Auditor's

[Jaymo]

To me an Audit is a requirement carried out by the Government or a Private institution, not this individual! 

I’ve not even watched this, but this ‘Gent’ is purely doing this to antagonise and create content for his YouTube Channel. 
 

There is absolutely no need for him and his type who go round trying to provoke a response. You see his ilk doing this in many situations when really they should be working on ‘Getting a life’ 

Edited October 29, 2021 by Jaymo

[12gauge82]

2 hours ago, AULD YIN said:

As long as they abide by the law and dont  cause alarm fear and distress to other members of the public ,what other answer would you expect from me on a public forum

Alarm fear and distress is a normal catch all for the  police at a public gathering

Alarm, harassment and distress is a grey line and I'm sure many on shoots have felt one of the above without the antis behaviour actually breaching law, which is very similar to how that soldier probably felt, dispite the so called auditor not actually breaching the law. 

So again, based on your own logic, one would have to assume you also support antis, who don't actually break the letter of the law, despite acting like utter *****. 

[welsh1]

5 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Public photography stops when he pointed his camera inwards without seeking permission!

That is not what the law says, if you can see it from a public place you can photograph it, there are a few exeptions to that where certain places and installations are protected under law.

[Rewulf]

2 hours ago, AULD YIN said:

As long as they abide by the law and dont  cause alarm fear and distress to other members of the public ,what other answer would you expect from me on a public forum

British army bases at home and abroad, police stations have been attacked with injury and loss of life, all of these attacks involved some kind of recon. 

Is it unreasonable to challenge persons who appear, for no good reason,  to be doing just that? 

Ask yourself this, if some dodgy looking scrote, stands outside your house, starts taking pictures of its interior, security, or your family, are you just going to wave and wish him good day, no, your going yo ask him what he's playing at aren't you? 

[clangerman]

if you can’t tell the difference between a threat and legitimate moron there’s something wrong moron with camera appears right reaction give a wave and ignore moron fails so leaves wrong reaction approach moron argue the toss pull firearm making morons days it’s not rocket science dealing with idiots 

[JohnfromUK]

6 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

That is not what the law says, if you can see it from a public place you can photograph it, there are a few exeptions to that where certain places and installations are protected under law.

Those exceptions include “prohibited places” within the Official Secrets Act- and that covers all military sites, installations, camps etc.

[Rewulf]

2 minutes ago, clangerman said:

if you can’t tell the difference between a threat and legitimate moron there’s something wrong moron with camera appears right reaction give a wave and ignore moron fails so leaves wrong reaction approach moron argue the toss pull firearm making morons days it’s not rocket science dealing with idiots 

Deciphering all that, you're saying the sentry should have just ignored him? 

What kind of sentry would he be to do that? 

[clangerman]

5 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Deciphering all that, you're saying the sentry should have just ignored him? 

What kind of sentry would he be to do that? 

one who knows that moron staying behind the line tells you he’s a camera rise nut so ignore him until he approach’s near enough to become a threat unfortunately we can’t shoot people just for being fools 

[AULD YIN]

46 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Alarm, harassment and distress is a grey line and I'm sure many on shoots have felt one of the above without the antis behaviour actually breaching law, which is very similar to how that soldier probably felt, dispite the so called auditor not actually breaching the law. 

So again, based on your own logic, one would have to assume you also support antis, who don't actually break the letter of the law, despite acting like utter *****. 

one can assume

[12gauge82]

2 minutes ago, AULD YIN said:

one can assume

One can, and I assume either your logic is totally flawed, or you can't actually put into words why you support people acting like idiots. 

[AULD YIN]

Just now, 12gauge82 said:

One can, and I assume either your logic is totally flawed, or you can't actually put into words why you support people acting like idiots. 

Sorry i dont know you so i can not possibly support you

[12gauge82]

8 minutes ago, AULD YIN said:

Sorry i dont know you so i can not possibly support you

Wow, so clever 😏. The fact you can't logically back up your reasoning speaks volumes. 

[AULD YIN]

why the need to explain my posts to someone who appears to condone unlawful actions, we as certificate holders  are expected to abide by the laws of the land or is it just a put on act at interview time

[12gauge82]

1 minute ago, AULD YIN said:

why the need to explain my posts to someone who appears to condone unlawful actions, we as certificate holders  are expected to abide by the laws of the land or is it just a put on act at interview time

Where have I condoned unlawful action? 

[AULD YIN]

Just now, 12gauge82 said:

Where have I condoned unlawful action? 

Christ,  go look yerself

[12gauge82]

1 minute ago, AULD YIN said:

Christ,  go look yerself

Nowhere have I condoned unlawful action. Just more evidence of you being unable to back up your reasoning. 

[welsh1]

53 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Those exceptions include “prohibited places” within the Official Secrets Act- and that covers all military sites, installations, camps etc.

Speaking as a Veteran and also a photographer, you are wrong.

[AULD YIN]

1 minute ago, welsh1 said:

Speaking as a Veteran and also a photographer, you are wrong.

to my knowledge there are 2 sites in london  that are on the no no list

[welsh1]

3 minutes ago, AULD YIN said:

to my knowledge there are 2 sites in london  that are on the no no list

Yes there are places you are not permitted to photograph,which is what I said in my original post.

But there are places especially in London where you are discouraged from taking photos, that doesn't mean it's against the law, you need to check each place you are going to.

[AULD YIN]

4 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

Yes there are places you are not permitted to photograph,which is what I said in my original post.

But there are places especially in London where you are discouraged from taking photos, that doesn't mean it's against the law, you need to check each place you are going to.

True and it cost one  guy 7 hours in a cell  , up here they just use section 38  to get you moving

23 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Nowhere have I condoned unlawful action. Just more evidence of you being unable to back up your reasoning. 

have you not been told i am a fool

[AULD YIN]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

British army bases at home and abroad, police stations have been attacked with injury and loss of life, all of these attacks involved some kind of recon. 

Is it unreasonable to challenge persons who appear, for no good reason,  to be doing just that? 

Ask yourself this, if some dodgy looking scrote, stands outside your house, starts taking pictures of its interior, security, or your family, are you just going to wave and wish him good day, no, your going yo ask him what he's playing at aren't you? 

Thats all news to me not  heard of attacks on police stations ,where abouts and  when,, re home , not many police station left up here that combine living quarters 

with police station re my home ,possible section 38

[JohnfromUK]

34 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

Speaking as a Veteran and also a photographer, you are wrong.

I don't believe so.  Prohibited places are defined here https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/28

Para 3(c) of the above includes "any place belonging to [F6or used for the purposes of] His Majesty which is for the time being declared [F5by order of a Secretary of State] to be a prohibited place for the purposes of this section......"

Relating to photography "Although there is no general prohibition on taking photographs, the law already gives the police powers to stop individuals taking photographs of "prohibited places" under the Official Secrets Act 1989."

Most military sites have a large sign stating that "This is a prohibited place within the meaning of the Official Secrets Act and the following are prohibited ...... and a list follows which includes photography.

[welsh1]

17 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I don't believe so.  Prohibited places are defined here https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/1-2/28

Para 3(c) of the above includes "any place belonging to [F6or used for the purposes of] His Majesty which is for the time being declared [F5by order of a Secretary of State] to be a prohibited place for the purposes of this section......"

Relating to photography "Although there is no general prohibition on taking photographs, the law already gives the police powers to stop individuals taking photographs of "prohibited places" under the Official Secrets Act 1989."

Most military sites have a large sign stating that "This is a prohibited place within the meaning of the Official Secrets Act and the following are prohibited ...... and a list follows which includes photography.

Th site has to be listed as a prohibited site under the official secrets act, most military sites are not, and speaking as someone who has walked many a perimiter of army camps both here and abroad those signs are not the norm.

There are many photographers that take pictures of military aircraft landing and taking off, you can see their photos on lots of sites, the same as other sites that show military equipment.

Google earth is quite good if you want to see a military installation lol, this is the camp in the video.

 

[Rewulf]

34 minutes ago, AULD YIN said:

Thats all news to me not  heard of attacks on police stations ,where abouts and  when,

Youve never heard of police stations in NI being attacked, sometimes completely destroyed , during the troubles ?

A Nottingham police station was firebombed during a riot in 2011, and last year a car was driven into the front of one in Enfield.
These are just a small selection.

37 minutes ago, AULD YIN said:

re my home ,possible section 38

So you would call the police and tell them 'possible sec 38 in progress' ? You wouldnt go out and ask the person why they were doing it ?
Im not being funny, but the police dont always attend when you HAVE been robbed, so its highly unlikely theyre going to come out when a person isnt even committing a crime !

[welsh1]

5 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

 

So you would call the police and tell them 'possible sec 38 in progress' ? You wouldnt go out and ask the person why they were doing it ?
Im not being funny, but the police dont always attend when you HAVE been robbed, so its highly unlikely theyre going to come out when a person isnt even committing a crime !

If someone was taking pictures of you in your house that would fall foul of the law as you would have a right to expect privicy in your own home.

As you say though good luck in getting the police to actually attend.