UK Police Repeatedly Challenge Auditor During Intense Public Filming Encounter

Added: 2026-05-26

[00:00:00]your behavior. I feel harassed, alarmed.

[00:00:02]You >> can't be harassed. You're an officer.

[00:00:04]>> If you come back, I will be arresting you for underassment act. Okay. For security concern that you're taking images and videos as you're clearly doing right now of police officers coming and going or police staff coming and going from this station.

[00:00:19]>> That's correct.

[00:00:19]>> Right. You could do anything with that information. You can be passing that on to anyone and that is a massive security concern from our point of view. So, why are you doing it and who are you? Is photography illegal?

[00:00:30]>> Photography is not illegal. No.

[00:00:31]>> Am I on public?

[00:00:32]>> You are on public. That's all I need to know.

[00:00:34]>> You've already done your research. Okay.

[00:00:36]I want you to answer my question. What?

[00:00:37]>> So, if if I've done my research and you know I've done my research.

[00:00:40]>> The third time you've been seen today taking pictures of staff members cars coming out of this police station. Okay.

[00:00:46]>> So, what are you doing with that information?

[00:00:48]>> Taking photos. Exactly.

[00:00:50]>> Why?

[00:00:50]>> Because I can.

[00:00:52]>> What makes you think I'm directly looking for license plate? If there is an innocent explanation why you're not willing to pass it to us when I ask you because it's my right stand here and take pictures of people's personal >> Are you saying it's not my right to stand? So I can't stand in public.

[00:01:08]>> You don't have an automatic right to be able to take pictures of people's person.

[00:01:12]>> I think you need to read up on photography right. Okay. You tell me where that right is then.

[00:01:16]>> Um no right.

[00:01:17]>> I believe your chief of police and the officers immediately frame him as suspicious. Yet, their reasoning starts collapsing the moment simple legal questions are raised. Claims that photography in a public place somehow requires permission aren't supported by any clear restriction, making the response sound more like personal irritation than lawful enforcement. Once Chuz references guidance from within their own force supporting public filming, the contradiction becomes even harder to ignore. At that stage, the encounter stops looking like a genuine security concern and starts looking like officers trying to defend a position they can't properly justify.

[00:01:53]>> Firstly, none of you have identified yourselves.

[00:01:55]>> I don't need to identify myself. You need to identify yourself.

[00:01:58]>> Oh, no, I don't. You're an officer of the You're claiming to be an officer of the law demanding that a random member of the public not be allowed to record.

[00:02:05]>> Random member of the public. You've made a choice to stand here and film police >> and you've made the choice to come out.

[00:02:11]Can I get your name and badge number? My badge number is just there.

[00:02:14]>> What's your name?

[00:02:16]>> Badge number's there. If you want it, you don't need to ask me questions. I need to ask you questions in here.

[00:02:22]>> Why is it weird for me to record license plates? But yet you have police fan there. That's a camera van, I'm assuming. And yet the cars are on camera, I don't know, 3 400 times a day.

[00:02:37]>> Sorry, I don't understand what your question is. What are you asking me?

[00:02:39]Why? Why is it weird for me to record a license plate if that's what I was doing that you're claiming that I was doing?

[00:02:45]>> But yeah, it's okay. But it's okay for you guys to record license plate >> doing then. Cuz if that's not what you're doing, then I was >> taking photos of what?

[00:02:53]>> Well, as he was coming out, I was taking photo of the gate.

[00:02:56]>> What stands out most is the double standard they try to enforce. The officers repeatedly demand identification from CHZ while failing to properly identify themselves. Even though accountability is supposed to work the other way around for those exercising authority when he points out that police routinely record members of the public and vehicles themselves, the officers have no meaningful response beyond dismissing the comparison. That contradiction exposes the real issue.

[00:03:22]The act of filming was never the problem until it was the public holding the camera. We're police officers and you will appreciate that we have people that have issues with us and having someone stand having someone stand outside with a camera um claiming to be taking pictures of the fence is going to be a concern for us as police officers in here. It doesn't matter whether it's legal or not legal. We have the right to ask you what you're doing.

[00:03:57]>> You have the right, but I don't have to >> tell you why.

[00:04:00]>> Well, if you don't my personal reason, we will just ask you to move on. And if you see you again, then you can be arrested a breach of the piece.

[00:04:07]>> But you can't move me on. I'm on public.

[00:04:10]>> We can move you on from wherever I want to move you on from.

[00:04:13]>> Doesn't matter if you're on public. So why don't you go back and do your research?

[00:04:16]>> I don't need to. Stepdown's a lawyer.

[00:04:18]Got a master's degree. So >> you're telling me I can't move you on because you're in public? And yes, I can move you on.

[00:04:23]>> Under what law? to prevent a breach of the peace.

[00:04:26]>> And what breach? What breach am I?

[00:04:28]>> If we believe that your actions are causing a breach of the peace, >> well then go back in and let me finish what I'm doing. And then >> it's not about me go then there's no officers and that I can't car allow you to carry on doing what you're doing.

[00:04:38]>> Well, I'll just come back later.

[00:04:40]>> Come back later then and you'll be arrested.

[00:04:42]>> Rather than pointing to any actual unlawful conduct, the officer falls back on vague claims about how the public might perceive the situation as if discomfort alone can justify intervention. When directly asked whether any law is being broken, the lack of a clear answer says more than anything else. Bringing up breach of the peace in a calm, non-violent interaction only weakens the position further because that power is meant for genuine risks of disorder, not peaceful filming in public. By floating the possibility of arrest without solid grounds, the encounter starts looking less like lawful policing and more like pressure being used to force compliance.

[00:05:18]>> Well, then unless I'm breaking the law, I'm not moving. It's that that that simple. Is it not that simple?

[00:05:24]>> It's not that simple.

[00:05:25]>> It is that simple.

[00:05:26]>> It's not because you don't have to break in law. Like my colleague said, we can move you on to prevent a breach of the peace.

[00:05:31]>> But there is no breach of peace.

[00:05:32]>> It's not a law break. Well, that's up to our That's our opinion on whether it is.

[00:05:34]>> Well, then I'd like to request that simple whether you're breaking a law.

[00:05:39]You don't demand what happens here. You don't ask us.

[00:05:43]>> So, you want me to move because you've demanded it?

[00:05:45]>> Yes.

[00:05:46]>> But but you won't get a supervisor out because I've demanded it. A member of the public who pays your wages.

[00:05:51]>> You don't pay my wages. No.

[00:05:52]>> How do I not pay wages?

[00:05:53]>> You don't pay my wages. You don't give me any money. So, no.

[00:05:56]>> Well, it's public money. Laws on photography.

[00:06:00]Public law.

[00:06:02]If I'm in public, I can see it.

[00:06:04]Therefore, I can record it. Simple as that.

[00:06:08]>> That's not public, is it?

[00:06:09]>> But I'm on public.

[00:06:10]>> Are you allowed to Are you allowed to put your camera up against someone's window and film inside the house?

[00:06:16]>> You're not. Are you? If if if I can stand here.

[00:06:18]>> No, no, no. You're not. You're not allowed to do that because Yeah, but it doesn't matter. You're not allowed to put look in someone's window.

[00:06:25]>> You are.

[00:06:26]>> No, you're not. That is >> Go research.

[00:06:28]>> I don't need to. I already know it. You need to research it.

[00:06:30]>> All right. Okay. All right. Fair enough.

[00:06:34]>> Let's agree to disagree on that.

[00:06:35]>> No, I don't need to agree to disagree.

[00:06:37]>> Okay. What really exposes the weakness in their position is treating breach of the peace like a matter of personal opinion rather than a legal threshold tied to actual disorder or imminent harm. The same attitude appears when oversight is brushed aside with officers dismissing requests for a supervisor while still trying to control where he can stand and what he can film.

[00:06:56]Mentioning the car park changes nothing if the footage is being captured lawfully from a public space. By that stage, the interaction no longer looks grounded in clear legal authority, but in officers stretching vague powers to justify restrictions they can't properly explain.

[00:07:11]>> How do I request the footage of it?

[00:07:14]>> Of course, you can.

[00:07:16]>> Yes, you can. Under the Freedom of Information Act, yes, you can.

[00:07:20]>> You're lying now. Yes, you are >> bullshitting.

[00:07:24]Clearly.

[00:07:25]>> Do you think you can request any evidence that we have?

[00:07:27]>> Not any detained, officer. Not at >> the moment.

[00:07:31]>> No. Oh, okay.

[00:07:32]>> Stay here though while they talk.

[00:07:33]>> I'm not being detained. You can >> stay here a second.

[00:07:35]>> I'm being detained.

[00:07:36]>> I will detain you in a second if you don't.

[00:07:38]>> What law?

[00:07:38]>> Because they're having a chat, aren't they?

[00:07:39]>> For what law?

[00:07:40]>> What law?

[00:07:42]>> On what grounds?

[00:07:44]>> Just go back down there.

[00:07:45]>> I'm all right. Don't touch me. That's battery.

[00:07:48]>> Come down a little bit.

[00:07:51]>> I have not impeded my right to travel, officer. Okay.

[00:07:54]>> If you come back to this police station and I see you here again, right, I am telling you that by your behavior, I feel harassed. Alarm, >> you can't be harassed. You're an officer, >> right? Not true. I feel harass of the law. Look it up. Right. I feel harassed.

[00:08:10]Arrest me now. Right. Okay. If you come backing you for under your act. Okay.

[00:08:15]>> Arrest me now.

[00:08:15]>> No, I'm telling you. You're not listening, are you?

[00:08:17]>> All right then.

[00:08:18]>> If you come back >> back, >> right? If you continue and you come back and you start filming my vehicle again, I'm telling you that one with the license plate.

[00:08:26]>> I am telling you, I will nick you for harassment. Do anything with those images.

[00:08:30]>> Well, like YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, >> everything. Yeah, everything. What about it?

[00:08:34]>> We will be finding you, okay? And we'll be tracing your accounts. Okay.

[00:08:37]>> The contradictions keep piling up as the encounter goes on. Dismissing the possibility of requesting body cam footage ignores established legal routes like subject access requests under the Data Protection Act 2018, making the response sound either uninformed or intentionally evasive. The same confusion appears when officers insist he isn't detained while simultaneously warning him not to leave because those positions directly conflict with each other. Bringing up harassment weakens things even further since a single instance of filming in public falls far short of the repeated course of conduct normally required under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

[00:09:14]>> Up there for >> I was taking photos.

[00:09:16]>> Yeah. Why were you doing that? Cuz you causing them alarm. So you're causing them issues. Yeah.

[00:09:20]>> But I'm not there now.

[00:09:21]>> I know. But you were. So I'm asking why you were >> Why? Cuz I was taking photos.

[00:09:24]>> Yeah. You've just said that. Why? I understand you taking photos. Why were you causing them alarm up there?

[00:09:29]>> I wasn't causing them alarm. you were because they've just told me you were causing them.

[00:09:32]>> What they told you or one of them told you?

[00:09:34]>> Yeah, one of them told me. Yeah.

[00:09:35]>> All right. Do you want me to tell you the whole incident rather than just what he said?

[00:09:39]>> Tell me why why you're up there.

[00:09:40]>> So, I was up there. I was looking around some of the business >> Yeah.

[00:09:44]>> areas up there. There's one I was taking photos of uh one place where they fix >> rides and stuff like that.

[00:09:50]>> I don't want him near me. He's aggressive.

[00:09:53]>> Leave there. Go.

[00:09:54]>> I don't want to leave.

[00:09:55]>> Come back. That's not a personal phone.

[00:09:57]Freedom of information act on that.

[00:09:59]>> Don't touch me. I haven't touched you.

[00:10:01]You said you don't want him near you. So go.

[00:10:03]>> Yeah, cuz I don't want him in there.

[00:10:05]>> I was I was on >> You don't need to stand outside the police station.

[00:10:08]>> I'm free to go then.

[00:10:09]>> Go.

[00:10:09]>> Free to go. Free to stay.

[00:10:10]>> Problem is >> Oh, freedom of information on that.

[00:10:13]That's not a personal phone.

[00:10:15]>> It's a work phone.

[00:10:15]>> Oh, that's all right then.

[00:10:16]>> Doesn't matter. What? So you can take pictures of me, but I can't take >> I'm in public. You're an officer of the law. You're you're on work.

[00:10:22]>> We learned something today. Officers >> a license plate of a cop on YouTube.

[00:10:27]>> Yeah. People know >> which is public knowledge.

[00:10:30]>> People know that that's a car.

[00:10:31]>> You're making it public knowledge. It's not public knowledge to everyone, is it?

[00:10:34]>> I might >> I could stand outside on my street. You drive past in your personal car and I've got your number.

[00:10:41]>> Get back in there.

[00:10:42]>> Yeah, no worries.

[00:10:44]>> Have a good day.

[00:10:46]>> What stands out near the end is how heavily the interaction relies on assumption rather than verification.

[00:10:52]Once a complaint is made, the officers appear to settle on a conclusion before properly considering the other side, which undermines the idea of an impartial assessment. Their decision to start photographing him in return also exposes a weak justification because simply mirroring someone's behavior is not the same as exercising a lawful policing power with a defined purpose.

[00:11:12]By the end, the pattern becomes clear.

[00:11:14]Explanations keep changing to support decisions already made, leaving the encounter driven more by perception and reaction than by a consistent application of legal standards. If you found value in this breakdown, make sure you like the video, share it, and subscribe to support the channel.