“Auditors” - a simple poll of the membership.

Considering the practice of “auditing” official locations - Police, Military, Prisons etc - are you:

  • Comfortable with it

  • Not comfortable with it


Results are only viewable after voting.
As the title says; I am curious as to whether there is a significant body of thought one way or the other.

For clarity, I am asking about those that take and publish video of ”official” locations - Police stations, Military sites etc, and of their interactions with staff at those locations.

It is deliberately a binary poll, and asked in a very bland way. I don’t have a hidden agenda, there’s no trick question, nor right or wrong answer, I am merely interested in whether there is a majority view one way or the other. I’m also not asking whether you view it as legal/illegal, moral/immoral, responsible/irresponsible behaviour. While those might form the basis of one member’s view, it might be different for the next member’s view, hence I ask merely whether one is comfortable with the practice.

Cheers.
 

A.N.Other

War Hero
I voted no. I'm not against auditing at official sites or in general. It's just that the mong auditors gaining views on YouTube make it more difficult for rational and reasonable auditors. Their drama and hysteria make a serious subject a joke.

Security people and members of the public should understand the law which allows public photography. When AB and his ilk "audit" its all about them, they become the problem/focus of attention and the serious message is lost.
 

Joshua Slocum

LE
Book Reviewer
I voted no. I'm not against auditing at official sites or in general. It's just that the mong auditors gaining views on YouTube make it more difficult for rational and reasonable auditors. Their drama and hysteria make a serious subject a joke.

Security people and members of the public should understand the law which allows public photography. When AB and his ilk "audit" its all about them, they become the problem/focus of attention and the serious message is lost.
Also they are usually idiots of the first order
 
I voted no. I'm not against auditing at official sites or in general. It's just that the mong auditors gaining views on YouTube make it more difficult for rational and reasonable auditors. Their drama and hysteria make a serious subject a joke.

Security people and members of the public should understand the law which allows public photography. When AB and his ilk "audit" its all about them, they become the problem/focus of attention and the serious message is lost.

I’m playing the role of the person dishing out the “I voted” stickers :)

So, thank you for voting!

Everybody that votes/comments gets a ”like” for their participation, not necessarily because I personally agree with everybody’s point of view. Democracy is a wonderful thing. At times :)
 
As the title says; I am curious as to whether there is a significant body of thought one way or the other.

For clarity, I am asking about those that take and publish video of ”official” locations - Police stations, Military sites etc, and of their interactions with staff at those locations.

It is deliberately a binary poll, and asked in a very bland way. I don’t have a hidden agenda, there’s no trick question, nor right or wrong answer, I am merely interested in whether there is a majority view one way or the other. I’m also not asking whether you view it as legal/illegal, moral/immoral, responsible/irresponsible behaviour. While those might form the basis of one member’s view, it might be different for the next member’s view, hence I ask merely whether one is comfortable with the practice.

Cheers.

To be fair I wouldn't say 'comfortable' as these Auditors are absolutely an unwelcome nuisance - but do I think 'auditing' should be banned? No way.
 
Not comfortable - it would be a thorough thoroughgoing nuisance as Officer of the Day - but so are many things that aren't banned! Like ratings...
 
Hence why I asked the question in a deliberately open/bland way - it comes down to “yes or no” However one cuts it, though.

1636565597456.png
 

Arte_et_Marte

ADC
Moderator
I voted not comfortable. I'd go one stage further and get folk to stop calling the wind up merchants (because that's all they are) 'auditors.' They are auditing nothing.

As an aside. Thread shouldn't be in CA though.
 

endure

GCM
I voted yes because, although most of the 'auditors' are mongs/doing it for personal gain they perform a useful function in making some of the 'because I said so' crowd think again.
 
I voted yes simply because these installations are in view of the public anyway so not really a big deal.

Step over the demarcation line however and intruders must be politely invited to step back over the line ONCE
in the event of non-compliance "say hello to 'woody' asshole"
1636566164984.png
 
I voted not comfortable. I'd go one stage further and get folk to stop calling the wind up merchants (because that's all they are) 'auditors.' They are auditing nothing.

As an aside. Thread shouldn't be in CA though.

I put it in here because I thought it was topical. Please feel free to move it to another (at least semi-) serious forum though.
 
Not comfortable, but I accept that they (mostly) are acting legally.

It’s for others to identify any threat and act appropriately by changing the law.
 

Troy

LE
Typically, they tend to be low-lifes. Low-lifes trying to bring someone down a bit closer to their level. Typical of the chav mentality of; "if they're not so good, then I'm not so bad.."

If they can get a response from someone in uniform that shows them not at their best, then they'll use that to claim that the response was usual. Never mind that the person has an exemplary record of good performance. Maybe has gone above and beyond what's expected of them. And is probably a far better citizen that they will ever be... Nope, that won't count for anything.

Next thing, their followers are backing them up with calls for sackings etc.

Quite seriously, I hope these "auditors" come a cropper somehow. They deserve some sort of Karma, natural justice, type of retribution.

We've already had the prick Matthew Ingram of Henlow join this very forum and try to justify his "hobby". I don't want to repeat what's already in another thread, you can find and read all that for yourselves.

Here's another example of these typical low-life "auditors". This one is a gyppo and makes no secret of it. I seriously doubt he could have ever passed selection to get one of these jobs that he like to film, so he tries to bring them down instead.

His name is Danny Ayres and calls him self a "New World Gypsy" whatever that is.. His name appears all over these auditor channels as he leaves comments of support for the ilk.
He has a criminal record for drug and alcohol fuelled violence, so he is known to the police.
Gypsy auditor uk
Email dannyayres27@gmail.com
[Log in to Facebook]
 
I'm uncomfortable with the hysterical overreactions that the practice produces.

Particularly in light of the bad law that usually follows such witch-hunts.
 

Ravers

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
I voted “not comfortable” for the simple reason that I think those gobby cnuts on YouTube are absolute bellends.
 
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

These auditors sit behind the lawfulness of what they do, but do nothing to further the rights of photography enthusiasts.

They are chancers who waste the time of people whose job is already difficult.
So its a 'not comfortable' from me.
 

Latest Threads

Top