Smug UK Cops Learn A PAINFUL Lesson On Camera!

Hinzugefügt: 2026-06-02

[00:00:00]detain me.

[00:00:00]>> I'm not detaining you.

[00:00:01]>> So, you just said to me, I'm not going anywhere at the minute.

[00:00:03]>> Listen, where do you intend to go next?

[00:00:05]Cuz I'm just going to follow you. All right.

[00:00:06]>> That's no concern of yours.

[00:00:07]>> Welcome to Rate the Audits, where we put misconduct on display, explore police and legal content, protect rights, and demand accountability. This episode is brought to us by Forced Awakenings. Be sure to check the link below and subscribe to his channel and give him the credit he deserves. In this episode, Forced Awakenings is filming a council building when officers move in and treat it like he's casing a military base. No groundwork, no clear offense, just immediate demands for his details. When that doesn't stick, they reach for the terrorism act. As if saying the word is enough to raise the stakes, seizing his camera gets floated. Arrest gets hinted at. And even as he walks away, they trail him. Like lawful filming is something that has to be chased down.

[00:00:49]It's one of those encounters where the escalation comes first and the justification is scrambled together afterwards.

[00:00:56]>> I'm just wondering what you're doing.

[00:00:57]>> I'm just explaining to one of the civic enforcement officers I'm filming.

[00:01:01]>> What are you filming?

[00:01:03]>> Anything I can see from public?

[00:01:05]>> Right. And is there a reason behind that?

[00:01:07]>> Um, it's for a story.

[00:01:09]>> Right. Okay. Can I take your details, please?

[00:01:11]>> Um, what what would you like my details for? Because obviously in the interest of public safety and everything like that, when somebody is out filming and having a look around public buildings, right, we have a duty of care >> to check you out.

[00:01:25]>> What? A duty of care to whom?

[00:01:27]>> To the general public.

[00:01:28]>> I'm part of the general public.

[00:01:29]>> Yes.

[00:01:30]>> I don't have to give you my details, sir.

[00:01:34]>> Right. I can just get other pe >> Well, other people still I'm still not obliged to give you my details.

[00:01:41]>> I'm asking because I moment.

[00:01:44]>> I don't know whether you are committing any criminal offenses in this area.

[00:01:48]>> I'm I'm certainly not.

[00:01:49]>> This gentleman is out filming and is pointing up looking at all the cameras and obviously in light of >> identify the cameras up there >> in in light of >> I'm not filming that. I'm filming up there. I was filming up there when this lady approached.

[00:02:03]>> She opens with interrogation mode straight away. And even after Forced Awakenings explains exactly why he's recording, she treats his reason as something that needs to meet her personal approval. It doesn't. Lawful activity doesn't require a justification that satisfies an officer's curiosity.

[00:02:19]Then she demands his details under the banner of public safety and the supposed duty of care. That's a stretch. Duty of care doesn't create a roaming power to collect names from anyone holding a camera. It applies when there's an identifiable risk, not when there's uncertainty. The most telling moment is when she admits she doesn't even know if he's committing any offense. If you don't know of a crime, you don't have grounds to demand details on the off chance one might exist.

[00:02:45]>> What's the issue?

[00:02:46]>> There isn't an issue.

[00:02:47]>> I'm just wondering why he's filming public buildings.

[00:02:51]>> Well, I'm I'm perfectly entitled to to to film anything I can any Hang on. Wait a minute. I'm perfectly entitled to film anything I can see from a public place, including council buildings that are owned by the public.

[00:03:03]>> Okay. We have concerns about public safety >> and your concerns are >> we don't know who you are and what it is. It isn't >> in this in the day and age that we are in.

[00:03:14]>> I are are you are you accusing me of being a terrorist?

[00:03:16]>> I'm not accusing anybody of anything.

[00:03:18]But >> do you have reasonable suspicion to believe that I'm up to anything other than >> I don't know what you're up to.

[00:03:25]>> Go to Google Google Fin.

[00:03:28]>> It'll tell and even legislation.

[00:03:29]>> Tell me what I need to do.

[00:03:30]>> Right. Well, right. Well, don't tell me that I need to give you my details when I know that I don't.

[00:03:35]>> I'd like you to move away from this area, please. Otherwise, >> you need a section 60. You need a se to to to remove somebody from an area without probable cause. You need a section 60.

[00:03:44]>> Well, I'm concerned for public safety and what you are doing in this area.

[00:03:47]>> I've told you what I'm doing in this area.

[00:03:49]>> Well, you need to move away from here now.

[00:03:51]>> When the second officer arrives, you can see the mindset harden rather than reset. Between them, filming a council building is treated as something inherently out of place. not because of anything specific he's done, but because it doesn't fit what they expect to see.

[00:04:05]That internal assumption becomes the driver of the interaction. Her main concern circles back to identity. I don't know who you are. As if not recognizing someone automatically justifies collecting their details. It doesn't. Then she reaches for the familiar day and age reasoning, implying terrorism without linking him to anything tangible. Elevated threat levels don't convert ordinary conduct into grounds.

[00:04:28]>> Move to the other side of the road.

[00:04:29]That's all right. You've obviously got nothing else better to do with your time, have you?

[00:04:32]>> Well Well, that's not your concern.

[00:04:34]>> What what I do with my time is nobody's concern but mine.

[00:04:38]>> Fair enough.

[00:04:38]>> Okay. Can I ask you to identify yourself? You haven't got any uh numbers on your >> 10,000.

[00:04:44]>> 10,000. And name?

[00:04:45]>> Sarah Bainbridge.

[00:04:45]>> And yours?

[00:04:46]>> 262 name. You're also on body count.

[00:04:48]>> Yeah, that that's fine. Um and you're based here?

[00:04:50]>> Yes.

[00:04:50]>> Yeah. Excellent.

[00:04:51]>> Well, I'm based out of Darlington.

[00:04:52]>> Right. Okay. Excellent. Hello there.

[00:04:54]>> Hi. Yeah, you're right.

[00:04:55]>> This gentleman is filming. He's now refusing to give any details and I >> I'm not obliged to >> I can't understand why he's out filming um buildings, council buildings, refusing to give any details in light of the incidents what we're having around the area >> and and those in incidents, whatever they may be. No concern of mine.

[00:05:13]Nothing.

[00:05:14]>> I don't know who you are and I can't check you out.

[00:05:17]>> Well, you don't need to.

[00:05:18]>> Yes, I do because I have a duty of care.

[00:05:19]>> I tell you what it is, mate. It's anti-terrorism. There's no terrorist there's no terrorist threat at the moment. But I don't know who you are.

[00:05:27]>> No terrorist. At the moment, we're still on height.

[00:05:29]>> When he says, "Haven't you got anything better to do?" That's not about public safety anymore. That's a personal jab.

[00:05:35]It shows this has drifted from assessment into attitude. Then she leans on incidents in the area as if crime somewhere nearby automatically transfers suspicion onto whoever happens to be holding a camera. That isn't how it works. You don't become a suspect by postcode. And when the second officer finally labels it anti-terrorism, that's the escalation play. Take a vague discomfort and wrap it in the heaviest category available.

[00:06:00]>> No terrorist threat at the moment and nor has there been over the past 5 years towards any public buildings any public buildings.

[00:06:07]>> That's a lie. Cuz there was one yesterday actually.

[00:06:09]>> Was there? Well, I wasn't aware of that.

[00:06:10]Where was that? So we don't know. Here.

[00:06:13]>> Yes, it was actually one of the council offices as well.

[00:06:16]>> Right. That's that's nothing to do with me. No concern of mine.

[00:06:19]>> How do we know that? Well, Were they Were they Were they Were they still outside with a mobile phone?

[00:06:24]>> Look, I'm not we're not getting into this. I am now asking you to leave the area because I feel that you >> on what grounds?

[00:06:30]>> Because you are harming the public.

[00:06:32]>> No. Which section of the law? You give me the section of the law. I'll quite happily move.

[00:06:37]>> You just need beg you pardon. I'm just a >> I never said one.

[00:06:42]>> You're a liar.

[00:06:44]>> It's worth filming you as well.

[00:06:45]>> That's fine. It's public. Just move out of the >> It's okay. perfectly okay to film in public which is what I was explaining to your colleague.

[00:06:52]>> You gave me your details and I could >> my right >> happy that there is nothing to walk >> my details won't give you any other information.

[00:07:01]>> I would like to check you out so that I am happy that I can leave you unattended on the side.

[00:07:08]>> When Forced Awakenings ask whether the person involved in that incident was even filming, they sidestep it instantly. No answer, no explanation, just a quick pivot away from a question that undercuts their reasoning. Instead, she shifts to saying he's alarming the public and that she wants his details so she can feel happy leaving him there.

[00:07:27]That's not an objective standard. That's personal comfort creeping into the decision-m policing isn't about managing an officer's feelings.

[00:07:35]>> No, you've got no you've got no actual reason other than curiosity as to why I'm filming to to be stood here. to know who you are to make sure >> I don't have to identify myself and you you're well aware of that. I know the law just as much.

[00:07:47]>> Very shortly I will for a to prevent a breach of the peace.

[00:07:51]>> You can't pre prevent a breach of the priest if mom was going to take place.

[00:07:56]>> I'm not breaching anybody's peace.

[00:07:58]>> I have colleagues and members of the council staff who were very concerned about why you were out here filming in light of the incidents yesterday.

[00:08:08]>> Filming a story. I'm not filming in light of those incidents. Those incidents weren't even known to me until you made them aware.

[00:08:14]>> Prove or negate either way. All I want is your details to make sure that no members of the public are of threat you.

[00:08:24]>> Well, >> my details wouldn't give you any more information about that.

[00:08:27]>> People tell me every day how good they are.

[00:08:30]>> I'm not saying I'm not saying Hang on.

[00:08:31]I'm not saying I'm good. What I'm saying I'm not denying either way. Everybody says every t all the time with interactions with the police, it wasn't me. I'm no threat.

[00:08:40]>> That's because your interaction instead of instead of accepting what I'm doing is perfectly legal.

[00:08:44]>> It then jumps to preventing a breach of the peace even though there's no sign of violence, no confrontation, no disorder brewing. That power isn't a comfort blanket you throw over a situation because people feel uneasy. It's there for imminent conflict, not speculative tension. saying colleagues and council staff are concerned doesn't raise the threshold either. Concern isn't evidence. They're public servants, not private land owners defending personal space. Their unease doesn't convert lawful filming into a trigger for intervention. Then she adds that she can't take his word because lots of people claim innocence. That's a broad brush to justify ignoring what's actually in front of her. You don't discard someone's explanation by default and replace it with assumption. Before we carry on, there's something I've been building over the past few months with a small team. It's called Underwater.

[00:09:32]Because whether people like it or not, the legal landscape in this country is changing. Powers are wide, enforcement is active, new laws come in 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, there 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 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. There's a daily UK policing news feed focused on real activity, incidents, operational shifts, crime, and within that exclusive deep dive articles from me 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. It's built because policing in the UK is at an all-time low and we need to stay informed, prepared, and protected. It launches soon at an affordable monthly price. If you want to see it properly when it goes live, the Underwatch channel is down below in the description.

[00:11:03]>> Is to site laws that don't exist. Say that I >> cited a law that doesn't >> you you told me that you were going to move me. You can't move me without that section. without the powers is under a section.

[00:11:12]>> I have reasonable grounds to believe you >> if you're asking me to move.

[00:11:17]>> Yes.

[00:11:17]>> Right. And you can state me a section >> of the law, I'll move quite happily.

[00:11:24]>> Quite that that's perfectly reasonable request.

[00:11:26]>> It's fine cuz we've got supervision.

[00:11:28]>> Do you understand what the the current level threat at the moment?

[00:11:31]>> Right. If there has been evident means I'm sure you do. You see intelligence.

[00:11:34]>> If there has been a threat a threat yesterday of some sort, then yes, I can understand.

[00:11:39]>> Right. So now, but I wasn't aware of that until you told me.

[00:11:44]>> So now that's why we need your details.

[00:11:46]>> Well, you don't need my details.

[00:11:47]>> Yes, we do.

[00:11:47]>> So, do you have the details? Who were whoever it was who who spoke you spoke to yesterday?

[00:11:52]>> You know what's going to happen? Right.

[00:11:53]I'll tell you exactly what's going to happen. You're going to end up getting arrested, right?

[00:11:56]>> Listen, that we're speaking to our supervision at the moment, okay? Based on the current threat levels and the incident that happened today, >> you ended up getting seized, okay, under the terrorism laws. She keeps insisting she has reasonable grounds. Yet, when he offers the simplest test, name the section and he'll comply. There's nothing, no statute, no specific power, just silence. That pause says more than any argument. If the authority was solid, it would be easy to articulate.

[00:12:23]Instead, it hangs there unspoken. Then, the tone shifts again as the other officer loses patience and jumps straight to arrest threats and talk of seizing his camera under terrorism legislation. That escalation isn't built on new facts. It's built on frustration.

[00:12:38]You don't fill a legal gap by raising your voice or invoking the heaviest powers available.

[00:12:43]>> Your body cameras will also be made public knowledge to me and I'll use them.

[00:12:47]>> I just I want to >> I just can't see why you're being so obstructive with I'm not being obstructive at all. I'm not obliged. No, there's no there's no obstruction because I'm not obliged by law to give you unless you reason unless you reasonably assume I don't need to because it wouldn't go to court. You'd be looking at a lawsuit.

[00:13:02]>> You're being obstructive. I don't care.

[00:13:04]>> I'm not being obstructive at all.

[00:13:05]Refusing to give my details when being asked is not an obstruction.

[00:13:09]>> You've asked for her details. Okay.

[00:13:10]>> Because I'm as as a member of the public and and you've been civil, you're you are legally obliged to give me those details upon request.

[00:13:16]>> You've obviously got not not know better today.

[00:13:18]>> Well, but that's that's my concern, not yours.

[00:13:20]>> Yeah.

[00:13:21]>> If I was stood on the other side of the road without a camera, you wouldn't have approached me. It's purely because I'm filming. Filming is a perfectly legal activity.

[00:13:28]>> Because we don't know why you are filming.

[00:13:32]>> But I've told you why I'm filming. For a story. A story for what?

[00:13:35]>> For YouTube, for my blog, >> right? So, who are you? If >> I don't have to identify myself and you you're well aware of the law regarding identification, stop and search powers and procedures.

[00:13:45]>> Telling him to fight it in court isn't confidence. It's bluster. It's the kind of line you use when you can't properly justify the demand in the moment. Forced awakenings is right to point out it wouldn't even reach that stage if the stop itself was flawed. Civil action exists for that reason. The officer brushing it off with I don't care is the giveaway. That's ego replacing judgment.

[00:14:07]Policing decisions aren't supposed to be made on who's willing to gamble. Then they try flipping it. Because he asked for their details, he should hand over his. That's not how it works. Officers are required under their own standards to identify themselves when asked.

[00:14:21]Members of the public aren't under a blanket obligation to reciprocate.

[00:14:25]>> Fine. At the moment, my colleagues are on to senior officers so that we can have a power of stop and search to get more details.

[00:14:33]>> Good luck with that.

[00:14:34]>> You're detaining me?

[00:14:35]>> I'm not detaining. Yeah.

[00:14:36]>> So, you just said to me, "I'm not going anywhere at the minute."

[00:14:38]>> Listen, where do you intend to go next?

[00:14:40]Cuz I'm just going to follow you. All right.

[00:14:41]>> That's no concern of yours.

[00:14:42]>> Right. Well, listen. I'm just going to follow you because we need to speak to you about what you're doing.

[00:14:45]>> You can follow me wherever you like, but don't tell me that I'm not going anywhere because that's a threat of of detainment unlawfully.

[00:14:51]>> Right. Listen, do you want would you like to come back around to the police station while we speak to you?

[00:14:55]>> No, I don't need to.

[00:14:56]>> You don't need to. Right. Where you going now?

[00:14:58]>> I'm not telling you.

[00:14:58]>> No, I'm going to follow you then. Okay, >> you follow me.

[00:15:00]>> Okay.

[00:15:03]>> This is harassment.

[00:15:07]>> Um yeah. So anyway, I went in to see him um and basically fob me off back to his offices most of the way. Um it did say that they would be doing some training over um sort of data protection and um dealing with photographers.

[00:15:30]Whether they did or not, I don't know. I didn't take it any further. I wasn't after them for money. Um it's not why I do this. It's just to show them as the bullies that they were.

[00:15:40]And hopefully they'll learn the lesson.

[00:15:43]>> What stands out most isn't just the initial stop. It's the persistence. When clear authority isn't immediately available, she doesn't pause and reassess. She starts searching for a power to fit the outcome she already wants. Colleagues are consulted. Senior officers are contacted. All in an effort to retrofit justification onto a demand for details. That's not how decision-m is supposed to work. You identify grounds first, then act. You don't decide on the action and then shop around internally for something that might cover it. Then there's the following. Once forced, awakening disengages and walks away. An officer tails him and asks where he's going. As though movement itself requires oversight. We might need to speak to you isn't a legal position. It's a placeholder. If there's a legitimate need, it should already be articulated.

[00:16:29]Shadowing someone after failing to establish ground doesn't strengthen the case. The follow-up is where the wider significance sits. A complaint is made and the outcome reportedly involves a troll of data protection. That detail matters. It suggested concern wasn't imaginary. Something about the handling of personal information crossed the line internally. No dramatic ending, no headline arrest, just a quiet correction behind the scenes. That's it for today's video. If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to like, comment, and subscribe. It really helps me continue with my independent coverage. Also, don't forget to check out Forced Awakening. His channel is linked in the description. Show him some love. Thanks for watching. This was rate the audits and I'll see you in the next