Social Media Auditors - guidance video from the National Protective Security Authority

Let me know what you think of this. It's a guidance video on auditors issued last month by the National Protective Security Authority.
The video is the copyright of the National Protective Security Authority. No rights are asserted by Street Video Reviewer.
The source video from the National Protective Security Authority:
• Social Media Auditors
National Protective Security Authority KZbin Channel:
/ @npsa-uk
The Authority's webpage on social media auditors:
www.npsa.gov.uk/social-media-...

[@streetvideoreviewer]

HERE'S MY VIEW ON THIS VIDEO: I don't think this is a very good video. It does have useful information and good points are made, but as I have mentioned to a couple of people on here, and will repeat, I think it's been made by somebody who hasn't thought very deeply about the problem and probably has never worked in premises security because there's lots missing. I uploaded it here to see what everybody else thinks. I imagine those who like the video will tend to be supporters of auditors, whereas those who have a less favourable view of the video will be opposed to auditing.

[@papalegba6796]

Yes it's not very good at all, probably on purpose.

[@totallypixelated]

Not one of the auditors in the video is wearing tracky bottoms. Wholly unrealistic.

[@robatkinson8581]

Love this, a very good use of Mnemonics and a very easy to follow training

[@johnnypsycho9628]

As I'm guessing your about my vintage, might I suggest Darth Vader. Or a rougher looking one with Charlie

[@streetvideoreviewer]

"Marti....I am your father!" "Noooooooo.....!"

[@VictheSecret]

This guidance needs to include how to make KZbin privacy complaint to get the videos taken down and demonetised. Frauditors are using the images for commercial purposes which limits their freedom to 'film anything from public' without any repercussions.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

The guidance is for security purposes only. I don't think it's a very good video personally as it misses a lot of the issues that would face a security guard or other staff member. It's clearly been made by somebody who hasn't thought very deeply about it and probably has never worked in security. I uploaded it to see what people think about it.

[@BiggyD80s]

​@@samsmoot1 So you are saying it's good to have someone like marti blagboro to entertain the minority narcissistic underclass of the UK?

[@Rachel_M_]

Who on earth is the NPSA? never heard of them before

[@streetvideoreviewer]

It's essentially an advisory and technical agency for the security industry, especially those who protect key infrastructure, both public and private. It does look to me like a Potemkin body.

[@VictheSecret]

It used to be known as CPNI - Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure - and is part of the Security Service, MI5.

[@VictheSecret]

⁠@@streetvideoreviewerAnything but a Potemkin body. It's the key agency for the protection of national infrastructure and works closely with police and other law enforcement agencies.

[@Rachel_M_]

@@VictheSecret thanks 👍 . I hate it when I miss a departmental rebrand

[@exsubmariner]

​@@streetvideoreviewer I'd have preferred it if you had narrated the video a few choice words wouldn't have gone a miss instead of this children's hour monotone !!

[@pauls3075]

Here's an even simpler solution ... Don't walk OUT of your building to tell people on the street you don't like what they are doing. The self entitlement of some people is astounding.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

Except the people doing the filming are filming that building and often masked, and always without any reason for filming. If someone is filming your workplace or business, unless it's a civic building or tourist attraction, it's understandable that you would be curious and want to ask the individual what they're doing and why they are filming. Indeed, it's actually an expectation that staff do so, especially if they are security staff.

[@pauls3075]

@@samsmoot1 Ah I get it, the 'White Knights' being offended on behalf of the building. 😄

[@pauls3075]

@@streetvideoreviewer You clearly dont know the very basics of security. There are 7 principles the most important is "Observe and report". None of them include going off your property onto the street and engaging with random people. Also staff should report things to security staff and NOT deal with it themselves. You have displayed to the world your ignorance of the subject. Go and do some basic research before making ridiculous comments.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@pauls3075 I'm not ignorant of the subject. I think you're looking at it in a rather one-sided way and just want to pick an argument with me out of ego. Some staff will report, but I know from experience that in some companies staff are asked to challenge strange people milling around, and realistically they often will anyway, regardless of what guidelines tell them. You are also aware that some places don't have dedicated security? You also overlook that auditors do often go on to premises, they don't always just stand outside. Then you say that security staff should deal with it anyway, which means we're back at the same place. The police won't always respond, even to a report from security guards. All these points could be made of the video, which has obviously been made by somebody who has never had to personally deal with the problem and probably has never worked in security. Those things apply to me, too: I have never met an auditor or worked in the police or security, but I can easily imagine the problems that arise in reality, hence my comments and critique. It just takes a bit of imagination and a willingness to think outside the box rather than simply follow policies and neat little acronyms written and thought up by somebody else who has probably never ventured outside an office. If somebody, especially in a mask, is stood outside your premises filming those premises, it creates a bit of dilemma. Auditors know this. That's why auditing channels still exist. They are counting on the uncertainty and a sense of isolation in the situation, and the normal human reactions that result. To be fair to the NPSA and whoever made the video and wrote the supporting the material, any behavioural model has to be simplified, but the problem here is that the model that the NPSA offer doesn't account for all the important elements of a typical situation involving a social media "auditor". In other words, it's a flawed model. Your suggestion is that I don't know the basics of security because I reject the model, but the model is just a piece of paper invented by somebody in an office. My rejection of it doesn't mean I don't undersand it or don't understand security, it means I think it has shortcomings. I have never worked in security, and I have no wish to, but I would hope than anyone who does is going to take a similar view to mine and see the limitations in the model.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@samsmoot1 You're trying to be smart and missing the whole point. Put aside your ego and really think about it.

[@Sopdarity]

Thanks for the link.....hopefully the decent public will benefit from this video....the dark arts of auditors will always use harassment and intimidation from their dirty toolbox.....negative comments removed by these individuals on youtube show the real quality of their morale compass... .Please keep exposing their strange activity. many thanks

[@kreb666]

Off topic buttttt .. just watched Marty blockburrow doing community service 😂😂😂😂 enjoy your break SVR 📸😂

[@BiggyD80s]

Where can we watch these feast?

[@colinpenfold9890]

What do you think of this approach by NSW police dealing with this auditor. Trespass is criminal in NSW under the inclosed land act 1901. kzbin.info/www/bejne/nZeqe41nqMqWapYsi=3joCToGTzdFFwXCu

[@streetvideoreviewer]

I don't want trespass to be made criminal. I don't want to see any changes in the law. It's not needed. Existing laws could shut down auditing overnight. We don't need or want to further restrict people's civil liberties.

[@colinpenfold9890]

To fair having reflected on the issue I realised not the laws it’s the lack of prosecution. But auditors are looking for a confrontation and I think the video sums up how do deal with well. I mean I saw a BP visits video where the workers at a company didn’t engage with him and simply called the police. Latter You could hear the disappointment in old BPs voice.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@thoughtfulalbatros9683 You are referring to section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 and the offence of being found in an enclosed yard for an unlawful purpose. There is a bill going through Parliament to repeal it but at present it remains on the statute book and can be utilised by the police. Marti Blagborough has been arrested for it at least once.

[@streetvideoreviewer]

@@thoughtfulalbatros9683 I didn't fully answer your earlier question, as I was distracted. My view is that the section 4 offence is not a criminalisation of trespass. Trespass may form the ingredient of the offence in that it can be the unlawful act, but the aim of the offence is to catch someone found in an enclosed space who is obviously up to no good or making a nuisance of himself - a burglar intercepted before entry would be a classic example, but it could also include auditors. I think if section 4 were used in a trespass case in circumstances where there is no criminal intent or other indication of nuisance being caused or wrong-doing of some sort - for instance, somebody innocently stumbling into an enclosed space due to a misunderstanding - the defence would have an abuse of process argument as that would amount to criminalising a simple trespass. I think it's worth adding that aggravated trespass, too, is not a criminalisation of trespass. That would be thinking about it the wrong way round. It's an entirely separate mischief that requires intent to intimidate, disrupt or obstruct normal activity, the trespass itself only being one ingredient of the offence. You can't summons or charge someone for aggravated trespass simply for refusing to leave, for instance. There has to be proof of intent. The relevance of this point to our discussion is that there will be times when police officers or the CPS would like to summons/charge for the section 68 offence but realise they will struggle to prove it, but if the circumstances suit, they can resort to section 4 as a low threshold, catch-all offence that doesn't require proof of intent. That's why I'm a little surprised that Parliament seems to want to repeal section 4. Just like the section 5 public order offences, it's handy for dealing with troublesome people.

[@Beggars-Belief]

I’ve got your channel to alert me when a new video comes out and others and a lot of channels I don’t want the alert. I never get a alert from some including yours it’s so annoying

[@streetvideoreviewer]

I think KZbin does mess with people's accounts. I sometimes find comments go missing on here, etc.