UK Sergeant Gets Absolutely DEMOLISHED By Sharp Auditor!

Added: 2026-05-22

[00:00:00]Not here. Excuse me, but you're not directing traffic right now. Can you please stop pointing and waving your hand through that way and you're trying to No, because I don't have to. I haven't broken the law. So, stop giving me directives.

[00:00:09]>> Welcome to the audit assessor. Over here, we break down encounters between the public and the police. We examine the law, the conduct, and the context so you know your rights, their responsibilities, and where the line is drawn. Thanks to Audit Ed for letting us cover and break down this police audit.

[00:00:24]Make sure to subscribe to his channel and like his videos. His link is in the description below.

[00:00:29]In this video, Auditor Ed is peacefully filming outside Wiltshire Police Headquarters when a sergeant comes marching out to start a fight over something that is completely legal. She tries every trick in the book just to force a citizen off the pavement. But instead of showing real leadership, this sergeant gets absolutely schooled on the law right outside her own station. Ed stands his ground, tears her weak arguments to shreds, and leaves her completely speechless. It is an embarrassing watch for the police, ending with the sergeant and her team walking away in total defeat the second they realize they can't bully an educated citizen.

[00:01:02]>> Oh yeah. No, I'm just making a video that's all.

[00:01:04]>> Okay. Well, this is restricted area.

[00:01:06]>> Restricted house. Sorry.

[00:01:07]>> But that bit over there is fine.

[00:01:08]>> Which bit over there?

[00:01:09]>> Did you see where the barrier is? You shouldn't really be walking in this area.

[00:01:13]>> But um I thought I was allowed to. Did I mean I didn't cross any barriers or gates or anything. I just walked in.

[00:01:18]>> Barrier.

[00:01:19]>> Yeah. But for cars there, there isn't one for the pedestrian access, is there?

[00:01:22]If you if you don't mind, I'm just asking you to move out the way cuz you haven't got a pass and I don't know who you are.

[00:01:28]>> I know. I understand that. But I'm just also >> It's not It's not public.

[00:01:31]>> It is. It's a police station.

[00:01:32]>> No, this isn't public.

[00:01:33]>> This is the police station.

[00:01:35]>> Yeah, I know it's a police station.

[00:01:36]>> So, it is public.

[00:01:36]>> It's not a public police station. It's the headquarters. So, it's not somewhere for the public.

[00:01:40]>> No, no. I think you misunderstand me.

[00:01:41]What I mean to say is um this place is funded by taxpayers money.

[00:01:46]>> Yeah. I'm a taxpayer, which effectively, if we're going to split hairs, and I don't mean I'm not trying to be rude or anything, but effectively this is my my grounds. I mean, you couldn't trespass me from here because I'm on public land.

[00:01:57]>> Well, this is private, so I'm asking you to leave the area.

[00:02:00]>> Sorry, but this is not a private place.

[00:02:02]This is a police station. This is the police headquarters.

[00:02:05]>> The sergeant opens the encounter with a blatant lie, claiming the location is a restricted area, despite the undeniable fact that Ed crossed zero barriers or gates to access it. Under section 128 of the Serious Organized Crime and Police Act 2005, a site must be officially designated by the Secretary of State with clear, visible signage to be legally restricted, meaning this supervisor is simply inventing security zones on the spot. Her next excuse that a headquarters is closed to the public is equally ridiculous. A police station remains a public asset funded entirely by the taxpayer and merely changing the signage to HQ does not magically strip away a citizen's right to stand on open ground.

[00:02:45]>> And I I believe under section 33 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972. I have the express right to be here under my implied rights of access. I've just come in to make a little video for my YouTube channel. I have a lot of people who are sorry if you let me finish missing person and if you let me finish that's private and confidential over there. But I was just I was just saying to you if you before you interrupted me that I was going to make my way through there, film the police the marked police vehicles as I was and then I'll be on my way.

[00:03:12]>> Okay. Well, over there then.

[00:03:14]>> Yeah. Please don't give Listen, please.

[00:03:15]Look, I I hate Excuse me, but you're not directing traffic right now. Can you please stop pointing and waving your hand? I'm not a dog. I'm a human being.

[00:03:23]I haven't been rude to I haven't been rude to you, miss. I'm >> asking you politely. I know. And now you're And now you're raising my voice.

[00:03:28]I haven't been rude. I've just said to you that I'm going to go through that way and you're trying to No, because I don't have to. I haven't broken the law.

[00:03:33]So, stop giving me directives. I'll do as I please.

[00:03:38]Don't give me directives. I have not Why are you walking right behind me? You're causing me harassment, alarm, and distress right now. I am doing what this No, I won't. I'm going to walk at my own pace. I told her No, I haven't broken the law. Why? I have not broken the law.

[00:03:53]So, why would I follow her instructions?

[00:03:55]You're out of your jurisdiction, Sergeant. With all due respect, >> the sergeant's immediate dismissal of section 33 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972, which protects the rights of citizens and the press to gather information on matters of public interest, proves she is completely out of her depth. Instead of acknowledging the law, she attempts a shameless emotional pivot using a high-risk missing person inquiry as an excuse to clear the area, which has absolutely zero legal relevance to a man holding a camera on open ground. Even as Ed voluntarily agrees to shift his position, this supervisor begins barking orders for him to move to a specific spot. Completely oblivious to the fact that since he's breaking no laws, her instructions carry no legal weight. This sergeant is simply desperate to win a power struggle she already lost.

[00:04:39]>> Sorry. Yeah. Why are you following me, please?

[00:04:42]>> All right. And also, no, but I'm not Listen, I'm not on private property. A couple of other things as well. Your body camera is recording and in your policy it says that you will tell the member of the public when you activate your body camera. Furthermore, you will take your hands out of your pockets and stop with your southernly behavior, constable. Okay.

[00:05:00]>> Get your hands out of your pocket, sir.

[00:05:01]>> My camera is recording.

[00:05:02]>> Yes, it is. Which is you should have told me that you were recording before you approached me. So, everything I have said before this point will be treated without prejudice. Do you understand?

[00:05:11]>> There's no prejudice. Thank you.

[00:05:15]So, I am being followed by these police officers.

[00:05:20]>> You can't go in certain parts of the police station. Okay. Okay. Simple as that.

[00:05:24]>> But it's a police station. It's funded by the public. It's ours.

[00:05:28]>> We own it. You're allowed to go to >> Yeah. But it's policy that restricts us, not law, sir. So, I follow law.

[00:05:34]>> What can I help you with?

[00:05:35]>> Nothing. I was just I didn't I didn't intend on any interactions. I just walking around. I told you I would like to look at some marked police cars. I have people who have an interest in them. The harassment continues as Ed moves into an indisputably public area.

[00:05:47]Yet, he is still shadowed by a subordinate officer who covertly records him without any prior warning. This sneaky tactic directly violates Home Office and College of Policing guidelines on bodywn video, which state that officers must loudly and clearly announce when a camera is recording to maintain transparency and public trust.

[00:06:04]Instead of thinking independently, this officer simply parrots the sergeant's debunked orders, forcing Ed to deliver another basic lesson on the difference between institutional policy and the law.

[00:06:14]>> So, I'm okay here. Yeah.

[00:06:15]>> But ideally, >> no, not ideally, ma'am. And I feel we got off on the wrong foot over there, but let's stick to law. You don't want people to go around there. You need to gate it because otherwise people are just going to go there because And you know why, Sergeant? because we have the lawful right to under section 33 of the criminal justice act 1972. If I can walk through it without crossing a barrier by opening it, climbing it or moving around it, I am free to enter it. You know this, Sergeant, >> it says no unauthorized access.

[00:06:43]>> I understand that. But it's a civil matter, isn't it?

[00:06:46]>> So therefore, because of our threat level, we have to question those >> disproportionate ma'am.

[00:06:51]>> The threat level is that I don't know who you are cuz you're not working. You haven't got any identification.

[00:06:56]>> I do have ID. You haven't asked me for it.

[00:06:58]>> Well, I'm about to, but you we it got into a slight altercation over there.

[00:07:02]>> Well, yeah, but I feel like you escalated that.

[00:07:05]>> Okay, fine.

[00:07:05]>> But we we can agree to disagree because I know what police are like.

[00:07:09]>> I heard this lady speaking to the gentleman over there and she she tred me with the same brush as what your generic um what your generic handed down information is given. So, and I heard her say that >> the sergeant's pathetic pivot that Ed ideally shouldn't be in the car park completely collapses her previous legal stance, exposing that her demands were rooted in personal preference rather than any actual legislation. Ed instantly demolishes this by telling her to stick to the law, drawing a sharp boundary between her internal desires and actual statutory powers. Desperate to regain control, she then makes the utterly laughable claim that Ed poses a security risk simply because he isn't wearing an official lanyard. National threat levels and internal building security policies are governed by strict counterterrorism frameworks and contest protocols which rely on actual hostile reconnaissance indicators, not whether a member of the public on open ground has a plastic badge hanging around their neck.

[00:08:02]>> But if your front door was open, you wouldn't want me to walk into your front door.

[00:08:06]>> But legally, you could.

[00:08:07]>> No. No.

[00:08:08]>> Yes, you could.

[00:08:09]>> If my front door is open, we can't sit into your house.

[00:08:13]>> Sorry, Michael. You may not be as a police officer, right? But everybody, everybody on this planet who walks this planet with two feet two feet has an implied right of access. If I leave my listen, if I leave my door open and somebody comes in my house, it could be construed as aggravated trespass. It could be. However, >> the black and white of the law says if my front door is open, anybody may walk in until I revoke their implied rights of access.

[00:08:40]>> Cuz you obviously know a lot about legislation.

[00:08:43]>> Yeah. But you wouldn't be able >> enough to stay safe at least.

[00:08:46]>> You wouldn't go up to the office window and film through the window.

[00:08:48]>> Well, I would if I wanted to because um I wouldn't be breaking the law if I did that because >> you know what I mean? That's the kind of things that's going to >> I'm not going to I'm not going to be here to I'm not here to purposely antagonize anybody. So, I'm not going to do anything purposefully to antagonize anybody, but I will exercise my rights and I I will defend my rights vehemently if needed. The officer's failed attempt at a hypothetical comparison, claiming that Ed wouldn't want strangers walking through his open front door completely backfires, demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of basic property law.

[00:09:18]The landmark high court ruling in Robson versus Howlet firmly establishes that implied right of access, which gives any member of the public a lawful right to walk up an unobstructed pathway to the entrance of a property. This officer's absolute confusion over where civil trespass begins and ends proves he shouldn't be lecturing anyone on property boundaries. The officer then tries falsely telling Ed he cannot film through the station windows, which is entirely untrue. Under UK law, there is no legal expectation of privacy for activities visible from a public vantage point. This links perfectly to what I'm about to share. It's called under what?

[00:09:53]Because whether people like it or not, the legal landscape in this country is changing. Powers abroad, enforcement is active, new laws are coming quickly, and most people only realize what they don't know when they're already in the situation. Under what is built, so you understand the system you live under at all times. Inside the platform are over 100 fully interactive legal guides. Not just reading, you make decisions and see how those decisions affect your legal safety, escalation risk, and evidence position. Stopbot is built directly into the platform. A policing focused AI designed specifically around UK law. It breaks down powers and thresholds clearly, and in guide mode, it works like a teacher, expanding on the guides and reinforcing your understanding so you're not secondguessing yourself.

[00:10:34]There's also a daily UK policing news feed focused on real activity, incidents, operational shifts, and crime, including exclusive deep dive articles breaking down police misconduct cases, upcoming legislation, and what it all actually means. And then there are the protection tools. A live drone safety map with NOTM awareness. A civil claim checker to assess potential liability, a police complaint generator, a SAR request builder, and more rolling out. This isn't built around outrage.

[00:11:00]It's built because policing in the UK is at an all-time low, and people need to stay informed, prepared, and protected.

[00:11:07]It launches soon at an affordable monthly price. If you want to see it properly when it goes live, the Underwatch channel is linked down below in the description.

[00:11:15]>> Just get your details.

[00:11:17]No, I haven't broken the law. You can um Are you asking me for ID?

[00:11:20]>> Well, see there's just cops permission for us to be featured in your videos.

[00:11:27]>> You've got your faces covered your public officials.

[00:11:33]There you go. Your crown, sir.

[00:11:34]>> I still don't give you permission. Okay.

[00:11:36]Um you have no expectations in a public.

[00:11:39]So, um I'm >> just remind you that I haven't given you the army. Aren't you?

[00:11:44]>> Sure.

[00:11:46]I've just had a really nice talk with Michael and I come over. It seems like police just can't help but give directives. Like, stop giving directives to people who haven't done anything wrong and go about your business. It's disrespectful.

[00:11:58]>> Just please don't pass.

[00:12:00]>> Yeah. No, I'm not going to come past the balls. Okay.

[00:12:05]What's your number anyway? You, young buck.

[00:12:09]>> And your name?

[00:12:11]>> Are you sure?

[00:12:12]>> Do you suspect me of terrorism offenses?

[00:12:14]Then you absolutely do have to give me your name, sir.

[00:12:18]>> The arrival of yet another officer only adds more legal illiteracy to the scene as he claims Ed needs explicit permission to include them in his video.

[00:12:25]This assertion completely ignores established UK law and the College of Policing guidance on media relations which explicitly confirms that the public and press have an absolute right to film police officers performing their duties in a public space as public officials have zero expectation of privacy while on duty. To double down on this incompetence, when asked to identify himself, this new officer only offers a shoulder number. Ed rightly corners him by pointing out that the only legal exemption allowing an officer to withhold their name for personal safety is under counterterrorism protocols, such as section 43 of the Terrorism Act 2000. An exemption the officer openly admits does not apply here.

[00:13:04]>> Take 270.

[00:13:06]>> Yeah. You based from here as well, are you?

[00:13:09]>> Yep. You based here, are you?

[00:13:12]Are you based here?

[00:13:16]>> Oh, no.

[00:13:17]>> Are you based? Can I see your warrant card, please?

[00:13:22]>> And you give me You have to give me three forms of ID. You've given me your number and your uniform. So, either give me your name or show me your warrant card.

[00:13:29]>> How long have you been a constable?

[00:13:32]>> Tell you.

[00:13:32]>> Huh?

[00:13:32]>> I don't have to tell you.

[00:13:33]>> No, but what you do need to do is know the law and your policy. And your policy states that when a member of the public asks you to identify, you will identify with three forms of ID. I will accept your uniform. You have given me your number. So you will either show me your warrant card or you'll tell me your name, sir.

[00:13:49]Or you will receive a complaint.

[00:13:51]>> You're more than welcome to a complaint.

[00:13:53]>> Okay, that's fine. Off you go then.

[00:13:54]>> Okay. You're no longer required. When a when a constable you are around acts outside of his remit, he should say something because you know what I said earlier and you you questioned me and you said actually it's not all officers but when a good officer doesn't say something to a bad officer that makes him just as bad. Yeah, of course. You don't.

[00:14:14]>> The officer's smug refusal to state whether he is based at the station or to produce his warrant card exposes a deep-seated culture of arrogance and unaccountability within this unit. Under the College of Policing Code of Ethics and Standard Operational Procedures, an officer in uniform is required to confirm their base and present their warrant card upon a reasonable request from a member of the public to verify their identity and legitimacy. By treating a basic request for transparency as an interrogation he could simply ignore, this officer showed a complete disdain for the public. When threatened with a formal complaint for this blatant obstruction, the officer rather he do that reveals an institutional indifference to discipline. He clearly believed the Internal Complaint system would shield his misconduct, completely forgetting that under the Police Reform Act 2002, failing to identify oneself or produce a warrant card is a clear breach of professional standards that can trigger formal disciplinary action. These officers genuinely believe they are above the rules that govern their employment. Ultimately, this entire encounter serves as an embarrassing demonstration of institutional incompetence. Ed's departure to freely film the car park was the final undeniable proof of his victory, leaving a line of silent, defeated officers standing in the wake of their own collapsed authority. If you found value in this breakdown, make sure you like the video, share it, and subscribe to support the channel and help keep this kind of accountability in the spotlight.

[00:15:37]I'm the audit assessor. See you guys later.