happens when an army barracks is filmed. Osnabruck garrison Quebec Barracks was bombed and had a mortar attack after terrorist were able to take photos and map the place out and make measurements. Countless locations in Northern Ireland I've served in with the same problem. A few months back, Russians were found in another country taking photos of sensitive locations and got arrested. NATO is on the verge of WW3 and you want to talk about the rights to take photos? Grow up!!!

[@Stephen1953]

Interesting that you did not choose to analyze some of the videos where the Police acted like members of the SS. The video nearby Bournemouth police station is a prime example.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

Do you have a link to that video? Almost-always, when an auditor claims the police have acted like "tyrants", it turns out not to have been the case. If anything, it's the other way round: in general, the police seem indulgent and soft towards auditors. Most of them could be summonsed or arrested on the spot. Besides, I have criticised the police, including in this video.

[@roblister5183]

Which one is it are you an ex copper or is your mommy a copper. Oooh Shame on A.B. Get a grip mate.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

I am not a police officer, nor have I ever been a police officer, neither was my late mother, and I have no association with the police. I don't even like the police and I have had a number of bad experiences with the police, in which I have been unfairly treated and mistreated, so I would appreciated it if you would not associate me with them. But liking or disliking doesn't come into it. If I were to base my assessment of police actions on my own private views and prejudices, even though not relevant, that would be childish. My channel is simply telling you the truth, using facts and law. Your post is just a childish emotional tantrum, like a baby spitting a dummy out, because somebody is questioning your poor judgement in giving support to these yobs. It's perfectly funny. Keep going.

[@pataleno]

Great video. People need to watch this and be prepared when these people turn up as your company.

[@TheLowerIntestine]

Spot on mate.

[@janneroz-photographyonabudget]

I have no great love for "AB". I don't condone nor agree particularly with auditors. But, they are not breaking any laws. I am a photographer. I photograph stuff on request, for enjoyment too. But, I would add, I get approached quite a lot, by police who DO NOT KNOW THE LAWS relating to this profession, to this hobby. If the police knew the laws, knew their jobs, then there wouldn't be any auditors. The only people in this video wasting police time are the police. The police themselves have created this situation. They seem to enforce feelings, they enforce what they THINK, or at least try to. Auditors highlight this all the time. Yet still the police still don't learn? It shows the levels of intelligence in our police forces.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

I'm sorry but AB is breaking the law. Please read the pinned comment above. This is the most basic misunderstanding that people have about these auditors. Most people don't seem to realise that auditors are working to a blueprint to gain as many viewers as possible. In AB's case, it involves engineering confrontations, the aim of which is to waste police time (or waste the time of whoever else he is dealing with). I am an amateur street photographer and I have rarely had any problems with people because I am considerate and respectful in how I go about things. However, I don't have a halo over my head, I do have faults and I have had trouble with the police myself. I don't even like the police, but this channel is meant to present things truthfully. If you genuinely think that AB is just an innocent videomaker who randomly attracts police attention, I can't take that seriously.

[@janneroz-photographyonabudget]

@@streetvideoreviewer As I said, I have no love of this type of character. But I have yet to see what laws have been broken. If you and I agree that he baits them, then it's the police's fault if they take that bait. If somebody was genuinely trying to gather data or intelligence, then as a photographer you will know that it's more than easy to this covertly. To be so overt, to be so obvious, then for the police to bite nearly every time it shows a lack of intelligence n their behalf, both for the individual officers and their force as a whole. As said previously, they take the bait waste their own time, perhaps because it's easier than doing real work? I have zoom lenses, I have go pros, I have one in particular with a 3000mm equivalent lens that I use for moon photography. It's just a bridge, but I could see the police station from miles away, if I wanted to, how can they "legislate" for that? If the police were to ignore him, don't you think he'd stop? No more content, no more subscribers. No more views, once seen probably never viewed again, the channel would fail.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@janneroz-photographyonabudget Wasting police time is a criminal offence.

[@janneroz-photographyonabudget]

@@streetvideoreviewer I think you're a little confused. Yes, wasting police time is a unlawful. But he isn't doing this. You cannot be wasting police time by doing something lawful. , if police do not understand their role, their powers, the law, then the onus is on them for wasting their own time. If, for some bizarre reason, they thought it might be illegal to wear socks with sandals, and approached you for doing so, as they believe it's unlawful, would you be wasting police time? The same applies here. He is not breaking the law, he cannot be guilty of something else.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@janneroz-photographyonabudget I think it is you who is confused, but I object in any case to the suggestion that I am confused when I have taken multiple different steps to explain at length why and how he is wasting police time. If you're not going to listen to me due to some emotional bias that you have, that's your prerogative as I can't make you listen, but don't tell me I'm confused when I've explained it in five different ways, especially when it's clear you have no interest at all in what I have to say and refuse to listen. Next you're going to tell me I'm wrong because it's Tuesday and I'm wearing a red T-shirt.

[@davidknowler4719]

I think you have to be very careful indeed . You cannot accuse people of being liars , nut jobs and such like . I wouldn't be surprised if you got shut down in fact I would welcome it . Leave those you seem to hate so much to make their videos and we can make our own minds up . I think you would be better off re thinking your you tube involvement and perhaps re directing your efforts .

[@streetvideoreviewer]

I know you'd welcome termination of this channel because you're a low life scumbag who likes watching innocent people be humiliated against their will. People like you are one notch above child abusers - and fittingly, your hero ran over a kid in his car while he was chasing a fire engine. Did he ever catch the fire engine? Maybe you should be the one to ask him. Marti Blagborough is categorically a nutjob. It is fact. His behaviour is that of a nutjob. If he disagrees, the courts are open to him and he can proceed against me for libel. DJ Audits very probably lied to the police about the driving incident - I give detailed reasoning for this conclusion in the relevant video. Auditing Britain blatantly lies to the police in this video, and generates a needless incident that wastes police time, thereby obstructing police officers - which is an offence. But of course, all of this is fine to you because you want to be entertained. All of these people are welcome to initiate libel actions against me, but they will not because they know that I would very probably win. If you think any of my allegations are wrong, kindly explain how and why I am wrong or kindly clear off and go and watch those low lives you've come on here to defend.

[@seanwilson7593]

@@streetvideoreviewerlol ngl I’m glad I found your channel & I think AB won’t make many more mistakes as I believe him to be the most professional out of them all, also do you remember a huge fat fella that was always with rayan rampage & marti I wondered if he’s still auditing let me know plz ?

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@seanwilson7593 I know who you mean. His name escapes me for the moment. When it comes back, I'll tell you. That reminds me, when I remember his name, I'll need to check his channel to see if he's still going! I know he stopped for a long while.

[@seanwilson7593]

@@streetvideoreviewer I need to know 😂

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@seanwilson7593 It's annoying because the name is distinctive and I just can't remember it. He's the one who got stopped with Marti when they went on that first trip to the gas plants in Lincolnshire a year or two ago. They were stopped on an A road outside Leeds. The two of them were thick at one stage.

[@davidmonk5918]

You are doing a good job showing up auditors and the tactics they use to earn a few quid on you tube. Unfortunately you are up against idiots (as you can see in the comments). Keep up the good work

[@lc1429]

man films police station.... completely legal... cops try to bully man. If cops followed the law they wouldn't be engaging and wasting their own time

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@lc1429 Filming a police station is not 'completely legal', as explained in the video. In fact, few things we do are 'completely legal', a non sequitur. In this case, whether filming is legal depends on whether the activity raises reasonable suspicion and in turn why the activity is being undertaken. Auditors and their supporters have a very simple understanding of the law. It is true that photography in public is not a crime - nor should it be - but liberties are accompanied by responsibilities. Auditing Britain engineered the incident to waste the time of the police. The police were not bullying him. He was treated with incredibly leniency and consideration, if anything, even by the first officers. They would have been well within their rights to conduct a stop and search under section 43 or take his name and address under section 50.

[@lc1429]

@@streetvideoreviewer Per the Met guidelines on filming.... filming alone can not be reasonable suspicion so everything you just wrote there is completely wrong, and to use section 43 theyd have to reasonably suspect that the person is a terrorist and that a search would find evidence to further support their suspicion of the person being a terrorist. If they had carried out a section 43 search and the case went to court, Auditing Britain would win flat out

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@lc1429 No, what YOU are saying is a selective account of the facts seen in the video. He was filming the back of a police station and probably filming inside police cars (what he normally does). He was then confronted and he lied about it. That puts things in a different light to the highly misleading way you want us to see it, in which we are supposed to believe that some random person is innocently filming and is confronted by police officers for it. Like most supporters of auditors, you are not being honest. Officers cannot know in these situations whether somebody is a terrorist or other criminal, they can only have suspicion. Equally, they cannot make assumptions. If the individual lies, then that may be additional supporting grounds for reasonable suspicion. I believe you are laying too much emphasis on your reading of general guidelines, and not giving enough weight to the particular facts of the incident. This is because you support the auditor emotionally and this is stopping you from looking at the incident wholly objectively. It may be that chief officers, who are in a political role, have fallen into this error as well, under political pressure. That does not make it right. If the guidelines are practically unworkable or confused, officers will use their judgement in the situation, which they must anyway. If you had worded your comment differently, in a way that suggested greater balance rather than emotion and tribalism, I would give more weight to your argument.

[@lc1429]

@@streetvideoreviewer if you can see it from public you can record it, end of discussion

[@colinlaws8399]

If auditors are making money from what they do, are they not then 'professional' or condcuting business or slef employed when the make these imaginary documentries. do they cease being an individual and then become a buisness entity?

[@colinlaws8399]

Which means the are not a person standing in public, they then become a business or a person representing their business/company and are them subject to business laws, such as GDPR? they should also have some kind of insurance for the business and pay corperation tax, and have policies in place. . . .

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@colinlaws8399 I have covered this topic in my videos. As soon as an auditing channel becomes monetised in any way (whether using KZbin mechanisms or by external means such as Patreon), or the auditor declares an intention and expectation to monetise (whichever occurs the earlier), the auditor's activities become a business and he ceases to be availed of the domestic purposes exemption from data protection requirements. Since most auditing videos are also not availed of the special purposes exemption (i.e. journalism, art, etc.)., the auditor must at that point have regard to the requirements of the UK GDPR and the Data Protection 2018, including a requirement to register with the Information Commissioner's Office as a data controller. Virtually all auditors are sole traders, meaning they operate as individuals rather than through companies. So far, the only auditor I know of who has formed a limited company for the purpose of auditing is Marti Blagborough and he shut that down about a year ago. That said, I am aware that DJ Audits and Auditing Britain are both company directors and it is possible they are reporting their auditing income through those companies, in which case the legal obligations would fall on those companies as well as the auditors as individuals (and technically a data controller can be a limited company rather than a natural person).

[@andrewlait542]

If auditing Britain is doing wrong then why does he always make loads of money when putting in a CLAIM he's minted with claims against the bully boys FULL STOP

[@streetvideoreviewer]

Just because a claim pays out, it doesn't follow that you were in the right.

[@terrybaxter9280]

So on the back of Auditing Britain you want to make a few bob.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

So on the back of harassing, humiliating, abusing and belittling innocent people, as well as wasting police time, Auditing Britain wants to make a few bob. Have I got that right? And you like watching him do this?

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@pauldoherty4382 No, I want to stop Auditing Britain and DJ Audits from making any more content, or if not that, then I want to see them demonetised. If possible, I'd also like to see them in prison. And I'd like to see people like you and your friend here hang your heads in shame at coming on here to defend these rogues. I appreciate it bothers you that I am putting auditing in a more truthful light. Your comments will feature in a future video.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@pauldoherty4382 I'm sorry to hear that Paul. The nurses really should remember to stock up on nappies for your ward. As an aside, I must say that it really is enlightened and progressive of secure psychiatric hospitals nowadays to allow psychotics like you access to the internet. Good for you, Paul!

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@pauldoherty4382 Where have you beaten me in an argument?

[@monikacognomen1096]

@@streetvideoreviewer By resorting to ad hominim. Suggesting that he's mentally ill is the cry of the loser. How about adressing the accusation that you are trying to make money off other people's content.

[@darrenross1807]

What’s happened to PJ audits hasn’t been on KZbin in a while

[@darrenross1807]

Must be away on his holiday to Egypt

[@tomalex4806]

Aslong as he's not making videos harassing people... I don't really care

[@darrenross1807]

@@tomalex4806 PJ is a trouble maker

[@alexandermilne2507]

Read somewhere that he went to Egypt with his wife she found someone else and now PJ is to scared to leave the house?

[@mozkingston1707]

If you had used section 50 you would have got your constabulary sued .. You have no reasonable grounds to use section 50 because at no time did A.B act disorderly .. Filming in public in of itself is not a crime and you can not trespass the eyes ... You have no idea what your talking about .

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@mozkingston1707 "Filming in public in of itself is not a crime" - Your careful choice of words is comical and reveals your nasty, disingenuous agenda. Carefully-crafted formulations like that are always the sign that something shifty is afoot. Here you are intentionally misrepresenting what I say and what I believe and what my purpose is. Nobody has said that filming in public is "of itself" a crime, nor should it be, but he wasn't just filming in public. You omit to mention that he was deliberately acting suspiciously around a police station in order to provoke attention from the police. The reason you omit to mention this is because you are nasty, disingenuous and dishonest. The victims of the Manchester Arena attack paid the price for people like you. If only you could have been one of the injured, rather than an innocent person. And I sincerely hope that happens because I believe people should suffer consequences of their own views. Section 50 was well within the scope of the officers' powers and they should have used it. In my view, they should have arrested him, refused to pay him any compensation and forced him to take it to the courts. He is a public menace and an idiot - as are you.

[@mozkingston1707]

I'm afraid there's only one person coming across in the manner you describe and that's you .. I won't continue the conversation further because my time would be wasted on a person like you .

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@mozkingston1707 You are an idiot. You have been sucked in by him, which is a poor show on your part. It shows you lack the ability to think critically and independently. You and others are upset at me because my channel blows him out of the water. I am actually helping you by seeing you the truth. Rather than show some humility, yank your head from out of your arse, and admit I'm right, thank me and be on your way, you have to preserve some pride and affect one last bit of moral grandstanding.

[@michaelpinchin1648]

Every video is made and uploaded submitted is to make money, whatever the content, it's youtubes fault for paying them.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

In defence of KZbin, they are just a platform and as such have to operate fairly permissive Community Guidelines. They can't be held responsible for every channel.

[@robertbradshaw9367]

I like AB. He helps to remind the police that they have limits. Lots of people get abused by law enforcement up and down the UK every day because they look a particular way or seem like they don't have a voice. The police need reminding that they serve the public. Focus Pocus is another excellent auditor.

[@jedross2136]

Great point; I’ve noticed that the videos where he puts on a foreign accent or pretends to be a bit slow the police get more aggressive and the likelihood of him getting felt up skyrockets. Reggie Photo is another good one btw.

[@scruffyalice-ff5pz]

Notice you didn't review the illegal detainments under section 43, terror act videos? Such as. Kidderminster, Redditch police, mi5, mi6 buildings, Hampstead police station, American embassy, Lewisham police. That's it off too of my head, all unlawfu detainments, and unlawful searches, there is another one cant remember where, male & female office detained under section 43, searched unlawfully by female officer, whilst a male officer was present, totally wrong. But hey, your not biased in anyway are you?😂

[@streetvideoreviewer]

I have to work for a living and I don't get paid for this channel. I don't have the time or resources to review every single video every auditor has ever brought out. As stated in the 'About' section of this channel, if there is a particular video or auditor you would like me to look at, please e-mail me the details. Complaining because I haven't covered some random video amongst literally thousands is a bit stupid. And if you actually paid attention, you'd know that I do defend auditors from time to time when I think they are in the right. I am not biased - unlike you!

[@darrenross1807]

Has AB got learning difficulties

[@darrenross1807]

Can hardly understand what he is saying

[@okeyDokey.]

He does come across as being a sandwich short of a picnic

[@alexandermilne2507]

@@okeyDokey. Think it’s more like he’s short of a whole loaf to make a sandwich?

[@turdinthegarybyrd4980]

you kinda completely ignored the main reason why AB wouldn't switch off his camera and show them the footage - the fact he would lose part of the interaction more biased bollox

[@streetvideoreviewer]

Eh? The whole point is that he lied and told them he hadn't been filming when the officer clearly observed him doing so. Why are you lot all so dumb?

[@LouLouSherez1997]

I liked this video I agree with some of your points Let’s be honest this man makes a lot of money out of these videos The police are very condescending however they are necessary I believe in fair play and personal responsibility in a civilised Christian society

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@LouLouSherez1997 I don't particularly like the police myself, I'm just looking at it factually: he is deliberately acting suspiciously in order to create an incident, in the full knowledge that the police have to react and speak to him. That is an offence - i.e. obstructing a police officer. I'm sure he is making money out of it, but that may eventually come to be his undoing.

[@WorldlyInAction]

Well put. What is the alternative. We need some organisation to investigate crime!

[@liahoslawas9635]

I agree that AB (Reda Bouadi-Clifton) does like to wind up the police and other authoritarian figures however you must admit it is funny the sort of confrontations he gets into and the way he gets away with his videoing and exposes the unfortunates online and worldwide who get in his way. Still he's doing this on purpose and making good money out of it if it were me I would give it up now and enjoy my spoils, since the amount of views he is getting on his past videos is still making him a ton of money. Although I would say when the police ask him what he is doing he should say Iam auditing the police (or whoever the organisation is) and the surrounds when he is evasive then gets all agitated when he gets stopped handcuffed and searched that's when I don't feel pity for him as brings this sort of action upon himself but he makes £500+ civil claims so gets money that way. Still his american express and basingstoke jobsworth vids are very amusing. Excelsior! 🚕🚖

[@streetvideoreviewer]

I am sorry but I don't find obstructing the police and wasting their time very funny, and I suspect both you and him wouldn't like being on the receiving end of the same treatment and you would be quick to complain about it! I've noticed, for instance, that he doesn't like having his face broadcast online and always puts in a privacy complaint whenever it appears. Rather hypocritical of him, in my view.

[@David-s3v2n]

AB is hilarious.. remember if your not getting hate your not doing great

[@mariamarshall3783]

20:18 onwards, your comments sum up perfectly all that is wrong with the ‘great’ British society please keep up the good work

[@ChrisJones-pu8gh]

Let me start by saying I am not a fan of AB, DJ, UK Tyrants and a few other auditors who create confrontation for click bait. I do admire your ability to show some auditors in bad light and also the good light (recent "The Gwent Auditor") Your knowledge and interpretation of the law is very good and I commend you for that. However, the initial confrontation by the police is quite assertive but borderlines on the aggressive in this case. The statement from the first policeman "I need you to tell me why you were filming a police station" is more aggressive than assertive. But AB does himself no favours by answering that he wasn't filming it, as we know that he probably was but edited his video to not include it. This is a fundamental issue with "auditing" videos on KZbin. The content providers can manipulate the video to change the perspective of the viewer. In this case, it seems, that the aggression shown by the police is apparent when they continue to push forward into the auditors space on numerous occasions. The second (older) policeman automatically tries to get behind or to the side of the auditor to take a place of dominance. This is standard practice for police and militia in order to subjugate the seen enemy. Both the police and the auditor became confrontational and it may take someone else to de-escalate the situation. My first response would have been "Am I detained or is this a consensual conversation?" After the reply that it was consensual I would have said "Great, I remove my consent and consider any further interaction to cause me harassment, alarm and distress". But the auditor wants the confrontation for his camera and the initial police officers provide this freely. They push towards him and use terms such as "Are you nervous?" and "I am not invading your space" to try to put down the auditor. I am not condoning the actions of the auditor but this is bad policing. The later police officer who diffuses the situation does not do it correctly but at least he diffuses the situation for his colleagues allowing them to walk away whilst knowing exactly who they are dealing with. I commend the officers for walking away once they know how silly both they and AB have been on camera. If auditors want to audit the police etc. then they too need to be audited. We need more impartial, educated reviews on this to create a balance and weed out the good from the bad. Unfortunately click bait, views and likes will always debase the actual content provided. After all, most auditors are monitised and that is where their priority lies. Cash for Crass.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

Yes, but you need to bear in mind that AB was filming the back of the police station and he does this on purpose - it's the blueprint for his auditing. It wasn't just that he was some innocent street photographer who happened to take a few shots of the cop shop. Such a person would explain himself when confronted and typically that would be the end of it. AB purposefully acted suspiciously to engineer the confrontation that you just saw. On that basis, my view is that a section 43 detain and search would have been justified, if only to inconvenience him. I don't see why the law should allow this impunity to people who deliberately engineer incidents that waste police time.

[@ChrisJones-pu8gh]

@@streetvideoreviewer I agree that AB was doing this on purpose and not just an innocent street photographer. However, using section 43 just to inconvenience him is vindictive and if it could be proved that this was the only reason for the search AB would have reasonable grounds for recourse in court. Section 43 has to be used with great caution and officers must be sure that they can defend their reasons for using it. It cannot be used just to get the identity of a suspect as the officer must justify why they consider the suspect to be a threat and photography alone is not enough to justify the use of section 43.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@ChrisJones-pu8gh It's not vindictive. Part of the role of the police is to disrupt and inconvenience criminals, wrong-doers and troublemakers. I don't agree that the police should have to dot every 'i' and cross every 't' when dealing with someone like this who is just a low-level troublemaker, but is tying up resources. Dotting the 'i' and crossing the 't' is for murder cases and real suspected terrorists, not for idiots. A bit of rough treatment to make him think again would do him no harm. If that requires a flexible application of section 43, so what? It's far too soft now and the police have become afraid of lawyers and the courts, when it's people like AB who should be afraid. And I don't read The Daily Mail or anything like that. I'm well informed and that's what I think.

[@ChrisJones-pu8gh]

@@streetvideoreviewer I personally believe it would be vindictive to use section 43 just to "inconvenience" someone. Section 43 states that "A constable may stop and search a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist". Without that reasonable suspicion he cannot and should not use section 43 and they would technically be breaking the law themselves if they could not prove their reasonable suspicion. I agree that inconveniencing some auditors may be a good thing to do and section 50 (anti-social behaviour) can be used sometimes to ratify this. In my opinion a good auditor would admit that they are just auditing and be allowed to carry on with what they are doing. However this may not create "good content" for their audience. This is why you will often hear the police ask "Are you an auditor?" as their first question. If the answer is yes they will probably engage in a different way as it will belay any worries they have about what the auditor is doing. But, again, this does not create the content the auditor wants / needs / craves. P.S. I don't understand the "Daily Mail" thing. Who on earth still reads yesterdays news papers?

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@growsethjones7249 A court can convict someone of being a troublemaker. All that's required is a law to charge him or her under. In this case, the troublemaker can be charged with wasting police time, which is an offence. As an aside, it is not just the 'job' of the police to investigate whether somebody has broken the law. The police in this country are not just penalty-issuers and robotic functionaries of the state. The role of constable is a public office and the police have a duty to keep the peace, and broader duties to deter lawbreaking by maintaining a local presence and to act as a symbol of the law in the community. Shaking hands and coming over all pally with somebody who is basically an active criminal is not the image I want the police to be presenting. AB should have been given very firm 'words of advice' to the effect that if he ever tried that stunt again, he would be arrested. The problem is that to give words of advice like that, you need officers who have the right personal qualities and are imbued with the sense of duty I have just mentioned - and those things seem to be lacking now, on the whole.

[@1haleema]

Contradictory convo wate of time!

[@billmorrison8292]

Why are the police trying to demonize public photography. Public photography has been legal since the first semi portable camera in the 1850's. There are hundreds of millions of historical photographs taken by members of the public depicting Buildings, Streets, People and human life. There is no justification in this vilification of public photography. Just because some idiot in the security services thinks it should be suspicious to take photographs and videos there is no need to take it to the lengths they do. Whoever wrote that security advice has caused far more trouble that he has saved. There is no need to approach everyone with a camera or phone, which is what happens now, even tourists trying to enjoy a holiday.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

The police aren't demonising public photography. The auditor is the one wasting police time by deliberately acting strange to engineer a confrontation. As you rightly state, public photography has been a basic liberty since photography was invented. Nobody is challenging this or suggesting it should be otherwise. The threat to public photography rights comes from aggressive auditors who are carrying out an activity that isn't needed.

[@billmorrison8292]

@@streetvideoreviewer Sorry don't agree. Every business also responds to this so called security threat as are more and more members of the public who don't want their photo's taken even though they take selfies and don't look behind them to see if there is anyone likely to get in the photo. The so called threat of terrorism and the memo saying everyone should be vigilant is what is causing the problem. I had a friend who used to go around taking photo's of local interest which he made into Christmas calendars, which he provided to a charity shop free of charge, he wouldn't be able to do that nowadays without being stopped and questioned. Professional Public photographers have been put out of business because of the hassle. A few years age there was one who was out taking photos of the High Street who got surrounded by police, arrested under section 43 and had his equipment confiscated. Crooks and Terrorist have been using photographs for planning for decades why has it suddenly become such a big thing. It is all over hyping and became a bee in the bonnet of some idiot in the security services and is entirely unnecessary.

[@jons9721]

Wrong photography can always form part of a crime as can everything else including breathing, almost nothing auditors say is legally correct from so called 'public access'' , 'civil trespass' GDPR and photography not being a crime

[@Zeus-kr4fz]

They aren't trying to demonise photography, they're just sick of these grifters deliberately harassing and antagonising them to get a reaction, because thats what his followers want to see, how many would watch his channel if he was just filming nice fluffy moments

[@billmorrison8292]

@@Zeus-kr4fz They started on photography after 9/11 when some idiot in national security said that they should check out anybody taking photos near any security risk. It only became really apparent to the public when people got fed up with police and started this first amendment thing. Planning for every big crooked scheme since the invention of the box brownie has started with photo's, terrorism is no different. The paranoia since 9/11 has put hundreds and thousands of photographers and photo shops out of business.

[@ureds88]

It be better if you didn't interrupt every 10sec

[@streetvideoreviewer]

This channel is for reviewing auditor's content. That requires interruptions. I realise, as you're a supporter of auditors, you don't like what I have to say, but you'll just have to lump it. If you want to watch the footage uninterrupted, follow the link to the original content in the video description.

[@33TRG]

Thank you for exposing this clown, whats you're advice on how to deal with these "auditors" if I come across them on the street, they tend to harass the public, do we video them just as they do to us and can we legally report them, if so under what section?

[@streetvideoreviewer]

For those who support this auditor, I ask that you please consider this hypothetical and please answer honestly: You are a police officer and happen to notice a strange man loitering round the back of a police station, and it looks like he's filming the building and cars, and even filming inside cars. What would you do?

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@pauldoherty4382 I never said that loitering or being strange is an offence, what we're talking about are the ingredients that make up reasonable suspicion, or emergent suspicion. Whether the act itself is an offence is not terribly relevant, Paul. Next, you admit that the officers were correct to speak to him, which undermines a large portion of your objections to the whole incident. If you think the officers were right to speak to him, then there must be a reason why they were right to speak to him. Third, your reference to section 43 is irrelevant, as the officer never used it (I probably would have, but that's a different point). That being the case, what again was your objection? is it that they didn't defer to him like Lord Muck? Should they have got down on their hands and knees Paul, and kissed his shoes? What is it exactly that you would have them do differently, since you're such an expert?

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@pauldoherty4382 Now you're just being silly. I will have to consider how long I can tolerate this.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@christopherwhittaker2620 I am sorry but none of that rhetoric, based on a received narrative, has anything to do with this video or the facts or the law of what is in this video. AB is treated in this video with the utmost courtesy. He engineered the situation to waste the time of officers so that he would have something for his viewers to watch. Unless you can grasp this, you don't understand what he is doing, you're more like a naive child who doesn't understand what he is looking at. The officers treated him leniently and with civility while he mocked, abused and insulted them to their faces. Please stop and consider what you see with an honest frame of mind, using your own brain, instead of applying narratives that others have given to you. I do not have a personal vendetta against AB. Please cease making comments that turn this into a debate about myself. That is disingenuous on your part and unacceptable to me. All I am doing is telling you what I see. If AB were in the right,. I would be saying that.

[@JohnTustin-pe8lj]

Why are you stopping him replying to your comments why should he do that ? Are we just going to let you have your say and then you don’t hear of what we got to say ?

[@JohnTustin-pe8lj]

From what I’ve seen Christopher looks like a fully grown man in the photo so how dare you throw bad accusations this is just an embarrassment to your own channel

[@hen5555]

Did the cops knock you back sad act?

[@streetvideoreviewer]

No, but your screen name suits you.

[@ukmeetthetyrantsisanARSEHOLE]

​@@streetvideoreviewerPay no heed the truth hurts them.

[@happyguy201]

Nah man i think AB is ok man compared to other auditors.

[@charlottewilson8740]

Someone has to police the police ab is the best we have Xx

[@streetvideoreviewer]

He is not the best we have. He is abusive and wastes the time of the police. Where is the IOPC to hold these auditors to account?

[@charlottewilson8740]

The police waste their own time we are free human beings we don’t need govt organisations to tell us what is right Xx

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@charlottewilson8740 I have sympathy with that sentiment but my channel is about what auditors do, not general philosophical discussion.

[@pauleric8799]

he's a tit like the others

[@colreef]

Focus pocus is the best.

[@peterhughes7868]

Leave AB alone

[@streetvideoreviewer]

Thanks Peter. I hope I haven't made him cry.

[@kevintutchener3394]

SVR...you need to take a balanced view. The Police on the right ( especially young beardy) were aggressive and escalating. Just because you do not like AB doesn't make him an imbecile. Perhaps the Police should approach everyone taking photos of Buckingham Palace....suspicious isn't it.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

Kevin....you need to take a balanced view. The police on the right (especially young beardy) were absolutely in the right and asked the right questions. Just because you do not like the police, doesn't make them imbeciles. Perhaps Auditing Britain should stop acting suspiciously around police stations on purpose in order to draw a police response that he can film - which is an offence (obstruction of a police officer). See, Kevin, I can be condescending back.

[@kevintutchener3394]

@@streetvideoreviewer All you are doing is looking for clicks. I have no problem with the Police mate.

[@kevintutchener3394]

@@streetvideoreviewer At what point did I call the Police imbeciles?

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@kevintutchener3394 All you are doing is looking for an argument. I DO have a problem with the police. I think they're wankers, but the aim of my channel is to present facts and law, which actually matter, rather than my own private opinions, which don't matter. My problem is with people who waste police time, because this is injurious to the public at large, especially when it involves simulating hostile reconnaissance - which is dangerous and stupid and not very funny, as it could have tragic ramifications. Moreover, whatever may be said about them, police officers have a job to do, and police officers also have civil rights and should not be subject to false allegations or be humiliated just for the entertainment of tosspots like you. My other problem is people like you who waste my time on here with ill-thought-out, ignorant comments that result from your childish mindset and terrible education (I'm not your mate).

[@Noneyabusinessok]

Why did nt you review ones where the police uave used their powers wringly and he received compensation. That money he gave them people on the streets. Seems that wouldn't fit your agenda. I will avoid your channel like the plague, worst audit ever. Its like asking the poluce to investigate themselves. 1 in a million may be found in the wrong

[@streetvideoreviewer]

Best avoid my channel then. Bye.

[@PaulJay-g2x]

I would urge everyone to Google AB and the kind of person is behind these videos. Check out his disgusting behaviour towards the comedian Paul Chowdhry.

[@Elontusk01]

It’s clearly not him he doesn’t have the distinct voice at all

[@Ice-tc5vn]

​@@Elontusk01 AB mentioned he encountered Chowdhry once and now he's backtracking

[@robertreed4337]

You would think that AB would treat the police with a bit more respect, he's obviously come to this country fleeing persecution or for a better life either way he needs to understand that our police are far better than most of the other forces I have encountered in my 40 years of working around the world

[@robertreed4337]

@@christopherwhittaker2620 Christopher I suggest you re-run the video the constables first words were "Hi can I have a word PLEASE" followed by another "Hi" when he gets closer at all times he was polite and explained himself

[@davidthomson2686]

Our British police are ALL corrupt even if they acting like your friend they are just choking to find something on u so to me AB is the best let him do his legal activities 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿😎

[@davidthomson2686]

AB only gives back to them what they do to him if they approach him they should be more polite and not just try the im going to abuse my powers on you as I don’t like you filming in public 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿😎

[@robertreed4337]

@@davidthomson2686 Such a sweeping statement, I could say all males with the initials DT are not very bright, but I would be wrong. David you need to work overseas for a short period of time and you'll appreciate the majority are decent hard working men and women. Very different from some of the forces I have encountered. It may be me who's an old cynic now in my 0's but I don't see him helping the police in any way in the clips I have seen. He's just a loud mouthed prat who one day will meet his match

[@happyguy201]

​@@robertreed4337The police need to respect the public first. Did you see the video of a woman wrongly arrested Infront of her little son because they thought she didn't pay her bus fare but she did? Her kid was crying badly. Why should we respect police. Governments should fear the people. People shouldn't fear the governments.

[@sallyowen6320]

Love your channel/content but PLEASE STOP your habit of stopping an starting the video every 2secs to give your opinion/comments.Its very irritating and will probably lose you views in the long run cos im sure theres others that share my opinion.maybe give your comment at the end of the clip.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@johnners911 Rattled.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@sallyowen6320 I don't stop the footage every two seconds. I do interrupt the footage to give an opinion or offer an explanation. That's an important part of the channel and I won't be changing it. Sorry.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@johnners911 Rattled.

[@sallyowen6320]

@@streetvideoreviewer ok then plz don't interrupt the footage every two minutes cos it's proper annoying, btw I can't speak for everyone but I'm intelligent enough to watch your clips and know what's going on without someone stop/starting them and telling me whats just happened in the last two minutes of footage.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@sallyowen6320 Well, sorry but it looks like you'll have to watch something else. I'm not changing the way I do this.

[@setvenharis]

What gets me is why do people love and defend these Auditors and hate the Police so much? Do they want to live in a country where police don’t exist and people can do what they want with impunity? If a stranger videos people in their living room through the window, would you not be disturbed and want to know why he’s videoing you through the window from the pavement outside? I think auditing should be licensed and monitored for the protection of auditors, police (including security) and general public.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

I don't believe it should be licensed or regulated in any way, as that implies it should be considered legal. It's not a legal activity.

[@TheBirdLovingMan]

@@streetvideoreviewer Most Auditors try to catch the bad apples from the good apples and help educate everyone about their photography rights in public...

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@TheBirdLovingMan 'Most auditors'? You mean, some auditors don't? In the process of 'educating' the public about photography rights, do you think it is important to know the law before embarking on such an exercise?

[@TheBirdLovingMan]

I just think AB and The Laughing Auditor, and most auditors on KZbin main purpose is to film the police in a public because they are educating the public and the police that it's not a crime or against the law to film the police from public...

[@liahoslawas9635]

I agree with you but he has become so addicted to doing this and has made steady streams of money by winding people up especially the POLICE I don't believe he would stop. Still he will realise one day when he handed down a custodial sentence. Hope his kids aren't encourage to take up Dad's profession? Excelsior! 🤡

[@frantheman4333]

Good analysis well done he is a bad guy

[@timduck8506]

Hmm so anyone wearing a burka could be considered suspicious or if they are wearing a face mask? dose this include people with a walking stick should be considered suspicious of going to commit a crime against a person or property?

[@streetvideoreviewer]

Don't be silly. It's a matter of context and behaviour.

[@timduck8506]

@@streetvideoreviewer AR from personal history of my youth, I was stopped 3-5 times aweek for a stop and search or account just for being the wrong type person for the area and for the people I talked to, it also even ended up with me being put in the back of the car and driven about whilst being questioned and asked if I had anything to tell them. This ended up causing me a lot problems on the street with locals. Before all this It would not of crossed my mind to break the law but after this going on for a while and getting into fight's with the local's and having my bedsit fire bombed over this I end up thinking well if I'm going to treated like a low life I mite as well get something out of it.I know not all coppers are bad apples but a lot of them do not have a clue and just bully their way.

[@cacadores3955]

Why shouldn't he film public servants? It's essential we can do it. Are you a police shill?

[@streetvideoreviewer]

Nobody objects to filming people, whether policemen, public sector workers or private sector workers. You're missing the point.

[@cacadores3955]

@@streetvideoreviewer What is the point?

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@cacadores3955 Have you watched my content?

[@Ice-tc5vn]

​@@cacadores3955 So if someone was filming you or your house and refuse to answer your questions, you gonna invite him in for tea & biscuits?

[@jordanmortimer7990]

Bro its not that deep. Im sure your views might change if you need the police.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

Do you think I live in a bubble?

[@martinda7446]

I think using someone elses content is disgusting. Go make your own This is NOT fair use.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

I think that people who go round hassling and pestering others - often committing offences and civil wrongs in the process - should not complain about having their behaviour highlighted on KZbin, so that their supporters can be educated about how the law regards such actions. If Auditing Britain and others would stop pretending that what they do is lawful and intended to defend civil liberties, I would not have to make these videos. I also think that harassing innocent people on the street, while simulating hostile reconnaissance and pretending to be a photographer, thereby intentionally and on purpose wasting the time of the police, is foul and dangerous behaviour. Why haven't the police done anything? Where is the law? See, I can do it too.

[@martinda7446]

You know that raspberry sound?.... Subtleties lost on this guy... In fact, forget the subtleties, its the bigger picture.. Anyhow officer, I didn't bother reading that.@@streetvideoreviewer

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@martinda7446 I'm not an officer. Which subtly of yours am I missing? I don't detect any in your posts. Here's a nuance for you: I don't even like the police. However, I am not going to take the side of a trouble-causing idiot. How would you look on me if I deliberately started acting suspiciously outside police stations just to draw the attention of officers, so that I could upload highly edited videos designed to make them look stupid? Does this sound like a responsible activity to you? Is this what photographers get up to? I'm an amateur photographer and have never felt the need to behave in such a manner. What about the people who have to wait longer for the police to attend their emergencies and other urgent situations because some twonk wants provocative content for his KZbin channel? What about all the people who died or suffered grievous injuries in the Manchester Arena attacks because security at the Arena did not confront a terrorist who had been carrying out hostile reconnaissance beforehand? What do you think could happen if the police develop an inhibition about approaching photographers and others acting suspiciously for fear of being made to look foolish on mass social media, with all the implications for their jobs, careers and mental well-being? I expect your reply to this, if there is one, will be more passive-aggressive sneering.

[@sprintlifecamp]

Here for AB 👍🏼

[@gav2759]

But the second bearded constable has surely undermined your assertions, by his pragmatic and non confrontational approach. Undermining also any notion that a sec. 43 search is "justifiable".

[@streetvideoreviewer]

Please read the pinned comment at the top.

[@gav2759]

@@streetvideoreviewer Indeed, and hook line and sinker, would be the operative phrase.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@gav2759 You're missing the point. The police have no option but to respond. He is wasting police time on purpose.

[@gav2759]

@@streetvideoreviewer On the contrary. (as you might expect me to say) It is how they respond that is the crux of the matter. With all due respect and I do have enormous respect for the work that police do on our behalf, not all police officers are equal and demonstrating where they fall down is a public service too. It might not be the "auditor's" primary objective, but it is nevertheless instructive for us to witness how widely standards do vary. I was formerly part of the "let them get on with their jobs" constituency, I was and still am, pathologically a follower of laws and my path and that of the police never crossed. That is until the day they did and I was shaken out of my naivety by the realisation that they're not all George Dixon. "Wasting police time"? Well I do see see quite a bit of that on these videos, when the 999 service is abused. I have yet to see a responding officer show the least concern about it. BTW please feel free "to miss my point" at your leisure.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@gav2759 I can't read all that. Let me ask you: Imagine you're a police officer. You see a man wandering around the back of the police station, filming the rear car park, looking inside cars and so on. What do you do?

[@peterhughes7868]

Your not making sense

[@streetvideoreviewer]

It's you're, not your. Try to get your English usage right before telling me I'm not making sense. It will make you seem more convincing.

[@DinoPrice]

Good job ab

[@bflat1784]

Omg ure awesome I can’t wait to see more

[@dansmith5151]

U EE,JIT !!!

[@davidmonk5918]

You are a Top Man 👍

[@brendanwalsh7432]

Auditers are liers

[@stealthybushcraft4545]

It's spelt Auditors and Liar's

[@paulmcallister8948]

Loving your work mate. But why did you cut the part out where the bearded copper totally undermined his colleagues by becoming star struck telling all his colleagues, "that's AB! don’t you know AB?!" from the original video. at least you mentioned it in your disection, but it would have been better if you hadn't of cut it out! 🤔🧐

[@streetvideoreviewer]

If it's not there, that's because I can't include everything. The videos are long enough as it is.