Euston visited by a self-appointed “auditor”

[skyhigh]

Haranguing police who are looking for an armed and dangerous suspect and then refusing to leave or even step back.

Reminds me of a personal anecdote when I had the misfortune to be involved with an 'auditor' a while back. Credible report of a suspect with a knife along with a detailed description of said suspect. Found a person who fully matched the description and began a stop and search for the knife.

Auditor turned up and started filming, shouting comments along the lines of "you're only searching him because he's black" etc etc. Ignored him and carried on with the search while he carried on shouting. During the search I found a massive knife tucked into the waistband of the suspect. Pulled it out and the auditor suddenly went quiet. At which point the person I was searching looked round and said to the auditor "if you don't stop filming me I'll show the pig how I use that knife"

Never heard anything further regarding that incident...

 

[yorkie]

In this video the British Transport Police Officer claims that Euston is a compulsory ticket area. Is that correct?

It's not correct.

By the way I've edited your post to include a quote to ensure that the thread is accessible to all (including blind/deaf members who may have difficulties seeing/hearing videos, along with anyone else who may be unable to view a Youtube video for any reason).

 

[pt_mad]

It's not correct.

What are the arrangements with regards to the Avanti ticket checks at the platform entrances? If a ticket is not mandatory, how can ticket inspection be enforced?
(Presumably an alternative explanation for attempting to enter the platform would be required, which the person in this video appeared to refuse to give as he said he doesn't answer personal questions). What would be the appropriate procedure in that scenario?

 

[yorkie]

What are the arrangements with regards to the Avanti ticket checks at the platform entrances? If a ticket is not mandatory, how can ticket inspection be enforced?
(Presumably an alternative explanation for attempting to enter the platform would be required, which the person in this video appeared to refuse to give as he said he doesn't answer personal questions). What would be the appropriate procedure in that scenario?

A non-compulsory ticket area can still have controlled access; there is nothing compelling any TOC to make any area that is not a compulsory ticket area open to anyone.

A compulsory ticket area is a very specific defined concept.

 

[pt_mad]

A non-compulsory ticket area can still have controlled access; there is nothing compelling any TOC to make any area that is not a compulsory ticket area open to anyone.

A compulsory ticket area is a very specific defined concept.

This person did not appear to even acknowledge anything that could even suggest an area could be controlled in any way, even when station staff suggested he could not film security equipment.

 

[yorkie]

This person did not appear to even acknowledge anything that could even suggest an area could be controlled in any way, even when station staff suggested he could not film security equipment.

I've decided not to bother watching the video as I don't think it would be a good use of my time.

Looking at the description and what's been written it sounds like someone probably trying to assert more rights than they actually have, and encountering someone who doesn't really know the rules themselves and just makes things up, with the end result that neither party comes across well.

I've seen too many of that sort of video before; there was one in Manchester a year or two ago that was posted here which springs to mind.

 

[Busaholic]

I've decided not to bother watching the video as I don't think it would be a good use of my time. and usually

Looking at the description and what's been written it sounds like someone probably trying to assert more rights than they actually have, and encountering someone who doesn't really know the rules themselves and just makes things up, with the end result that neither party comes across well.

I've seen too many of that sort of video before; there was one in Manchester a year or two ago that was posted here which springs to mind.

Yes, 'auditor' v police videos do not usually see either side cover themselves in glory either in the UK or the USA, which needless to say spawned the habit. There'll usually be one cop with more rabbit than Sainsbury's (inevitably the one with the loosest grasp of actual law or how to relate to the general public) and so many 'auditors' get off on provoking them, which might make for an interesting video until you've seen three or four of them.

Mind you, this is nothing compared to the 'Sovereign Citizen' movement infesting the United States, where men (usually) whose every thought (to use the word loosely) has been imbibed at Trump's rabble-rousing rallies drive around in unregistered cars, etc, claiming to police, sheriffs etc when they stop them that the law doesn't apply to them. They're almost always white, middle or even old aged, and often look like Hell's Angel rejects. Again, though, when you've seen a couple of these videos you almost ( )long for the police to beat the c*ap out of some of these halfwits!

 

[Cloud Strife]

Looking at the description and what's been written it sounds like someone probably trying to assert more rights than they actually have, and encountering someone who doesn't really know the rules themselves and just makes things up, with the end result that neither party comes across well.

That's the usual problem with these auditors. They sometimes have a good point, but they ruin it by being aggressive, using bad language and generally overreacting.

There's one on YouTube where the security guard says that you can't film a government building, which was actually a Jobcentre. The bloke filming starts off well, he isn't rude, he just asks for details about the alleged rule. He ruins it by going inside the building, which is a pity: the video stood up for itself by the fact that he was simply having that discussion outside while stood on the pavement.

 

[Edsmith]

This person did not appear to even acknowledge anything that could even suggest an area could be controlled in any way, even when station staff suggested he could not film security equipment.

And that's another thing, why can't he film security equipment? Might be considered a strange thing to do, some people might think photographing trains is strange, but basically the law is that if you can see it you can film it.

 

[diffident]

And that's another thing, why can't he film security equipment? Might be considered a strange thing to do, some people might think photographing trains is strange, but basically the law is that if you can see it you can film it.

It could be construed as planning and preparing a criminal act. I.e. if you know where all the cameras are, security personnel are positioned, etc, you could arguably make a plan to evade them.

In respect of this chap, he was an utter cretin. I hope he's taken to court and the magistrate decides to make an example of him.

 

[ChewChewTrain]

Reminds me of a personal anecdote when I had the misfortune to be involved with an 'auditor' a while back. Credible report of a suspect with a knife along with a detailed description of said suspect. Found a person who fully matched the description and began a stop and search for the knife.

Auditor turned up and started filming, shouting comments along the lines of "you're only searching him because he's black" etc etc. Ignored him and carried on with the search while he carried on shouting. During the search I found a massive knife tucked into the waistband of the suspect. Pulled it out and the auditor suddenly went quiet. At which point the person I was searching looked round and said to the auditor "if you don't stop filming me I'll show the pig how I use that knife"

Never heard anything further regarding that incident...

Thanks for sharing; that made my day!

 

[Yew]

It could be construed as planning and preparing a criminal act. I.e. if you know where all the cameras are, security personnel are positioned, etc, you could arguably make a plan to evade them.

I kind of understand, but if I was a criminal I think that it wouldn't be hard to take non-obvious/innocuous photos with a phone.

 

[Bald Rick]

I won’t watch videos like this. Sorry if this has been asked before, but what exactly was this individual “auditing”?

 

[Edsmith]

It could be construed as planning and preparing a criminal act. I.e. if you know where all the cameras are, security personnel are positioned, etc, you could arguably make a plan to evade them.

In respect of this chap, he was an utter cretin. I hope he's taken to court and the magistrate decides to make an example of him.

Taking photos of trains, or just about anything else for that matter, could be seen as planning a criminal act.

I've no particular opinion on the auditor but looking at it objectively I'm not sure what he could be prosecuted for.

 

[zwk500]

I kind of understand, but if I was a criminal I think that it wouldn't be hard to take non-obvious/innocuous photos with a phone.

It's not, but also don't underestimate how brazen/stupid people can be. A canny person could quite easily pretend to be filming a trip report at Euston and just "happening" to catch the CCTV positions, etc in all the shots.

 

[dosxuk]

Taking photos of trains, or just about anything else for that matter, could be seen as planning a criminal act.

I've no particular opinion on the auditor but looking at it objectively I'm not sure what he could be prosecuted for.

You're not going to be prosecuted for taking photos of the CCTV cameras.

As said earlier in the thread, while it's not illegal to take those sorts of photos, you also have no legal right to be able to do so. What it definitely is, is suspicious, and unless you have a reasonable excuse for doing so, or otherwise being at the station, you can be required to leave. Not doing so when asked is breaking the law, and you can be arrested / prosecuted under various acts/laws/byelaws.

 

[AlterEgo]

I won’t watch videos like this. Sorry if this has been asked before, but what exactly was this individual “auditing”?

He was there to create a confrontation with a police officer or member of staff whom he would then film and put on the internet. Supposedly to "check his rights are being upheld".

 

[Bletchleyite]

A non-compulsory ticket area can still have controlled access; there is nothing compelling any TOC to make any area that is not a compulsory ticket area open to anyone.

A compulsory ticket area is a very specific defined concept.

I do love the English language - not all compulsory ticket areas* are Compulsory Ticket Areas**. True though.

* places you won't or may not be let in without a ticket unless there's no opportunity to buy one, i.e. all gated stations, basically.
** places where you can be Penalty Fared for simply being there without a valid ticket unless there's no opportunity to buy one, which is most if not all TfL stations but hardly any mainline ones.

 

[the sniper]

Yes, 'auditor' v police videos do not usually see either side cover themselves in glory either in the UK or the USA, which needless to say spawned the habit.

True.

Mind you, this is nothing compared to the 'Sovereign Citizen' movement infesting the United States, where men (usually) whose every thought (to use the word loosely) has been imbibed at Trump's rabble-rousing rallies drive around in unregistered cars, etc, claiming to police, sheriffs etc when they stop them that the law doesn't apply to them. They're almost always white, middle or even old aged, and often look like Hell's Angel rejects. Again, though, when you've seen a couple of these videos you almost ( )long for the police to beat the c*ap out of some of these halfwits!

We have our own (well, Commonwealth) version, 'freeman on the land', that seemingly came out of Canada. They're big fans of common law but not much else... I think it was more of a thing a decade ago, 'auditing' seems an easier gig.

 

[zwk500]

We have our own (well, Commonwealth) version, 'freeman on the land', that seemingly came out of Canada. They're big fans of common law but not much else... I think it was more of a thing a decade ago, 'auditing' seems an easier gig.

the UK has had a sudden ride in people claiming a certain clause lf Magna Carter exempts them from following laws they dont like.
It doesn't, and was repealed almost immediately, and only ever applied on England, but these are mere details.

 

[Bald Rick]

He was there to create a confrontation with a police officer or member of staff whom he would then film and put on the internet. Supposedly to "check his rights are being upheld".

Ah not an auditor at all then, but the kind of person who commutes only on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.

 

[SargeNpton]

This is at one of the entrances to Euston, been there for a few years. No idea whether it is posted at all of them though, and I can't say that I have seen similar anywhere else.

 

[Watershed]

This is at one of the entrances to Euston, been there for a few years. No idea whether it is posted at all of them though, and I can't say that I have seen similar anywhere else.

I've seen that at many other NR stations.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's the one I was thinking of. I've definitely seen it at Euston and am almost certain I've seen it elsewhere too, plus at some shopping centres (though obviously they don't have the criminal sanction for trespass).

I've definitely seen one saying "Withdrawal of implied permission..." too.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Just to return to this topic: I've finally found one auditor who is fairly reasonable in what he does.

https://www.youtube.com/@DJAUDITS/videos

(link is to a YouTube channel of videos of someone filming various places)

He gets a lot of abuse from people in companies, and his chosen method of provoking is quite clever: he highlights issues (such as open security gates) and then waits for their reaction. He's also filming above warehouses/etc in industrial estates, but he is very clear about sticking to the CAA rules for drones under 250g, including always being within line of sight.

It is enlightening, because he's also posting videos where people are behaving reasonably too. He's also not afraid to show the police in a good light, and he's showing a lot of people for being normal and behaving reasonably. What is frightening is just how poorly people know the law: he caught one woman threatening him with the GDPR, which is quite embarassing.

While his behaviour isn't perfect, he's definitely one of the more reasonable ones. The amusing thing is watching how people get hysterical about him using a drone, but they seem to be oblivious to the fact that satellite imagery is just as detailed as his drone.

The important thing for me here is that he doesn't appear to be causing trouble in places where he can't, such as railway stations.

 

[Meerkat]

Just to return to this topic: I've finally found one auditor who is fairly reasonable in what he does.

https://www.youtube.com/@DJAUDITS/videos

(link is to a YouTube channel of videos of someone filming various places)

He gets a lot of abuse from people in companies, and his chosen method of provoking is quite clever: he highlights issues (such as open security gates) and then waits for their reaction. He's also filming above warehouses/etc in industrial estates, but he is very clear about sticking to the CAA rules for drones under 250g, including always being within line of sight.

It is enlightening, because he's also posting videos where people are behaving reasonably too. He's also not afraid to show the police in a good light, and he's showing a lot of people for being normal and behaving reasonably. What is frightening is just how poorly people know the law: he caught one woman threatening him with the GDPR, which is quite embarassing.

While his behaviour isn't perfect, he's definitely one of the more reasonable ones. The amusing thing is watching how people get hysterical about him using a drone, but they seem to be oblivious to the fact that satellite imagery is just as detailed as his drone.

The important thing for me here is that he doesn't appear to be causing trouble in places where he can't, such as railway stations.

I'm not going to watch it but he sounds a pretty unpleasant person. They basically make a living out of knowing that people dont like having a camera shoved in their face.
Personally I don't think the law has kept up with the changes in cameras, pervasive surveillance (Ring doorbells that monitor the street and neighbours houses, complete with sound), live streaming etc. It was different when it was people taking few photos, that few people would see.
Drones are even worse, as beside the invasion of privacy they make a noise guaranteed to increase irritation.
About time an employer wrapped one of these auditors up in a long expensive legal case, after all they like the workings of the law so much.

 

[Edsmith]

I'm not going to watch it but he sounds a pretty unpleasant person. They basically make a living out of knowing that people dont like having a camera shoved in their face.
Personally I don't think the law has kept up with the changes in cameras, pervasive surveillance (Ring doorbells that monitor the street and neighbours houses, complete with sound), live streaming etc. It was different when it was people taking few photos, that few people would see.
Drones are even worse, as beside the invasion of privacy they make a noise guaranteed to increase irritation.
About time an employer wrapped one of these auditors up in a long expensive legal case, after all they like the workings of the law so much.

I'm sure most police officers are used to having cameras "shoved in their face", it's part and parcel of the job nowadays. How do you differentiate between that and photographing trains etc? And I don't know what legal case you think an employer can bring?

 

[Meerkat]

I'm sure most police officers are used to having cameras "shoved in their face", it's part and parcel of the job nowadays. How do you differentiate between that and photographing trains etc? And I don't what legal case you think an employer can bring?

I'm used to getting stuck in traffic, doesn't mean it isn't very irritating.
Well the 'auditors' like legal detail, I'm sure the employers could find something. I'm not convinced the 'auditors' are as bright as they think they are so it would be nice so see one being lead into doing something that ends up in court.

 

[Intercity110]

This is at one of the entrances to Euston, been there for a few years. No idea whether it is posted at all of them though, and I can't say that I have seen similar anywhere else.

one at northampton, near the taxi rank.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm used to getting stuck in traffic, doesn't mean it isn't very irritating.
Well the 'auditors' like legal detail, I'm sure the employers could find something. I'm not convinced the 'auditors' are as bright as they think they are so it would be nice so see one being lead into doing something that ends up in court.

They could just ban them from the premises. Any business can do that; there's no legal entitlement to use the railway, it's not (any longer) a common carrier.

Does the status of railway trespass being criminal apply to only the track, or could they then prosecute him if he entered any railway premises having been so banned?