Just adds bait for the obnoxious pricks. What if Mr auditor is fuelling his you tube morons with rants at security while Mr terrorist just walks in and blows everyone to pieces. No problems at all with inquisitive people but it's purely to feed morons.
Hi Gary. Thanks for the comment but unless you have any proof I’d suggest not posting accusations like that. The piece is about their activities in auditing not anything else and it also does mention many of them have been in trouble with the law. If you post potentially defamatory content again I’m afraid I’ll have to ban you.
Did you ever investigate Gary's allegation? Surely this is something that should have been looked into by The Tribune? Instead, it appears you suspended Gary for making the comment.
You cannot stand up for the rights of others if you abuse those rights in the first place, and that is what an auditor does.
Their concept of the law is taken from different countries, most of which are not in line with our own laws, or a random section of law that has nothing to do with what they are doing, section 33 of the 1972 CJA being a prime example of a misused law (an amendment to the 1936 POA).
Trespass because a gate is open or no signs are up, it's not law in the UK to have to put signs up, pretty much all land and property off the public highway is private and that is our default.
They will also go on about Article 10 of the 1998 HRA, yet do not follow it, same with privacy, shoving a camera through a window breaks article 8 of that same human rights act, and this gets passed on to the less knowledgeable who follow these people, that includes their take on the law, and like most people do not do any of their own research to see if it is correct or not.
The other issue isn't just about having a camera but the responsibility of what you do with it, and that is down to the individual, simeone poorly taught will never see the consequences of what they have filmed or photographed, it's more than just an image, it is a moment in time, this means that there will be moments that you should not publish and some you should, only if they represent that person in a good light or in the public interest.
This is a time of change, social media plays a huge part in the lives of most people, camera's have become commonplace and included in must have devices since the mid 2000's, but people also need to understand that there is a requirement for responsibility and morals as well as a legal understanding of where and what you can film, or if permission is required to film, and the sources they get this from are not legitimate and give poor understanding of this expression of freedom, sometimes even doing the opposite.
Hi Mark. Thanks for your comment but the piece is about auditing, not anything else these men may or may not have done. The story clearly mentions many have been in trouble with the law over auditing but I would advise you against making any more potentially defamatory comments about anyone without strong proof.
It would only take 1.a google search of the name mentioned to see other journalists story's regarding the convictions for domestic abuse or 2. A fact check at the courts. Before you assume comments are potential defamation and not just people trying to show you the fuller story. More to this group of individuals than you've portrayed here. Id love to see you do a deeper dive and see what artical you'd right after that.
Just adds bait for the obnoxious pricks. What if Mr auditor is fuelling his you tube morons with rants at security while Mr terrorist just walks in and blows everyone to pieces. No problems at all with inquisitive people but it's purely to feed morons.
Hi Gary. Thanks for the comment but unless you have any proof I’d suggest not posting accusations like that. The piece is about their activities in auditing not anything else and it also does mention many of them have been in trouble with the law. If you post potentially defamatory content again I’m afraid I’ll have to ban you.
Dan,
Did you ever investigate Gary's allegation? Surely this is something that should have been looked into by The Tribune? Instead, it appears you suspended Gary for making the comment.
Sorry. But these are all facts. 100% correct and easily proved.
This is fascinating and really well written. I’d never heard of auditors - this kind anyway. Am really tempted to subscribe.
I agree Eileen. You see, we do agree sometimes.
Thanks John.
Many thanks Eileen 🙏 We are offering free trial memberships at the moment so you could try one of those and see if you like it?
I’d be very interested in that offer but can’t find it?
We only disagree about your hero (allegedly)!
Who is his hero?
JC of course.
Big up the auditors
You cannot stand up for the rights of others if you abuse those rights in the first place, and that is what an auditor does.
Their concept of the law is taken from different countries, most of which are not in line with our own laws, or a random section of law that has nothing to do with what they are doing, section 33 of the 1972 CJA being a prime example of a misused law (an amendment to the 1936 POA).
Trespass because a gate is open or no signs are up, it's not law in the UK to have to put signs up, pretty much all land and property off the public highway is private and that is our default.
They will also go on about Article 10 of the 1998 HRA, yet do not follow it, same with privacy, shoving a camera through a window breaks article 8 of that same human rights act, and this gets passed on to the less knowledgeable who follow these people, that includes their take on the law, and like most people do not do any of their own research to see if it is correct or not.
The other issue isn't just about having a camera but the responsibility of what you do with it, and that is down to the individual, simeone poorly taught will never see the consequences of what they have filmed or photographed, it's more than just an image, it is a moment in time, this means that there will be moments that you should not publish and some you should, only if they represent that person in a good light or in the public interest.
This is a time of change, social media plays a huge part in the lives of most people, camera's have become commonplace and included in must have devices since the mid 2000's, but people also need to understand that there is a requirement for responsibility and morals as well as a legal understanding of where and what you can film, or if permission is required to film, and the sources they get this from are not legitimate and give poor understanding of this expression of freedom, sometimes even doing the opposite.
Marti blagborough allegedly stealing money off the homeless is true, my YouTube channel has been trying to work out exactly what he did with the money
Hi Mark. Thanks for your comment but the piece is about auditing, not anything else these men may or may not have done. The story clearly mentions many have been in trouble with the law over auditing but I would advise you against making any more potentially defamatory comments about anyone without strong proof.
It would only take 1.a google search of the name mentioned to see other journalists story's regarding the convictions for domestic abuse or 2. A fact check at the courts. Before you assume comments are potential defamation and not just people trying to show you the fuller story. More to this group of individuals than you've portrayed here. Id love to see you do a deeper dive and see what artical you'd right after that.
100% correct
Oh, wow! Interesting. I didn’t really expect there to be a tree protester / YouTube auditor crossover but there you go!