Police auditors

PulseSafc said:
I'm not saying it isn't lawful. It's suspicious and was rightfully questioned by officers, and he was rightfully asked for his details, the fact his behaviour was suspicious and the fact he refused to explain his reasons for doing it and give his details also meant it was right for him to be arrested for failing to provide those.

It also isn't about sensitive information being in public view from the office. It's about his behaviour at a time when the public terrorist threat level is at severe, the terrorist threat level against the police is at substantial and we've got here an individual who is effectively casing a police station, filming the building, it's officers and through windows and vehicles, without providing a suitable explanation for doing so.

It's not under PACE no.

Based on his behaviour they can detain him under Section 43 of the Terrorist Act as a person whom they reasonably suspects to be a terrorist, to discover whether he has in his possession anything which may constitute evidence that he is a terrorist.

Further they can request his details under Section 50 of the Police Reform Act 2002 for a person who has or is acting in an anti-social manner. Anti-social manner is defined as per the Anti-Social, Crime and Behaviour Act 2014 as someone whose conduct has caused, or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any persons. I would argue filming the entirety of a police building, through windows and police vehicles, when the terrorist threat level is at severe would cause alarm or distress to any persons and therefore, him refusing to provide him details is enough to lawfully arrest him.

Can you tell, it's not been quite as long for me;)

​

Click to expand...

This post is the whole reason why the audits get done in the first place because you're talking absolute shite. Don't have to give your name under Section 43. Section 50, how is filming from public deemed anti-social?
 


AC-OTM said:
This post is the whole reason why the audits get done in the first place because you're talking absolute shite. Don't have to give your name under Section 43. Section 50, how is filming from public deemed anti-social?
Click to expand...
How am I talking shite? I never said you had to provide your name under Section 43. I said he was being detained under it which is correct.

Filming every aspect of a police station, through its windows, it's vehicles, front and back could cause distress based on the fact the terrorist threat is at severe and the police are a credible and very real point of attack. It's suspicious behaviour and absolutely right to be questioned about it
 
PulseSafc said:
I know you don't have to provide your details under Section 43. You do under section 50 of the Police Reform Act.

Doesn't matter what your sensibilities are; 'imagine being that scared'. His behaviour was suspicious, and could reasonably cause distress to any person, therefore he had an obligation in law to provide his details. Don't and you're locked up.

Someone random comes and films my house, front and back, pokes his camera phone through the windows of my house and car I'm calling the police. I'm sure it's distressing enough to think this random might be casing my place to come back to do it over in the night.

When the terrorist threat is severe, and the police service is a credible and real point of attack, and someone decides to film a police station front and back, film through windows and vehicles, that could distress OR alarm anyone.

Provide your details and a reason or you're getting locked up and you can provide your reason under caution in interview.
Click to expand...
And filming in public isn’t a good enough reason to use pace to make you hand over your details. Didn’t take long for the filming your house argument to come. He isn’t filming your house, he’s filming a public building in broad daylight. Even the met released a memo to all police officers about public filming and the terrorism act but police are still abusing it

 
Just because video technology is now cheap, it doesn't give anyone a licence to be an arsehole.

And these "audit" types are arseholes.

One of my extended family watches this shit, including one where the "auditor" was making a C**t of himself at a covid vaccination centre.

They need straightening out.
 
End of the day whether theyre weirdos dossers whatever it doesn't matter.

Police have a responsibility to do their job properly.

If you want to whinge about something whinge about the police incompetence wasting tax payers money in compensation.
 
PulseSafc said:
How am I talking shite? I never said you had to provide your name under Section 43. I said he was being detained under it which is correct.

Filming every aspect of a police station, through its windows, it's vehicles, front and back could cause distress based on the fact the terrorist threat is at severe and the police are a credible and very real point of attack. It's suspicious behaviour and absolutely right to be questioned about it
Click to expand...

So doing something legal and still getting detained is OK?
Mental.
 
Aldyyyy said:
And filming in public isn’t a good enough reason to use pace to make you hand over your details. Didn’t take long for the filming your house argument to come. He isn’t filming your house, he’s filming a public building in broad daylight. Even the met released a memo to all police officers about public filming and the terrorism act but police are still abusing it

Click to expand...
Should be asked for his professional details, to confirm he is infact an auditor.

Probably follow up with and audit of his tax affairs following his YouTube success.

Is this car insured for business use sir?
 
Last edited:
Chunk Love Sloth said:
Seen a couple of these videos, they all seem like pricks, If someone was to rock up at my work and start filming everyone's coming and going and what cars are in the car park etc, I would expect them to get a clout.

At the end of the day whether you are a public servant or a member of the public you have a right to a certain level of privacy and if he is filming all the comings and going at a police station they could be seen as breaching that human right.
Click to expand...

They seem shocked when they're told that police staff and officers are finding it harassing and distressing. Seem to forget, rather than terrorism, officers are dealing with OCGs on a daily basis and privacy = safety
Aldyyyy said:
You don’t need to provide your details under section 43 and since he was doing nothing illegal he didn’t have to provide his details for any other reason. Imagine being that scared of someone filming a building.
Click to expand...

If they suspect him of comitting an arrestable offence he has to provide his details as when he doesnt it provides the officer with the necessity for arrest.
Something as minor as dotal or no seatbelt. If your not providing your name to issue a ticket and issue a out of court disposal sadly that gives me the necessity to arrest you in order to determine name and address
 
Last edited:
The Krankie Returns said:
They can ask for ID and name if they want. They’re not doing anything wrong by requesting it. It’s been a long time for me but they may have a power under other acts to ask for details and to search but not, I don’t think under PACE 1984.
Where I am now I can legally demand a persons identifying particulars (generally name, address, DOB) if I reasonably suspect them to have committed an offence or be a witness to one and I can detain them for as long as necessary to do it.
Click to expand...
That has always been the case. But people need to be committing crimes or witnessing them.
 
BlackOps said:
Its nonsense until it happens. Nonsense when someone finds where a cops living because theyve watched them in the car park getting into their car. Terrorist threats have been made against police officers.
Click to expand...

So anyone recording is a terrorist? If you're that bothered about getting into your car and having it recorded, get the bus? How many terrorists have you caught using Section 43 btw?
 
Last edited:
AC-OTM said:
So anyone recording is a terrorist? If you're that bothered about getting into your car and having it recorded, get the bus? How many terrorists have you caught using Section 43 btw?
Click to expand...
Thats not the point. You shouldn't be at risk doing your job especially by morons like that.
 
BlackOps said:
Its nonsense until it happens. Nonsense when someone finds where a cops living because theyve watched them in the car park getting into their car. Terrorist threats have been made against police officers.
Click to expand...

Wow . What a pile of absolute shite.
How can someone find out were a copper lives if they watch them in a car park ? 🤣🤣🤣
 

Back
Top