We can't deny that those videos where they do act like morons um invariably they are more entertaining. They do generate more views and I'm sure the viewers enjoy them more. So my question to you the viewer is um would you still be happy for me to upload those videos and watch those videos regardless of the outcome? Cuz ultimately we can't predict um what's going to happen when we do these videos. And I would still like to shed light on those officers that are, you know, performing within the boundaries of the law and um kind of staying dedicated to their to their duty. So yeah, just let me know um how you feel about that. But yeah, we're in Pekkham again. This is the the Metropolitan Police. So um I suppose we'll see we'll see what happens really. You >> right, fell. >> No, I'm just filming, mate. >> Just matters of public interest. >> Matters of public interest. >> Yeah. What's the reason? >> People are interested in this sort of thing. >> You'll be surprised, mate. >> All good. Yeah. Cheers, guys. [Applause] [Music] The video kicks off in Pekkham. >> The video kicks off in Peekom, right in the middle of a busy main road. As the auditor explains the purpose of the day, he compares Peekham's gentrification to areas like Brixton and Shepherd's Bush where past audits stowed more drama. Hey, he raises an honest question to you. Should calmer, uneventful audits still be uploaded? Or do people only want a fiery confrontations? He points out that while heated clashes may grab more attention, it's equally important to highlight officers who act within the law and perform their duties properly. This opening sets a stage for balanced audit where good behavior is acknowledged, not just bad. The first officer encounter, >> he seemed all right. See, this is what I mean. I feel like they can quickly establish whether I'm a threat to them or I'm a terrorist. Like, he judged me pretty quickly and um probably off instinct and he could probably quickly ascertain that um I'm not an immediate threat or an immediate danger to these lots. So, he kept it moving. Like, if only more police officers could behave the way he did, but each to their own. >> Excuse me. >> Are you filming? I am filming >> cuz obviously don't film the cars going in and out. >> Okay. >> They could be under misconception hostile reconnaissance. >> Okay. No, I'm not actually doing hostile reconnaissance to be fair. >> So obviously say cars and people coming in and out. >> Is it not allowed? >> It's okay. Obviously you are being quite polite. So >> but like I'm saying something else. >> Okay. Okay. All right. What are you filming for? >> Just match the public interest. >> Okay. Yeah. >> I do understand. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Of course. >> Thank you, miss. >> The first officer in >> is refreshingly smooth. A polite exchange unfolds with the officer immediately recognizing the filming is no real threat and moving on. The auditor praises this approach, noting how quickly the officer judged the situation with that hostility. He emphasizes how much easier things would be if more police operated like this.com. Professional and respectful. It shows viewers that not every audit needs confrontation. Sometimes a simple acknowledgement is enough. The commentary here highlights instinct, professionalism, and the power of positive interactions in breaking stereotypes. Another officer approaches politely mentioning host >> and an extremely polite um police constable yet again. So so far Peckham are doing exceptionally well. It's odd to think um Pekkham and Brixton aren't really that different um in terms of like geographically and whatnot. Yet the response we've had so far has been um extremely positive. So I'm delighted with that really. Like obviously when they're being polite and saying obviously she did mention hostile reconnaissance but the fact that she's being so polite like you can just immediately um kind of sense it in her tone of voice kind of she was radiating a good positive energy. So um ultimately I don't have anything to say to her like I can't really argue with anything that she said. Everything she said was was legit. So again Peekom Police Station you're two for two. If you keep this up, I'm going to be out of a job. But no, I'm just kidding. But yeah, anyway, we'll pick this back up um in a in a little while. >> Hello, sir. >> Nothing in particular. I'm just filming. >> Just like matters of public interest. Just out of curiosity, are you allowed to park on double yellows? filming cars going in. >> Would you mind identifying yourself, please? >> PC Price 29. >> And yourself, sir? >> This is Senior 2387. >> Thank you, guys. >> Yeah. All right. >> Everything's all right. >> Filming outside the police station. >> I told you. Matter of public interest. >> Matters of public interest. >> Yeah. >> It's not a matter of public interest, is it? Outside. >> Well, people are interested in it, so obviously it is. Have >> you done that before? >> I don't have to answer any questions. So, are police vans allowed to park on double yellows or not? >> Another officer approaches. >> Hostile reconnaissance, but her tone remains respectful. The auditor admits she was radiating good energy, making it hard to argue with anything she said. This sets Peekum apart as both officers so far have acted professionally with no attempt at escalation. The order to even jokes that if Peekom officers keep this up, he'll be out of a job. Showing his appreciation for their behavior. This part stresses how tone and attitude can completely shift the outcome of these encounters, making it a standout moment in the video. As far as I'm aware, the police have got an exemption for partnering this. I thought if it's like an emergency or something, you could do that. I thought E thought it was like an emergency, you could do it. Yes, there's obviously not enough room in there. So, police need to get out quick. We need to park here. We can't be parking really far away. Okay, fair enough. Interesting. We done. What's your name? Mate, do I need to give my name at the moment? Because you're filming outside the police station. Okay. Would like to just do some checks on what um crime do you suspect me of committing? Well, at the moment, it's a bit suspicious that you're filming outside, please. Okay. What are you suspicious of? Don't need to get your pen out, mate. Anyone else? Put your pen back in your pocket. I'm going to ask you to leave then. Okay. I'm on a public public pavement, mate. Yeah, but you're outside. Am I free to go? Yeah, you're free to go. So, am I not free to stay? No, you're not free to stay. Why not? What? Um, what offense have I committed? Because you're outside. You're not You're not letting me know what offense I've committed. You haven't told me what offense you suspect me of committing. It's a security issue at the end of the day. Okay. It's a security issue. So, I'm going to ask you again politely. I'm going to politely I'm going to politely refuse. We're going to plant these machines. I'm going to ask you again. What's your name? I'm not going to tell you my name. You're not going to tell me. I haven't committed an offense. Why would I give over my personal information? Things shift when another officer questions of filming and even perking rules about police vans. The auditor challenges the officer about double yellow lines. Pressing for clarity, the officer insists it's allowed in certain circumstances, but the explanation is shaky. Soon after, suspicion creeps in with the officer pulling out a pen as if to escalate. the order to push his back firmly, reminding him suspicion isn't a crime and that filming from a public footpath is lawful. The contrast here is sharp. Peekom go from polite engagement to the start of heavy-handed policing in minutes. Not cuz I don't not cuz I've got something to hide. Cuz this is a super police officers going in and out. And if you're filming their car, what do you suspect me of doing? Well, I don't know at the moment. It's a bit It's a bit strange. Well, suspicion. Suspicion is not a crime. You suspecting me of doing something? It's not me committing a crime. So, if we're done here, I'd like to continue. You don't seem You don't seem too happy. I'm not happy. You're trying to stare me out. I'm not trying to stare you out. No, I'm not. I'm asking you politely again. You won't intimidate me. I'm not trying to intimidate. You have Well, I'm not. Am I? Well, I feel intimidated. So, maybe you are. Maybe it's working. You I feel intimidated. Yeah. What? Because you're standing outside the police station filming officers going about their lawful business. I'm going about my lawful business. Sir, just cuz I feel intimidated doesn't mean I have to leave. I bet you saw intimidating in duty doesn't mean you can leave your post. No, that's true. You got a job to do? Yeah. Yeah, that's right. Okay, cool. Cool. So, like I said, if we're done, then I'd like to continue filming. You can. I hope you can appreciate where I'm coming from. I've been quite polite in that. I'm not trying to provoke you or anything like that. You have been polite and I think of me and my colleague been polite as well. Kind of. But you have told me to disperse for no real reason. As we said, it is a security from outside. No, but I've got just as much right to be here as you. Like I'm in public, eyes going in and out. Look, no one's disputing you. You being on a public footpath. All right. All right. But why? What? What the issue is? Why? Why are you filming? Matters of public interest, sir, but what's a matter of public interest here? What? What matter of public interest? People are interested in this kind of thing. You're interested. All right. Are we done? Are you going to be leaving? Can't leave here filming. Why not? Cuz we can't. As we said, it's a why not. You need to give a reason. Because we can't isn't a reason, is it? Listen to me. All right. I'm listening. I'm PC Sega from Pika Police Station. We've been speaking for 5 10 minutes. Okay. Do you mind just keeping a distance? Please. No. If you need to do something, then do it. But yeah, I am. Okay. You are now dead. Would you mind explaining what's going on? No. You've already been debt. We don't need to do it. No. Just for the just for the just for the viewers. Do you mind explaining what's just happened? Please excuse me, sir. Becky, enjoy your day, man. explained to you. Just a copy of your service. It's all been explained, man. It's all been explained, so we're not going to go over it again. So, was that a lawful detention? Leave now. All right. Do I need to leave? Yeah. Why do I need to leave? You might as well cough me again. Why do I need to leave? Are we waiting for their waiting for their approval? Yeah, I got one. Yeah, you are. I've done my job. You've done your job. Yeah. You know, I can sue you in a civil court. You can. I can. I've done I've done my job. You think you've acted lawfully today? You've acted within your duty, within your oath? Yeah. If if you've got any issues to uphold common law, Metropolitan Police. Okay, sure. Thank you. Have a nice day. You're dismissed. What happened there? The tension escalates as officers demand order to leave, citing vague security issues. He stands his ground, pointing out he hasn't been accused of any specific offense and politely refuses to disperse. The back and forth grows heated as the officers struggle to justify their position with one even trying to stare him down. The auditor calls out the intimidation and calmly reminds him rights don't vanish just because they are uncomfortable. This sequence captures a clash between lawful activity and overreached, exposing how quickly polite policing can flip into pressure tactics when challenged. Um, they must have got me under section 43M of the terrorist act yet again. So, what's funny is Yeah, they actually had intel that I was the same person that was filming outside um Brixham police station. Yeah. So, given that intel, they still chose to detain me and search me. Like, it's like dealing with children. Like, you already know that I'm not a So, why go through all that nonsense again? Like, it's just silliness really. Like, it's just catching catching tyrants in the act. You know what I mean? And that guy, he didn't like the way that I was exercising my rights. So, he decided to take it a step further. If you look at the earlier footage, um from same video, you can see I encountered a couple police officers or constables, should I say? Um and they didn't have no issues. So, do you know what I mean? Like these ones that's acting like tyrants. It's um it's on a person byperson basis and that's the whole point of this. Do you understand? So, but what's sad is like none of the other police officers like they all team up and back each other up. They could never admit that they're wrong. So I knew deep down that none of them suspected of me being a terrorist. Yet they um how can I say they backed up their colleague um and agreed with his reasons. Do you know what I mean? So that to me is wrong. Um have a bit of humility. Do you know what I mean? Have your own opinion. Like don't be a sheep. Like they will act like sheep. Um it's like they're a gang. So anyway, that's what happens. Section 43 terrorist acts. Yet again, finally, the officers invoke section 43 of the terrorism act. Detaining and searching the auditor despite already having intel linking him to a previous Brixen audit. He criticizes their actions, pointing out the hypocrisy of detaining someone they already know isn't a threat. Reflecting on the encounter, he notes how officers act like a gang, backing each other blindly instead of admitting mistakes. While some constipals earlier acted with restraint, these later ones leaned into tyranny and overreach. He ended by framing it as another civil lawsuit in the making, reminding viewers that audits expose both professionalism and abuse, often within the same force and abuse, often within the same force.