'Auditors'

As drone pilot – who films proper organised material with a full license, and tries to improve my skills etc – I think these guys who like testing drone rules on unsuspecting workers and security guards are wasting everyone’s time.

They have small sub 250g drones , don’t need much in the way of formal qualifications and insurance – but like to exploit the fringes of CAA regs and ignorance of the general population.

It’s a total waste of time where no one gains. Their footage looks rubbish and often the police are called who don’t always no the rules either.

Maybe go and get a job where you’re commissioned if you want a challenge?

And actually they may be doing things legally but they’re not always flying safely.

Don't be silly, they're valiant freedom fighters ensuring that Taylor Wimpey and similar housebuilding companies don't take over the planet with their vast armies of minimum wage security personnel.

It's Pets at Home they really need to worry about.

Not for a minor offence and not if a police officer can deal with it. Somebody being a minor nuisance is not grounds for trying to make a citizen’s arrest.

I don't know much about it, but would have thought for example someone could perform (attempt!) a citizen's arrest if someone's nicking something off a shelf? But yes, I wouldn't have thought people would have much luck trying it on someone legally flying their drone even if they personally find it a nuisance.

Citizens arrests are not an easy thing to get right legally.

Most of these folk are not legal.  They may claim they are by roughly following the drone rules but they fall foul of other stuff.  Harrassment and behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace

They often are not following the CAA guidence either

Would be a silly thing to record footage of yourself doing anything that constitutes a crime and then post it online. Most of the videos I've watched they point out the CAA rules, and are very clued up on things like trespass, harassment, etc. But then all are not the same and I can imagine there are some who are less interested in doing things in accordance with the law.

I have only seen a few minutes from a couple of the more visible folk and it is clear that what they are doing is borderline illegal and deliberately so - the whole point is to get a reaction - thats illegal behaviour.  winding folk up until they snap is not legal behaviour

Would be a silly thing to record footage of yourself doing anything that constitutes a crime and then post it online.

Have you ever wandered around YouTube?
https://www.youtube.com/c/StreetRacingChannel

(know not no!)

Also what will happen is the CAA so frequently change the rules - this new easier to fly <250gm category which is really great especially if you've got a mini 3 pro - will get altered because these time wasters are creating extra concerns.

The rules change constantly and being out of the EU even caused an about turn on drone markings.

The CAA do not need much of an excuse to add more layers of complexity.

Passing my GVC was fairly easy - but the online application process for the permissions is seriously horrendous.

The auditors go through none of this.

Less UAV operators will bother getting qualified at least to GVC standard. We will all lose out.

But then again YouTube is about this sort of stuff and is not going away.

Have you ever wandered around YouTube?

I'm not going to click the link, but i don't need to - the above sentence makes the fair point!

Passing my GVC was fairly easy – but the online application process for the permissions is seriously horrendous.

The auditors go through none of this.

Unfair to some of them that do. Even though I believe the CAA states that flyer and operator ID isn't required if drone is under 250g.

Some make a point of abiding by the rules, getting insurance (required I think if you're making money from footage which YT essentially is).

I have only seen a few minutes from a couple of the more visible folk and it is clear that what they are doing is borderline illegal and deliberately so – the whole point is to get a reaction – thats illegal behaviour.

Completely agree that if you make a beeline for someone with a sh1tty attitude, that's wrong. I watched one video where the person seemed angry from the start and his attitude towards everyone was similarly so.

However, I'll continue to try and provide a bit of balance in this thread by saying that in the majority of the videos I've watched, the attitude and winding up is initiated by the jobsworth who approaches the auditor, then gets schooled on the law, which creates a reaction because aforementioned jobsworth doesn't like realising they're wrong.

It's rare, but I've liked I think 3 of these auditor videos - 2 where the security/employee enquired as to what was going on in a polite manner, and the videos ended up as a promotion to the company and positive reflection on the employee involved. The other being one where the auditor noticed a company was letting loads of plastic pellets spill into the public drains, and did something about it (when the company was obviously not bothered).

Unfair to some of them that do. Even though I believe the CAA states that flyer and operator ID isn’t required if drone is under 250g.

You need an operator ID if it has a camera and sub 250.

So messy - the rules.

<p style="text-align: left;">Unfair to some of them that do. Even though I believe the CAA states that flyer and operator ID isn’t required if drone is under 250g.</p>

Well that's why ultimately they can do what they want. But I believe most have the bare minimum. (I've seen as much.)

Look it's hard enough to get a risk assessment sorted and check all the respective restrictions for a bigger drone on a commercial job. I would prefer my life made easier.

If they've gone to the trouble of getting qualified and doing decent drone work they're probably not going to spend time on YouTube winding people up.

But that's not my industry anyway so I don't really care unless they force rule changes.

You need an operator ID if it has a camera and sub 250.

So messy – the rules.

Doh! Yes my mistake. Operator ID kicks in with a camera.

Who audits the auditors that's what I want to know.

But that’s not my industry anyway so I don’t really care unless they force rule changes.

We're all coming at this from different positions/viewpoints. I had a bad experience when I was doing my design degree many years ago, out photographing a bit of street art from the pavement - chap (either working at or for the premises, I don't know) came up to me and told me I couldn't take a photo of the graffiti. I pointed out I was in public, and he got aggressive in my face.

Not the nicest experience, but guess he was having a bad day. Things like this make me quite happy to see auditors schooling other aggressive people on the law, and defending themselves.

@Jolsa please link us to a video of one of these auditor types going about their business without trying to get a rise out of someone, as you seem to be conflating them with people innocently taking legitimate photographs/videos getting told/forced not to by security guards 🤔

@Dickyboy Thing is if I do that I expect you/someone else will just argue the toss and see it differently i.e. they're not going about their business as they have no business photographing on an industrial estate, and by just existing there, they're winding the security up.

I'll repeat that I see it differently in most of the videos I've watched - they're there taking photos as they are entitled to do, going about their business of taking footage for their channel. If Security wants to ask a question, treat the member of the public with respect when doing so. Oh you're flying your 249g drone from a public place are you? Fair enough, just do me a favour and stay off site please.

Not, oi! What are you doing?! You can't fly a drone or take photos! Who are you? What's your name?! etc.

There are plenty of auditor videos on YT that follow the above, less professional approach by security.

Agreed to a point.

But there's a difference between going and getting some material you need/commissioned to get (like you did) and just turning up to some bland site because you want to challenge people for the sake of it - I don't know what it achieves.

It just feels like a waste - doing something for the sake of it. The whole point is to challenge but you're not really influencing the public good in my opinion.

You're simply using conflict to make money.

I'm not totally against it but  the CAA will be watching in the case of drone activity, and we could easily see a regression  perhaps on commercial premises.

Industrial sites are the most god awful places anyway.

in the majority of the videos I’ve watched, the attitude and winding up is initiated by the jobsworth who approaches the auditor, then gets schooled on the law, which creates a reaction because aforementioned jobsworth doesn’t like realising they’re wrong.

Selective editing.  These auditors are deliberately winding folkup because unless the wind someone up the vid is boring

I could edit conversations on here to make it look like I am being bullied or harrassed, someone else could edit it to make me look like a bully

Have had a run-in with an "Auditor" in my old job but I couldn't tell anyone on here about it (social media rules) but now I can!

A guy turned up filming around the perimeter of our secure compound, making notes of who was arriving, vans leaving and all sorts. We observed him on the CCTV for a few minutes before we started to report it to our National Control Centre who had direct access to the police. He was at the site as it was a nondescript, unlabelled building but was surrounded by an electric fence, anti-ram gates, massive girders behind the fence every 2 metres, a massive generator out front, a controlled access turnstile and heavily armoured roller shutters. He thought it was a secret holding site for all sorts of weird stuff, seized drugs, weapons, government secrets etc. You get the idea. Anyway, he had a very visible 'soiling of his pants live on air' moment when rather than a manager or security guard walking towards him a black BMW X5 pulled up behind him and two armed Police Officers got out, put him on the floor and made it very clear he wasn't getting up again without them saying so.

Unfortunately for him he was filming outside a G4S Secure Cash Processing Centre (now permanently closed so no issue with talking about it). Under government rules it is an offence to photograph, observe or broadcast the location of these and it carries a hefty prison sentence if found to be doing so. There was also the matter of three of them (for various companies) had been attacked within the last month, one successfully. Within hours his channel was deleted (a small one with IIRC under 200 subscribers) and his social media profiles were cleared of any reference to the site. He didn't get charged though as he had never actually said what the site was, which is pretty obvious if you looked at the vans out the back, they say G4S on them and have warning stickers about how the crews have no access to the locked safe that contains the money if they are attacked. Suffice to say though that he got a very nasty shock and I don't think he's done any "Auditing" since.

Until that time I had no idea these people existed, haven't seen any of the videos either and don't particularly want to. I've never had any issues when out photographing buildings etc but then I haven't done any of that with proper camera gear for well over a decade or more and was always careful about what I pictured anyway.

I’ve had these jokers outside my warehouse filming , best thing to do is ignore and be super nice with a hint of sarcasm as it stops them getting a reaction which is what they want ,the guy we had didn’t hang around long once we offered him a brew and couples of hours work handing balling  2 40ft containers from Felixstowe ,once the wagons arrived he was ignored 😂

But there’s a difference between going and getting some material you need/commissioned to get (like you did) and just turning up to some bland site because you want to challenge people for the sake of it – I don’t know what it achieves.

Actually I didn't need to get the photo of the graffiti nor was commissioned to do so. I did it cause I found it visually interesting. In fact I've taken photos of any 'rubbish' I find pleasing - might be barbed wire, road markings, telephone lines against a cloudy sky. I'm weird in that way just like people who take photos of that logistics firm, or trainspotters whatever.

On the 'challenge' aspect, of course some will be purely focussed on doing it for clicks. But most of the stuff I've watched, the challenge comes about not by the auditor wading in immediately winding someone up, but by Security having incorrect (or no) knowledge of what's happening, and immediately suspecting a member of the public as being a wrong un.

It just feels like a waste – doing something for the sake of it. The whole point is to challenge but you’re not really influencing the public good in my opinion.

I take a different view - I appreciate the highlighting of the law for other people taking photos from public areas. I like the schooling of jobsworths - they need it, and it's free training! I applaud the highlighting of environmental issues that companies hidden away on industrial estates think they can get away with.

the jobsworth who approaches the auditor, then gets schooled on the law

Jobsworth: security guard, facilities manager etc doing their job

Schooled on the law: yet to see this. Pseudo legal babble they've regurgitated from what they've heard someone tell them

I’ll repeat that I see it differently in most of the videos I’ve watched

Well yes because a)selective editing and b)selective posting.
The video on the previous page is a good example since even with the editing in their favour its fairly obvious they are trying to wind staff up.
I am in favour of photographers rights but they seem to be using it just as an excuse to bait some guards and get some youtube ad money.

Selective editing.  These auditors are deliberately winding folkup because unless the wind someone up the vid is boring

The ones I've watched, it's obvious that the meeting between auditor and other person is fresh and that they haven't already met. The camera is also continuously rolling and starts from approach to the site - encountering people can happen many minutes later.

Not saying that you're wrong, as I suspect some may edit to suit, but do try to keep an open mind and not tar all with the same brush. In that case, we're all evil cyclists who jump red lights and subsequently kill pensioners.

, it’s obvious that the meeting between auditor and other person is fresh and that they haven’t already met. The camera is also continuously rolling and starts from approach to the site – encountering people can happen many minutes later.

good selective editing then.  I'd bet my house that is not the first interaction that day

Unfortunately for him he was filming outside a G4S Secure Cash Processing Centre (now permanently closed so no issue with talking about it). Under government rules it is an offence to photograph, observe or broadcast the location of these and it carries a hefty prison sentence if found to be doing so

Which specific offence is that? Since whilst normally ignorance of law is no defence since it was "nondescript, unlabelled" it would make it hard to know if you were in breach of it.

the jobsworth who approaches the auditor, then gets schooled on the law

Jobsworth: security guard, facilities manager etc doing their job

The unprofessional security guards who can't recall their training don't deserve to be in the job. Some are great, but the ones that tend to get schooled are those that come out yelling in an aggressive manner telling a member of the public to stop doing something when they have no reason.

You'll be telling me next that nightclub security who knock someone out are just 'doing their job'. It's about professionalism.

Schooled on the law: yet to see this. Pseudo legal babble they’ve regurgitated from what they’ve heard someone tell them

No, just compliance with CAA, stuff like that. You can look it up.

Industrial sites are the most god awful places anyway.

Haha, I missed this @rone. I once took a trip to Avonmouth as I thought it would be a good place for some photos. But yeah, it was pretty dull. Can't recall anyone having a fit due to me taking some photos - they just ignored the sad lad!

Actually I didn’t need to get the photo of the graffiti nor was commissioned to do so. I did it cause I found it visually interesting

Same thing. (Maybe 'need' not the right word.) But your motivation is to get a good shot not to be there for a challenge.

All good on that.

<p style="text-align: center;">I take a different view – I appreciate the highlighting of the law for other people taking photos from public areas</p>

The law is there in black and white, I don't need some amateur's ambiguous version of it. That's risky. Only the remote actually pilot needs to know it.

Sometimes they're not making safe flights either despite their interpretation of the rules. And there is risky potential for blocking public access when launching a drone. They're not always in the right from what I've seen. They are marginally clued up but use other's ignorance really.

(Not aiming at you.)

For a fact some of them are not keeping VLOS when flying. Instant violation.

But who's going to challenge that?

My main point would be DJI and others have done a great job with these <250gm drones. And you now have much wider flying access that the CAA recognises.

I don't want that removing. It's much much easier to do small UAV tasks because of it.

(We've all been on boring industrial estates lol.)

Although I understand the point that Jolsa is making, all of the videos I've seen of these people are them trying to bait someone into having a reaction that can get them clicks.  There is no intention of education, it's all about running right up against the letter of the law to see what happens.  I don't expect every guard or watchman to be a perfect, well balanced, logical, perfectly eductated human being.  We aren't like that.  Most people have bits or their job they are great and and bits they can get by at.  I would probably go postal if some came to me and expected me to be perfect on some aspect of my job that rarely comes up

So, got zero time for these people and would rather they just ****ed right off

They're essentially internet trolls. If you let yourself get wound up by them, they've won.

They’re just really sad bastards. Pity them and the lack of anything remotely interesting in their lives. Calling yourself an auditor, which is bad enough as life ambitions go, and then proceeding to do no auditing is just, well, I don’t have words for it.

Also antagonising security guards is low. They earn **** all and some people on here expect them to be law students FFS.

Just watched that DJ Audits video. I saw an absolute prick in a balaclava assaulting what looks like a semi-retired old guy. I would if I had witnessed that, and I genuinely mean this, have beaten the shit out of him and his camera man and then broken the phone. Dicks!

They’re essentially internet trolls. If you let yourself get wound up by them, they’ve won.

Again, easy to say when you're not charged with the responsibility of keeping sites and people secure. And the most you have to worry about is locking your house or car.

Something we were briefed routinely on by our intelligence types was the tolerance towards auditors is something that has been noticed and could be exploited by individuals with far more nefarious intent.

Industrial sites are the most god awful places anyway.

Always welcome in the morning - there will be a tea and grub trailer in there somewhere.

Meanwhile this highly sensitive site provoked a house visit from what was then Lothian and Borders' finest.

https://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/143991

No, not the soulless automaton’s who work for the likes of KPMG, E&Y

When are your annual accounts due?

I used to be an automaton many years ago. Now I'm just soulless

Which specific offence is that? Since whilst normally ignorance of law is no defence since it was “nondescript, unlabelled” it would make it hard to know if you were in breach of it.

Comes under Anti-Terrorism laws as cash is technically the property of the Bank of England. If you were to unintentionally take a photo of a friend by a site then nothing will happen, it's when you take multiple photos and are taking an interest in the site that things escalate. It's one of those situations where the Law is very strict but in reality there's a decent amount of leeway, its the same legislation used around military installations. Don't know the exact law as we just phoned it through to our central control centre who did the rest.

Another one was a guy having a night time photoshoot of his modified car (think Max Power style) and he decided that our car park and floodlights were good for a moody shot or three against the grey wall. That garnered a police presence although just the normal police that time. Had his car thoroughly searched, think they found some low level drugs in it.

dissonance Full Member
I am in favour of photographers rights but they seem to be using it just as an excuse to bait some guards and get some youtube ad money.

Personally I expect that a decent number of these people believe they are performing a public service, speaking truth unto power, sticking it to the man, and/or educating the public and the world at large of their inalienable rights and how to stop people in authority from riding roughshod over them. Clearly though they have chosen a quixotic and at best debatably effective way to do this.

Unless they have channels with hundreds of thousands of subscribers or more, and substantial Patreon subscriptions, I doubt they're making much more than pocket money from their videos.

If they're so comfortable being on the right side of the law, why are they dressed like the bastard lovechild of roadman and a navy seal?

I once went out early one morning to take some deserted sunrise photos in the shadow of Torness.

The police appeared and asked what I was up to. I showed them my crap pictures. Then the rest of the memory card. At no point did I start filming them and try to provoke them. I went off to luck my wounds over a crap photo mission they went back to probably another uneventful shift.

Onto auditors, I'd accept they just got into these situations if there was no camera but the fact they keep getting into these situations leads me to believe they go looking for it.

I wonder how many pick the wrong business and find themselves pleading with less law abiding security types.

Onto the audited sites. I do believe there are a lot of piss poor security staff who got into the job to bully and intimidate and similar crap businesses breaking the law.

Taking the discussion elsewhere, when does auditing step into investigative journalism or activism (environmental or animal welfare) (I think I know the answer to this or my interpretation of it but thought I'd open it to the floor)

Taking the discussion elsewhere, when does auditing step into investigative journalism or activism

I don’t think it bears any resemblance to either of the two. Where are you seeing a correlation? Closest I can get is that all three groups have likely been attacked or abused at some point. I’ve much more sympathy for journalists and activists as they’re actually doing something of benefit

Onto auditors, I’d accept they just got into these situations if there was no camera but the fact they keep getting into these situations leads me to believe they go looking for it.

I wonder how many pick the wrong business and find themselves pleading with less law abiding security types

It was previously mentioned but this phenomenon started off in America where your stereotypical gun loving MAGA types would bleat on about "MY TAX DOLLARS" and go to film police stations, court houses, city halls etc, and without giving them too much credit, you can at least make the case for public interest in what goes on in those places.

Contrast that with the UK video posted earlier in the thread of the guys "auditing" a Taylor Wimpey compound. There is zero argument for a justified public interest in what's going on there. I'm fairly certain that's not where our lizard overlords aren't congregating en masse to shed their skins and plan world domination. Ergo, the only reason to audit sites like that is to deliberately stir up controversial encounters to drive views of their videos.

These people are absolute losers. The very worst types. Oddball weirdos that have failed at life and are desperate for some kind of validation. Impotent with rage at their lack of success and authority, this is their way to show "the man" that they mean business.

Contrast that with the UK video posted earlier in the thread of the guys “auditing” a Taylor Wimpey compound. There is zero argument for a justified public interest in what’s going on there. I’m fairly certain that’s not where our lizard overlords aren’t congregating en masse to shed their skins and plan world domination

Thats what they want you to think 🤔

Near to me a Taylor wimpy, Cala, Avent and Bellway. A meeting point of some of the lizards?

I’m fairly certain that’s not where our lizard overlords aren’t congregating en masse to shed their skins and plan world domination

Take the initials TW and put the W before the T and flip it on its side and you get ET.
They are openly admitting it!

😂😂😂

I think the whole Auditor thing crosses over with the whole ‘Sovereign Citizen’ Anti-vax/environmentalism/woke/etc/etc conspiracist grifters. People looking to create “controversy” and gain an income from monetising videos about very little.
The jackpot is when they manage to be objectively unpleasant while technically remaining just the right side of legal, and making some poor sod look/behave poorly.

It definitely follows on from the Westboro Baptist Church and their habit of turning up mob-handed outside abortion clinics, Vets (Veterans) help centres, anything to do with LGBTQ+, waving signs, harassing people, using loudspeakers, etc, in order to deliberately provoke a reaction, so they can go to court and claim damages. As virtually all of them have been through law school, they know exactly what buttons to push, and where not to cross lines. They’re repulsive parasites, but do get pushback…

There is a weird section of society who get there pants wedged up their bum crack when they see someone with a camera.
" you cant film me in public, its illegal"

Makes you wonder if they shout at the millions of static cctv that are everywhere in the UK, or they are oblivious to the smoked glass domes.

I guess there is a difference to a cctv static camera, to a manned tracking camera, to a scrufy man with a go pro pointing it in your face. But if its in public you can turn round, walk way and let them film the outside of a building whilst trying to provoke some hapless, bored dimwit into confrontation to generate click bait title for their yputube channel.

why are they dressed like the bastard lovechild of roadman and a navy seal?

That's also how I imagine some of the posters in the Ukraine thread dress...

There is a weird section of society who get there pants wedged up their bum crack when they see someone with a camera.
” you cant film me in public, its illegal”

Yep. A lot of these people appear to be in Security jobs from what I've witnessed. All that's required is to ignore the idiots and starve them of the oxygen they need, and let the members of the public go about their lawful activity. Just be professional and know the rules (Security guards who are public facing really should know the difference in the rules around photography from a public area and on a private site) and don't get aggressive and shouty when a member of the public offers to show you the rules on the CAA website on their phone.

With sound.. World needs more Grohl....

Yeah I've seen a few of these videos but not met any off them in real life fortunately.

"I'M A FREEMAN OF THE LAND I CAN DO WHAT I WANT STATE ABUSE POLICE BRUTALITY BLAH BLAH BLAH" types. Covid vaccine / 5G conspiracy nuts. Basically just a UK wing of the nutty US Libertarian / Far Right.

File under mental illness / extreme narcissism and get on with your day. These people thrive on attention and conflict. Best thing to do is ignore them or even better, give them a cheery hello.

 let the members of the public go about their lawful activity.

Which is fine, but if you're a min. wages security and some dickhead dressed all in black with a balaclava and sunglasses comes to your site and sticks a camera in your face, and refuses to stop filming after being asked to stop ( not illegal, sure, but basic curtesy?) then it's going to only go one way isn't it?

You'll have noticed, no doubt that this (very right wing) govt wants to make it a chef constable's sole discretion about what defines public protest. (which could be just one person) I'd imagine that if they keep doing this at places like cop shops, then the rights they say they're "protecting or upholding" will pretty rapidly get restricted for the rest of us.

Had one on a site I worked at ~30 years ago on a grad training scheme.

He used to come by about once a month and take photos and tell security that we were killing the planet (it was a chemical factory, so we probably were) and he would take photos to prove it and no one could stop him. You can't see much from outside, so no one cared much. Worst thing about him was that he'd see someone leaving and follow them, telling them how evil they were.

Anyway, one morning we turn up at work and there been a plausible terrorist threat to blow up a chemical factory. And we have thousands of gallons of highly massively explosive chemicals on site. So they've got police in doing enhanced security checks on new starters (me), no more day passes if you forget your security card, all contractors sent off site, extra security around the site. But not the normal guys, it's either armed police or military. Big blokes with guns, bullet proof vests and helmets.

Few days later this guy turns up with his camera. Starts ranting at the front gate.

Within about 90 second he's cuffed, face down on the floor, with large guys pointing machine guns at him. And then the area being cleared while his bag was inspected. From what I understand, he was held for a few days under whatever passed for the terrorism act in the early 90s until they could work out who he was and what he was doing and who he was connected to. Absolutely zero reporting of anything except "man arrested at chemical factory".

They eventually found the bomb at another factory.

Unsurprisingly, he didn't come back again.

The jackpot is when they manage to be objectively unpleasant while technically remaining just the right side of legal, and making some poor sod look/behave poorly.

Speaking as a former STW moderator, this approach is not uncommon. 😁

in the majority of the videos I’ve watched, the attitude and winding up is initiated by the jobsworth who approaches the auditor

Did you actually watch the video posted by Robocock? One of the closing comments by the filmers is how effective a headbutt is.

Who audits the auditors that’s what I want to know.

The guy in the blue hi-vis who got assaulted three separate times by the 'auditor' as soon as he rolled up with a camera.

We’re all coming at this from different positions/viewpoints.

I'm a (shit) amateur photographer, I know a bit about where you can and can't photograph, and about related jobsworths who don't. Several other posters likewise. I have little patience for "you can't... [do something I've just made up]"

But rolling up on private property videoing and wearing a goddamn balaclava is antagonistic at best. Why does he need to cover his face? "To help with editing" according to that video. Bollocks, that's not normal behaviour, he's a threat to the operational security of the site and potentially at risk of reasonable suspicion under the Terrorism Act.

I take the point here, and agree to an extent, but squealing about personal space and shoving people around when you've intentionally put yourself up in the grill of a security guard, when you're dressed as a burglar and your hero mate with a camera is egging you on to 'stand your ground,' he's lucky he didn't get tasered. Or perhaps unlucky, that'd probably have been quite lucrative for him.

That guard in the video showed remarkable restraint, I'm far from a fighter but the first time that little prick laid hands on me I'd have taken the opportunity to knock him into Thursday on the grounds of self defence.

This phenomenon started off in America

Aye.

I wish I could find it again, but a couple of years back I watched a video of some kid "exercising his second amendment rights" or some other such twaddle, walking through a city centre with an assault rifle on his back. The police were called and attended, they asked what he was doing, he replied "exercising my rights" and the police went "OK, sure, but you're scaring people, and if you want to swing by the station at the weekend we'll give you some training on how to use it."

Who audits the auditors that’s what I want to know.

The guy in the blue hi-vis

I think you miss my point.

Did you actually watch the video posted by Robocock?

Ya cheeky beggar!
Factually correct though.👍😁

I’m not sure what videos you’re talking about Cougar but what I saw looked like public road outside a site. If the idiot was inside of course the guard has the right to eject him using force if necessary. If outside, the guard can do jack shit and should know that if he’s been trained adequately.

So, i offered him to come inside and he could have a brew and one of the lads could give him a tour round if that’s his jam

That’s an inspired idea. No doubt he was upset that he didn’t get his confrontation.

Was he the guy with the drone?

Who audits the auditors that’s what I want to know.

Susan.

And you most definitely do not want to **** with her.

Sto Helit?

Who else?

Boyle? She doesn't look like someone out would be wise to pick a fight with

Wasn't my first thought but the threat of #analbumparty might put some of them back in their box. Or give them something else to do. Whatever.

I’m not sure what videos you’re talking about Cougar but what I saw looked like public road outside a site.

Eventually.

In any case, if you walked in my general direction and I shoved you repeatedly in the chest, would that be OK? Regardless of any rights of access it was the YouTuber who escalated from verbal to physical and does that not cross a line?

Regardless of any rights of access it was the YouTuber who escalated from verbal to physical and does that not cross a line?

As the police officer who dealt with the case explained when I was assaulted by a driver, you can shout and holler at each other as much as you like, but the first one to touch the other generally loses legally.

As the police officer who dealt with the case explained when I was assaulted by a driver, you can shout and holler at each other as much as you like, but the first one to touch the other generally loses legally.

Aye, at that point you've potentially commited common assault. Also if others witness you actions you could also be looking at affray.

In any case, if you walked in my general direction and I shoved you repeatedly in the chest, would that be OK? Regardless of any rights of access it was the YouTuber who escalated from verbal to physical and does that not cross a line?

If you march right up to me and get in my face then I'm fully entitled to push you away. Your behaviour in these circumstances is already an assault (which does not require contact, merely reasonable fear of it) and pushing you away is a reasonable way to maintain distance (NB in the vid the auditor was also backing away, but the guard was marching up aggressively and persistently).

Your behaviour in these circumstances is already an assault (which does not require contact, merely reasonable fear of it)

Hmm.

Perhaps the gentleman had a reasonable fear that the balaclava clad person in question posed a threat. You would have to be pretty naive or stupid to think a balaclava doesn't have the capacity to intimidate.

That's the key if I recall. As long as your response to a perceived threat is reasonable then you're on steady ground.

Certainly been the case on the few occasions I've had to throw hands with bellends.

Shame these sorts are out there, must have very shallow lives to need a rise from others to feel a purpose or point to their lives.

You could certainly try arguing that squirrelking, but the video that I watched a bit of showed balaclava man backing off and trying to keep a distance between them, the guard was the one confronting. You can make up whatever you want about something that may have happened prior of course.

The thing is captain, you appear to be the only one seeing this in that video. Pretty much everyone else sees an absolute dickhead, hiding his face and purposefully antagonising somebody who is just trying to do his job. What does this tell you?

I posted earlier, and I’m no internet warrior and am more than capable of looking after myself, I would’ve beaten the ever living shit out of the guy as soon as he touched me. Maybe make him think twice about being a dickhead.

What it tells me is that most people don't understand the law (or don't care to) and allow their dislike for someone (someone's behaviour) to over-rule the facts and law as they actually apply. Which isn't a particular surprise, though it's always disappointing to be reminded of it.

You sound like a lovely person.

So you've watched the opening 30 seconds or so and completely ignored the rest then? Because none of us are speculating anything. He was being deliberately provaocative and brought that on him self "GET BACK HERE!" well here he came and big brave balaclava ran away like a scared wee boy. Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

The manager should be credited with not lamping the **** right there as he clearly knew better.

As the police officer who dealt with the case explained when I was assaulted by a driver, you can shout and holler at each other as much as you like, but the first one to touch the other generally loses legally.

Well, they were wrong. Maybe aside from the "generally" part, anyway.

You can't do that as much as you like at all. If someone's behaviour puts you into a position where you feel in danger, even if they don't physically touch you, it can still be considered to be an assault.

If you march right up to me and get in my face then I’m fully entitled to push you away.

No you aren't. Two wrongs, and all that.

You may well be if, as you said yourself, you felt under threat of imminent violence and were acting in self-defence. That was very clearly not what was happening in this particular case. PJ and Duncan were increasingly desperate for the guard to lose his cool and lamp them one because they'd have dined out on it for months.

You sound like a lovely person.

thanks, I am generally. But I wouldn’t put up with abuse from an absolute throbber wearing a balaclava and acting the big man. I’d just go a bit far in defending myself from a bully. A case of be careful who you pick on.