2 ms·

Care to share any videos of auditors going to private property?

• autoexec 3y ago
  I've seen a few where they've removed auditors using the private property excuse because the city/state was leasing privately owned property and using it to operate public services out of. I think that's something courts may ultimately have to rule on, because it seems like an easy way for the government to shield themselves from accountability and violate people's freedoms.
  • lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
    > operate public services Therein lies the rub. I'd be tempted to challenge the hell out of that.
• lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  It's kind of a different context because these people are both based in the UK but there are many videos on the channels of DJ Audits[0] and PJ Audits[1] focusing on industrial estates. They go "to" private property but not "on"; they also launch drones from public space and fly them over the property for aerial footage. I guess there's some "SIA" licensing that contracted security usually has (I'm not familiar because I'm not a UK citizen), which is a common point of contention for the auditors, but they're mostly just interested in highlighting some bit of industry. 0: https://www.youtube.com/@DJAUDITS https://www.youtube.com/@DJAUDITS 1: https://www.youtube.com/@PJAudits https://www.youtube.com/@PJAudits
  • kolanos 3y ago
    I am less familiar with UK law, but I assume what you mean by "go to, but not on" is that they remain on a public sidewalk or some easement of some kind? If so, that is still public property, not private property. This is kind of the whole point.
    • lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
      Yes, that is what I meant. They remain on public property and lawfully refuse to leave if/when asked. I called it out as different because they’re lawfully filming a private area which is visible from a public area (and also from above) rather than simply filming public areas. Apologies if I was unclear.