This is why people are losing respect for the police...

[lovelyhead]

Awww don’t be like that. You’ve simply been beaten by an opponent with superior intellect. I sense this is not going to be the last time this happens to you, but keep the dream alive! On that note I’m off to have a cup of tea and watch TV with my wife in bed. Night night x

You are welcome to actually engage with the topic at hand to attempt to "beat" me. All you have done is said I don't like those annoying people on YouTube, they should be banned, without actually taking the time to think what the eventual conclusion to that would be.

Say you got your way and photography of police stations was made illegal. You arrive in a town you have never been to before and you decide to take a selfie with the town in the background. Bam you've commited a crime because one of the buildings behind you was a police station. It just so happens that a policeman saw you take the photo and arrests you on the spot.

Think that would be an unlikely scenario? Maybe you should watch some auditing videos to see how quickly the Police start harassing people photographing police stations. It is quite often under a minute. Let me remind you again that it is a completely lawful activity.

Going by the bully boy tactics a lot of auditing videos has exposed, a lot of police officers would love for such laws to come into force as it would give them carte blanche to detain anyone walking past a police station simply holding their phone.

 

[lovelyhead]

Quite, social misfits with a chip on their shoulders. In countries with a more robust attitude to those that provoke a reaction from authority they'd get a trip to the cells with a nasty accident en route.

It was this sort of attitude that lead to Nazi Germany. Godwin's Law invoked. Social misfits with a chip on their shoulders eh? That sounds a lot like how a Nazi in the 1930's might describe the Jews. Do you think the Police in this country should inflict violence on people they think are trying to provoke them? Seems like you are suggesting they should. How is your opinion different to Nazi sympathizers in the 1930's?

 

[Ice Tea]

I am glad that my opinion on auditing is opposite to the majority view on the Overclockers forums. That tends to be a good sign that I am right!

If you have already decided that you're right then why have you spent the last 2 pages trying to prove so?

 

[lovelyhead]

If you have already decided that you're right then why have you spent the last 2 pages trying to prove so?

I only think I am right. It is always good to put ones opinions to the test though. So far no one has even attempted to address my opinions so feel free to try.

 

[diamount]

Immediately knew this was an 'auditor' when I saw the thread title.

 

[Rimsy]

I only think I am right. It is always good to put ones opinions to the test though. So far no one has even attempted to address my opinions so feel free to try.

They have but unfortunately you appear to be an opinionated child who is always right. Good luck to you.

 

[lovelyhead]

They have but unfortunately you appear to be an opinionated child who is always right. Good luck to you.

Have they? Must have missed that.

I think the Police must draw a lot of recruits from the same demographics as the average OCUK poster. They talk a big game but as soon as someone challenges their opinion they crumble. Look at how people who are disagreeing with me are having to resort to calling me names. No one from the anti "auditors" camp seems to have a coherent argument against them other than they are a nuisance.

I disagree with some of the things these "auditors" do. For instance, the Youtuber "Auditing Britain" quite often resorts to remarks about the personal appearance of certain officers, which I find distasteful. Focus Pocus in my opinion is the best auditor I have watched. Funny and courteous.

I have no problem with people saying they are a nuisance, troublemakers or they are idiots. That is a completely acceptable opinion to hold. But it crosses the line into authoritarianism when people start talking about the law should be changed to make what they do illegal or even more repulsive, that they should have violence inflicted upon them by the police. An opinion that a number of posters on here worryingly seem to hold.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

I am glad that my opinion on auditing is opposite to the majority view on the Overclockers forums. That tends to be a good sign that I am right!

This is easily one of the best things I've read on OCUK and I've seen some rubbish

 

[lovelyhead]

This is easily one of the best things I've read on OCUK and I've seen some rubbish

OK engage with the conversation then instead of posting something of zero substance. Do you have an opinion on the subject at hand or are you only capable of posting snide remarks as that is all you have done throughout this thread so far.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

OK engage with the conversation then instead of posting something of zero substance. Do you have an opinion on the subject at hand or are you only capable of posting snide remarks as that is all you have done throughout this thread so far.

You have become my favourite poster.

Yes I do have an opinion, you are wrong.

 

[dlockers]

I have no problem with people saying they are a nuisance, troublemakers or they are idiots. That is a completely acceptable opinion to hold. But it crosses the line into authoritarianism when people start talking about the law should be changed to make what they do illegal or even more repulsive, that they should have violence inflicted upon them by the police. An opinion that a number of posters on here worryingly seem to hold.

Public nuisance already is a crime my man.

Stop elevating police officers beyond what they are, human beings doing a job for low pay, poor benefits and under constant scrutiny.

 

[TheVoice]

The people producing and subscribing to these channels aren't looking for a well-rounded debate about policing and aren't capable of participating in one either; case in point. They usually do like to regularly reference the Nazis though.

 

[Chris Wilson]

It was this sort of attitude that lead to Nazi Germany. Godwin's Law invoked. Social misfits with a chip on their shoulders eh? That sounds a lot like how a Nazi in the 1930's might describe the Jews. Do you think the Police in this country should inflict violence on people they think are trying to provoke them? Seems like you are suggesting they should. How is your opinion different to Nazi sympathizers in the 1930's?

Absolutely they should, don't go trying to humiliate or mock the police or the military, show them the respect the majority vastly deserve. Photographing sensitive locations can be seen as a recce, and a prelude to something sinister these days. Why? Because a lot of social misfits with chips on their shoulders wish the UK, her government and their officers harm.

I personally would like to see a bit of unfettered police brutality returned to the streets, The Sweeney style

 

[Ice Tea]

Twitter will remove images tweeted without consent.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-59479688

That would make auditing more difficult if youtube ever followed suit.

 

[lovelyhead]

You have become my favourite poster.

Yes I do have an opinion, you are wrong.

Another low effort post. Why am I wrong?

Public nuisance already is a crime my man.

Stop elevating police officers beyond what they are, human beings doing a job for low pay, poor benefits and under constant scrutiny.

OK finally someone willing to actually engage in a conversation. Public nuisance: A public nuisance arises from an act that endangers the life, health, property, morals or comfort of the public or obstructs the public in the exercise or enjoyment of rights common to all.

So how does someone standing outside a Police station with a video camera violate any of the above? If they are just walking around the police station pointing their camera at the building they are not breaking the public nuisance laws. If they were you can be certain that the police would arrest them for it. The fact that the don't get arrested for it means the police know they have no grounds for arrest.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Another low effort post. Why am I wrong?

because it's my opinion.
You think you're right, I think you're wrong.
You haven't yet described why you are right, you just sound like a child.

 

[dlockers]

Another low effort post. Why am I wrong?



OK finally someone willing to actually engage in a conversation. Public nuisance: A public nuisance arises from an act that endangers the life, health, property, morals or comfort of the public or obstructs the public in the exercise or enjoyment of rights common to all.

You are engaging a police officer in a meaningless task that will go nowhere other than YouTube for the entertainment of low IQ folk to watch on an evening when the footballs not on.

If that police officer is then unable to attend a crime, like your mum being assaulted - it could endanger life.

If they were you can be certain that the police would arrest them for it. The fact that the don't get arrested for it means the police know they have no grounds for arrest.

Police are allowed judgement. Part of that judgement is quick maths about whether it is worth their time, effort and brain power when a conviction is unlikely/won't really change their or the publics lives.

 

[lovelyhead]

Absolutely they should, don't go trying to humiliate or mock the police or the military, show them the respect the majority vastly deserve. Photographing sensitive locations can be seen as a recce, and a prelude to something sinister these days. Why? Because a lot of social misfits with chips on their shoulders wish the UK, her government and their officers harm.

Do the military automatically deserve respect? Some might disagree with that. But that is a different conversation. You are perfectly within your rights to video a military base from a public place. That includes American military bases in the UK. You can expect to be challenged for doing so but they have no powers to arrest you unless they can prove malicious intent.

I personally would like to see a bit of unfettered police brutality returned to the streets, The Sweeney style

Do you put an emoji at the end of that statement because deep down you know it is a disgusting thing to say and you are embarrassed by it?

Twitter will remove images tweeted without consent.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-59479688

That would make auditing more difficult if youtube ever followed suit.

As is their right being a private company where you have no automatic right to use their service.

 

[Diddums]

I love how the last few pages of this thread are basically "lol nobody cares about your opinion" and he's still trying to provoke an argument. You'd think what with his superior intellect and all that that he'd be bored by now

 

[lovelyhead]

because it's my opinion.
You think you're right, I think you're wrong.
You haven't yet described why you are right, you just sound like a child.

Yes I do think I am right and no one has made a decent counter argument to my points. I have posted loads of posts describing why I think I am right so you are simply wrong about that. If you think I am wrong please actually in detail tell me why I am wrong instead of just saying "you're wrong" followed by another Ad hominem.

You are engaging a police officer in a meaningless task that will go nowhere other than YouTube for the entertainment of low IQ folk to watch on an evening when the footballs not on.

The auditor is not engaging anyone. They are simply standing outside a police station with a video camera as is their legal right to do so. The Police choose to engage the auditor. The irony is that if the police chose to ignore the auditor there would be no reason for the auditor to be there. I understand why the police do decide to question someone recording the police station but more often than not they engage in bully boy tactics rather than just establishing that the auditor poses no threat and leaving them to it.

If that police officer is then unable to attend a crime, like your mum being assaulted - it could endanger life.

That would be Police negligence if they chose to stay questioning a citizen committing no crime rather than attending to an actual crime.

Police are allowed judgement. Part of that judgement is quick maths about whether it is worth their time, effort and brain power when a conviction is unlikely/won't really change their or the publics lives.

Indeed. So why do so many police officers engage intimidation tactics to photographers committing no crime when they should just walk away after they establish no crime is being commited?