"Auditors" Police, security guards etc

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
Hey, you're the one asserting that citizen journalists are trying to overwhelm the forces of law and order with YouTube videos, then windmilling at everyone who disagrees with you.
"Citizen journalists"? Oh, I think you mean cnuts with cameras...
 
Well, that would be the narcisistic way of viewing it
It seems some people will quite happily see others rights dismissed, but will scream blue murder if they feel they have been dealt with harshly.
Oh, the irony
 
And no doubt they will. That doesn't alter the fact that cnuts with cameras produce nothing positive, they waste the scarce policing resources in order to make dull repetitive videos which apparently appeal to those who wish the forces of law and order ill for whatever reason.

True, but if they are cünts not breaking the law there’s nothing that can be done. If there’s nothing that can be done why waste time doing nothing?
 
"Citizen journalists"? Oh, I think you mean cnuts with cameras...

If I'd meant that, I'd have written it.

It's good to know you're running out of ideas though. You could probably leave the thread right now and no-one would notice you'd left.

I rather suspect you'll make the usual rookie error.
 
Last edited:
Again I am forced to ask exactly who is wasting police resources? the cnuts with cameras or the cnuts in the black and white uniform who overreact to the presence of an odd bloke with a camera?

Terrorist clearly undertaking a hostile recce:

b4c261aa0f61edb98967830c1cdaa1a4.jpg



Nothing to see here:

woman-pram-16012079.jpg
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
If I'd meant that, I'd have written it.

It's good to know you're running out of ideas though. You could probably leave the thread right now and no-one would notice you'd left.

I rather suspect you'll make the usual rookie error.
If you consider that self righteous no-mark "AB" and his ilk to be "citizen journalists" rather than the selfish, attention seeking trouble makers that they are, then there's really very little hope for you.
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
True, but if they are cünts not breaking the law there’s nothing that can be done. If there’s nothing that can be done why waste time doing nothing?
Again I am forced to ask exactly who is wasting police resources? the cnuts with cameras or the cnuts in the black and white uniform who overreact to the presence of an odd bloke with a camera?
Post #599 refers to both your questions.

Edit to add relevant quotes:

Unfortunately if the Police find some prat filming a potential target (police station, hospital, army camp etc) then they need to question the reason for his actions. This is the hook allowing the cnut with a camera to confect a conflict by refusing to cooperate and "asserting his rights", when the whole reason for him doing so is to enable filming of that conflict.

*Snip*

These "Auditors" are of exactly the same ilk: using their rights to gum up the works and make themselves the centre of a large mess, in exactly the same manner as the Insulate Britain bellends. It's just a matter of scale; they're all attention seeking, trouble making scum, who would benefit from a damn good ignoring. Sadly, they're just clever enough to make themselves impossible to ignore.

I don't know what the answer is, but I know it isn't to legitimise these attention seeking parasites, by pretending they have a point..
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately if the Police find some prat filming a potential target (police station, hospital, army camp etc) then they need to question the reason for his actions. This is the hook allowing the cnut with a camera to confect a conflict by refusing to cooperate and "asserting his rights", when the whole reason for him doing so is to enable filming of that conflict.

I don't know what the answer is, but I know it isn't to legitimise these attention seeking parasites, by pretending they have a point..

No, they really don't.

"Police officers have the power to stop and search anyone who they reasonably suspect to be a terrorist under Section 43 of the Terrorism Act."

Using a camera is not evidence of terrorist activity.
Refusing to volunteer unnecessary information is not evidence of terrorist activity.
Being annoying is not evidence of terrorist activity.

It matters not whether or not you feel they have a point; showing up police and jumped-up council staff as officious, overbearing nincompoops by legal means is a legitimate protest against police and civil agencies investing themselves with powers and authority that they do not legally possess.
 
I didn't know there was this term 'auditors' flying about. We normally just call them '*********'.

I've seen it all in my time - good cop, bad cop, lazy cop, sexy cop, rude cop, stupid cop, brave cop, cowardly cop, etc, etc.... At the end of the day, just because someone is in the police, doesn't mean they're the best of the best. It means they passed an entrance interview and exam just like everyone else, and just like any other big organisation that needs to keep as close to 100% manning as possible with high turnover, sometimes the bar was set high, sometimes it was set low.

If people have an issue with how police officers conduct themselves, as in, behave as a person, then they need to take the issue up with the Force in question and more specifically, their Director of HR & Recruiting, because it will be them who set the bar low, hence how today you're dealing with stupid cop / lazy cop / rude cop rather than one of the good ones.

As I've said before, there are shit nurses and doctors, shit firemen and paramedics. Some Drs and nurses have gone on killing sprees, some firemen have raped people (9yrs old apparently - I just did a quick search in Google to confirm that!).

The entire system of recruitment is broken in most of these organisations. They should have the absolute best of the best, with core values absolutely baked into their being. Unfortunately, we don't live on Planet Perfect. We live on Planet Reality, which says that humans can and will be *********.

Back on the subject of these irritating people that try to get in your way, I've encountered them before and it's a ******* right pain in the arse. Mainly, because you will know you are empowered by the law to do something, but can you remember it? Can you ****! If anyone says, "Well you should", go count the number of laws that exist and then come back to me to tell me you could memorise them all. Either way, it's irrelevant, as you don't need to be able to rhyme off the law to use it, just as long as you know it's there. It's not ignorance of the law, it's the simple sheer inability to remember hundreds of laws that most humans have. You should of course know the 'busy' ones, i.e the high tariff laws that you do a regular trade in, which in Scotland are for example your S.38s, MDA ones (5(2) and S.23), Common Law ones and your basic RTC stuff if you need to do a stop on a vehicle, plus your search legislation.

In that sense, I get why people want to test the police on this stuff. In the ideal scenario, it's because they want to be reassured that they know how to do their job right. That's fine, come watch us on a Saturday night at tipping out time as we put ourselves into the middle of a crowd to stop a fight or pursue someone down back lanes whilst other cops try to deal with the female behind the wheelie bin who's just been raped. You'll see we know how, in general, to do our jobs.

Unfortunately, it's usually because they're running a YouTube channel with 100 subs and they want more attention that they do it. Otherwise, why film it? They can ask the same questions and would in all honesty probably get a better response - but we all know how videos can be manipulated and taken out of context.

Again though, if there are cops who can't answer those questions on legislation because they don't know them off by heart, take that general issue of up with the Force in question, not the cop. Once you're past your probation and confirmed in the rank, pretty much all your core policing training stops. The only time you'll get any new training in the law is when you stumble across something you don't know, and have to figure it out. More than once I've had the huddled conflab with my neighbour, goes something like this:

"Can you remember the section for this?"
"Uhm.. no, can you?"
"****... no.... he's definitely committing an offence though..."
"Hang on, I'll point the gaffer."
*Beeep.... Beep...*
"Go ahead..."
"Gaffer, we've got this guy, whistling on a Tuesday... What's the charge for that again?"
"Eh.... hang on..... (Muttered whispers with his neighbour)... No idea... Just do him for a breach and we'll sort it out later."
"Rgr that."

(The context to this is that there are some useful 'catch all' laws, but once you get back to the station, you can look into it and go, 'Aaah, S.19234.a(b)s29 for whistling on a Tuesday, right, I'll change the charge' - something you're allowed to do by the way, as long as the original arrest was also accurate. i.e I can't arrest you for an assault for whistling on a Tuesday, but I could arrest you for a breach as it was causing a disturbance to the peace, but then change it to the more specific bit of legislation.)

Point is, it's a pretty difficult ******* job to do. So whilst I and my colleagues might not always know the exact section you need to get charged under, we do know we're right to stop you / arrest you. That's a big difference between doing that and just being Lord Cuntington of Cuntsworth who treats the public like shit because he's got a stick and a Warrant card.

Swinging back on topic to these people with cameras. I have no issues with being filmed. If I'm dealing with an incident, fine, as long as you're not in my operational space. As soon as you step into my operational space, I'll ask you, nicely, not as a cop but as a bloke to step back and give me some space. If you don't, then I'll warn you once, as a cop, to step back and cease interfering with me in the execution of my duties. If you don't, then you're going to be arrested, either by me or another resource that's either there, or that I'd call for to assist. Your phone would be seized as evidence of the offence of interference and you'd get it back in about a year once the case has ran (or longer, as is usual).

If you want to just harass me in the street and film me whilst I'm on patrol, I'll simply tell you that I'm on patrol and I am unable to answer your questions. I'm not going to feed them troll food. There's nothing that says I have to engage anyway. Again, if you refuse to cease, then it'll go the same way as above, because you're interfering with my patrol and thus my duties.

Ultimately, I'll use my chat as much as possible, to try and get you to stop, but these people need to remember that every minute they spend giving a cop grief for Likes, is time that cop isn't doing their job.

The simple fact of that is that when someone needs the police, they might not be there for them because they're dealing with one of these fuckwits.

The big take away from all of this though is that regardless of the type of cop you get - lazy, stupid, brave, etc, or how well they know their legislation, or how well they perform in front of a camera when they get ambushed by YouTube *******, the absolute vast majority of them will, when push comes to shove, put themselves in harms way to protect that very same YouTube ****** when they're faced with harm.

As part of my role, I have training which lets me engage with colleagues that have experienced traumatic situations. I can tell you there are plenty of cops out there living with nightmare fuel in their heads, but they still crack on every day to keep people safe.

On the light side of being a video dafty, this one never gets old:


Sometimes that good cop, bad cop, lazy cop, sexy cop, rude cop etc can be all the same person, just depends on what sort of day they're having.
 

Latest Threads

Top