Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

First Amendment Auditors YouTube

  • #1
    Registered Users Posts: 4,774 ✭✭✭ bobbyss


    I have been watching some of these recently so thought I would start a thread for people who enjoy watching them. (Not, mind you, for people who do not!)

    Came across a guy called Long Island Audit and he was very impressive. Intelligent, Calm and on the balll. Holding people to account. He really is something else. .alls of steel.

    I also enjoy some of the British auditors. When they go at it it is somehow more real than some Americans who audit in blazing sunshine.

    Which one do you watch?



«1

Comments



  • A pain in the hole ... Inbred type of idiot..

    I prefer schrodingers cat





  • Thank you for your post.

    Fair point but yes I am assuming that. (They are, in fact, individuals ie auditors who enter public buildings and environs with a camera to see how they will be received by employees of same.)

    Again I would like to stress that I am only interested in discussing the content of the videos from people who enjoy watching them. I have no interest in any opinion or discussion about the auditors' right or otherwise to do so in the first place.

    Thanks



  • Advertisement


  • Although I don't know which video you are referring to specifically , I agree with your point in the first paragraph 100%. The approach of some of these people and the way they interact with the police is childish and self defeating.





  • Their behaviour actually mirrors GO'D an her ilk here i.e. They're a bunch of sick eejits looking to get an unitentional reaction from people who are meant to look after their own safety. The best thing to do is to ignore these cúnts & get on with your day.





  • The gamechanger has been the ready use of a camera through a mobile. The police do not, by and large, like being videoed while they are doing their job.

    I do not agree with the goading of police but if you are filming the police at a reasonable distance (which I think is legal; after all we see the police on the news every day on TV) and the police tell you to turn it off, well this is problematic. The people who filmed George Floyd were quite close to him and the police. What would have happened Derek Chauvin otherwise? In America some police have body cameras and audio and they film the people.



  • Advertisement


  • Few enough were innocent in the past, few enough are innocent in the present, we just don’t know why yet.





  • As another poster pointed out the people who filmed the George Floyd incident wernt "youtube auditors" but random bystanders. From what I can gather about these types op is posting about they're mainly attention seeking busibodies





  • Yes the people who filmed George Floyd were indeed bystanders and not auditors. No question of that. And certainly a number of them are attention seekers. However what many do is to uncover misuse of police power. Perhaps the most frequent and most blatant is police detaining someone without having committed a crime. Just because they are using a camera in public places. And just because the police do not like that.





  • They use the camera in a public place, but that "public place" usually seems to be a sidewalk outside of a police station or a military complex, these idiots do it for a reaction. Nothing but attention seeking fùckwits.





  • That is often the case yes. You are right. But they are not doing anything illegal.

    The police who tell them they are not allowed to do that are abusing their power.





  • They are not doing anything illegal but they know thier actions will provoke a reaction in a security heightened area.

    And the police on most of the ones I have seen are not "abusing thier power" they are just not fully on the statutes about filming on public property.


    As soon as someone in authority comes along they sort it out politely. Meanwhile the "auditor" I'd being an abusive dìck head trying to get more reactions and being gobby to anyone in uniform.


    Sad fùcks who spend thier days looking for reactions so they can get likes on social media.





  • Yes to a large extent they are there to get a reaction I agree. You are correct.

    I do not know how You tube works but they may get paid for those videos I do not know. For some or many of them it is their job. The more likes may mean the more money but I really do not know much about that.

    It shows up the lack of training the police have. If they are engaging in something legal they should be left alone. Imagine if you were looking at McDonalds downtown and a policeman told you to move along or pushed you along? That might be actionable.

    The 'security heightened area' you mention I assume would be a police station? Yet anybody can enter publicly accessible areas police station, even in Ireland. Google Earth can do it!





  • They film officers going in/out of buildings, they stand outside military bases and film personnel going in/out. Have you ever seen them film a ticket warden or a crossing guard?





  • They do the odd warden and I've seen one do a library before





  • They are allowed to film anything they want as long as they are in a public space. I've seen an video of a guy taking photos of birds in a tree and some tit called the cops on him. That's how much of a snitch society America is. You ask if these people don't have anything better to do. Why not ask if the police don't have anything better to do rather than to demand what a person is doing? They demand to know what a person is doing and they also demand that person produces identification. The cops know full well that you are not required to identify yourself (unreasonable search and seizure) but people like you still side with the cops even when they are abusing their powers and attempting to assert their authority over people when they have no right to do so.



  • Advertisement



  • I've seen them filming Post Offices, City Hall, Court Houses, shopping malls.





  • I'm not siding with the cops, if I was randomly asked for my I.D I would also refuse. I'm on about the fùckwits who deliberately go to places they know they will be confronted so they can abuse the cops and get reactions.





  • Any I have seen on YouTube are cretins. Auditing Britain's stupidity and attitude always makes me laugh.

    They seem to have a fair number of subscribers and I'm surprised how many positive comments there are on their channels ignoring the obvious faults in the auditor's own behaviour and the disgusting comments about policeperson's appearance etc.

    I can only conclude there are a lot of people out there who have an unreasonable hatred of the police.

    Examples of Auditing Britain's crass behaviour included videoing people working on their computers in an office through their own window in the guise of exposing the office workers' supposed failure to preserve the confidentiality of client information on those computers because the computers were facing outward to the street. From about 10 feet away! And through a pane of glass! In other words, no risk to client confidentiality.

    Yet, when eventually confronted about it by the manager, he remonstrated with him and then a security guard (iirc) and then the cops.

    Utter fool. The irony is he hates being filmed himself. Now that the cops in the UK know about him and his name, one video shows a young female cop addressing him by his name where he proceeds to threaten her with (his usual) GDRP for mentioning his name on camera. When he is the one in control of filming. It's laughable the way he goes on.

    Another video posted by a UK comedian shows what is allegedly him following and harassing the comedian through the streets of London.

    I remain amazed at the support these clowns get.

    But they get the subscribers and that's what matters to them.





  • Actually another stunt that clown Auditing Britain pulled was videoing himself at a Tescos (IIRC) and somehow getting the alarm to go off after he left with presumably paid for goods. Of course when asked to produce a receipt he refuses to do so and gives awful abuse to the security guard (he really is an angry little fucker when he gets going btw) insisting they check the security cameras instead of "harrassing" him.

    Technically if he has paid for it, he may be not obliged to produce a receipt if the alarm went off in the wrong but he lives for filming this drama. He obviously dreamt this scenario up and revelled in videoing himself being asked to produce a receipt by a Tesco security guard.

    Weird individual.





  • Well it all depends on what exactly they are filming.

    filming people just doing their jobs is just annoying and Pretty pointless. particularly they way they go about it, shoving it in the face of police and swearing at them isn't in anyway helpful.

    if course, if they film a crime or even an incident that results in a complaint against a Garda member here in Ireland, they would find their phone taken as evidence. So, as long as they don't mind losing their phone, fair enough.





  • Should the police and those in authority be held accountable and filmed by people in the vicinity if they're observed abusing their powers? Absolutely.

    Should self-appointed individuals specifically go looking for such abuses and provoke the police just so they have something to film? Definitely not, they sound like a bunch of self-righteous dickheads who have nothing better to be doing with their time. Even the name - First Amendment Auditors - talk about being up your own arse.





  • In most cases they do not stick any camera in a face. It is usual that the police approach them and ask them what they are doing. In other words they do not approach the police. It's the other way around.

    But let's not kid ourselves. This is, I understand, their job. They want to earn money.

    Some people may call them !ickheads and so on but it is not a crime to be that. Whereas being detained without cause I think is.





  • But sure there'd be no YouTube video if they weren't approached. So clearly it's imperative that the police approach them (ie it's imperative that they act in such a way that the police approach them). Otherwise no content.

    I'm amazed at the support they have.





  • I'm amazed by the lack of the one, to me obvious, word to describe these people. Trolls. Trolls covering their desire to annoy with a mask of civil duty. Maybe some are doing it out of a sense of holding police forces to a higher standard but there's also those simply trying to intentionally provoke a hostile reaction, then acting aghast when they get it. The other word useful here is "sealioning".

    Post edited by pixelburp on


  • Advertisement


  • Perhaps the most frequent and most blatant is police detaining someone without having committed a crime.

    Generally, the crime won't be recorded by the person with the camera, either because they weren't aware, or simply not interested in what was happening. A police officer arresting someone though is far more noticeable. It's highly unlikely that anyone filming an arrest will be able to show that the person is innocent. That's what the courts are for.

    The problem is that these auditors have skin in the game. They're biased from the beginning even before they record anything. Even with random bystanders recording something, who is to know whether they're impartial in what/how they record? Nah. There's too much scope for this to be a political/social gesture that supports one of the various movements out there, or simply to paint the police in a bad light, irrespective of the actual facts of the incident.



Advertisement