Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
I’m not sure that’s the reason (though it may be part of it). My feeling is that most people find they have had bad experiences with the security industry over the years.
One only has to look at the various “audit” videos on social media to see examples of security staff who are completely clueless and acting well outside of their authority.
It’s one thing having this in a seedy night club or a seen-better-days small town shopping arcade as ultimately people have a choice whether to go in such places, but something like transport is less of a choice and more of a necessity.
I’m not sure that’s the reason (though it may be part of it). My feeling is that most people find they have had bad experiences with the security industry over the years.
One only has to look at the various “audit” videos on social media to see examples of security staff who are completely clueless and acting well outside of their authority.
Yes but those are mostly just troublemakers with a camera phone who provoke confrontations for conflict. Their channels wouldn't exist otherwise.
I am nearly 40 and can't recall a single bad interaction with security staff. I expect that's because I am like most people. I mind my own business and don't go looking for trouble.
TfL clearly have a policy of prosecuting Fare Evasion ...full-stop. Basically get the Fare Evaider in Court.
The Train Operating Companies seem to have adopted an alternative approach with the MG11 and looking back at Historical fares purchased and then basically under the title of "Out of Court Settlement" offering a price . Take it or leave it ...if you leave it then we might go for a court hearing ...
I think it remains to be seen which is the most effective method of trying to punish fare evasion, and which process delivers a better financial result for the Operator (which could very well be H.M Government)
The difficulty is that neither of these methods deal with the “not going to pay, what you going to do?” types. I’ve seen it so many times where revenue ask someone for a ticket and all they get is a mumbled response like “I want go London” which just gets repeated every time revenue say anything further.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Filming from a public place isn’t provoking a confrontation. The reason a confrontation arises is because you get individuals or security staff coming out and trying to assert their personal preferences as binding.
As an aside, I *really* don’t understand why some of these companies make such an exhibition of themselves when an auditor turns up. If I were a perspective customer and happened to come across a video I’d be far more likely to do business either way a company where the attitude is “yeah feel free to film us, this is what we do, if you have any questions about what we do please ask” rather than “go get a proper job I don’t want you here”. But I don’t think I’ll ever understand people and their weird ways.
I am nearly 40 and can't recall a single bad interaction with security staff. I expect that's because I am like most people. I mind my own business and don't go looking for trouble.
I don’t go looking for trouble either, but I’ve certainly had negative interactions with security staff in a range of settings. Indeed, to the point where I’ve come to dislike the industry sufficiently that it’s one group where I will rather more readily give as good as I get in response to poor behaviours.
Filming from a public place isn’t provoking a confrontation. The reason a confrontation arises is because you get individuals or security staff coming out and trying to assert their personal preferences as binding.
So you think "auditors" go out with their cameras without the hope or expectation that something watchable will happen? Sorry but anyone who films in public knows there are certain ways to behave to avoid confrontation; people do not often like being filmed directly or if they are being made the primary subject of a shot by people they don't know. So you don't do it - unless you want someone to take exception.
In any case, these troublemakers often catch the police exceeding their authority and acting unlawfully or unreasonably but I doubt that would be an objection to, say, having more police on the network. Revenue protection staff are regularly caught overstepping the mark in the Disputes section - should we not have any more of these then?
I find it quite telling that several people on the forum say they regularly have negative interactions with security staff. What are you all doing and why does this never happen to me? Or, in fact, anyone I can think of in real life?
So you think "auditors" go out with their cameras without the hope or expectation that something watchable will happen? Sorry but anyone who films in public knows there are certain ways to behave to avoid confrontation; people do not often like being filmed directly or if they are being made the primary subject of a shot by people they don't know. So you don't do it - unless you want someone to take exception.
In any case, these troublemakers often catch the police exceeding their authority and acting unlawfully or unreasonably but I doubt that would be an objection to, say, having more police on the network. Revenue protection staff are regularly caught overstepping the mark in the Disputes section - should we not have any more of these then?
I find it quite telling that several people on the forum say they regularly have negative interactions with security staff. What are you all doing and why does this never happen to me? Or, in fact, anyone I can think of in real life?
I’ve never had an issue with any rpi tti or security person. In fact when I have approached someone for assistance they have been unfailingly helpful and polite.
It’s well documented that certain groups of people are more likely than others, even when actually acting the same way, to be viewed as suspicious, confrontational, dangerous etc.
It’s well documented that certain groups of people are more likely than others, even when actually acting the same way, to be viewed as suspicious, confrontational, dangerous etc.
Sorry but anyone who films in public knows there are certain ways to behave to avoid confrontation; people do not often like being filmed directly or if they are being made the primary subject of a shot by people they don't know. So you don't do it - unless you want someone to take exception.
If this was the case then that would be reasonable, however there people who seem to take exception to *any* filming or photography, or feel that some kind of permission should be sought.
The way society works is that there generally isn’t a right to confront others about things we merely dislike.
So on the one hand they’re a “troublemaker”, yet you say they often catch the police exceeding their authority or acting unlawfully. That being the case, I wouldn’t see it as troublemaking, but more actually doing society a favour. Police shouldn’t be acting unlawfully in any situation.
but I doubt that would be an objection to, say, having more police on the network. Revenue protection staff are regularly caught overstepping the mark in the Disputes section - should we not have any more of these then?
I find there’s something of a difference between the likes of police or revenue staff, in that we generally expect a level of professionalism from them, and when that doesn’t happen there are mechanisms to follow it up. Revenue for example can’t just slap a penalty fare on someone because they don’t like what someone is doing. By contrast the security sector is very lax and a proportion of people seem to feel they can act as they like.
I find it quite telling that several people on the forum say they regularly have negative interactions with security staff. What are you all doing and why does this never happen to me?
It's been ahout 40 years, I think I'm alright. On the other hand someone who thinks auditors are providing some sort of valuable insight and who has regular run ins with security guards themselves is saying much more about themselves than anything else.
They certainly give valuable insight into the attitudes of companies. If I see on YouTube someone from the company comes out and displays arrogant or even threatening behaviour, it’s reasonable to wonder whether you’d be met with the same attitude if, for example, you bought a product or service from that company and needed to go back to them because of a problem or issue.
I’ve never said I’ve had “regular” run ins, but I’ve certainly had some issues over the years. And I make no apology for taking no nonsense, and that includes in some railway settings.
They certainly give valuable insight into the attitudes of companies. If I see on YouTube someone from the company comes out and displays arrogant or even threatening behaviour, it’s reasonable to wonder whether you’d be met with the same attitude if, for example, you bought a product or service from that company and needed to go back to them because of a problem or issue.
I'll be honest with you, if I saw an auditor - that is, usually, an underexposed man with limited social skills - going out to film content and film staff in places and the staff are then rude to them... I don't think it would bave any relevance to my potential experiences as a normal person going about my life. Or even to my life openly filming in public, which is what I do for money.
Everyone who likes or values the things "auditors" do just tells on themselves as unserious. You only have one life, what a waste of time.
It's been ahout 40 years, I think I'm alright. On the other hand someone who thinks auditors are providing some sort of valuable insight and who has regular run ins with security guards themselves is saying much more about themselves than anything else.
The funny thing about auditors specifically is I've never actually come across any of their content except for people linking to it here. I've also never known to have seen one ever, and I have seen quite a few recognisable transport youtubers and people just randomly filming themselves and others on trains and transport. To be honest I'd probably never have even heard the term if it weren't for it being mentioned here. Now perhaps I just get lucky and don't move in any of the same circles as them.
I'll be honest with you, if I saw an auditor - that is, usually, an underexposed man with limited social skills - going out to film content and film staff in places and the staff are then rude to them... I don't think it would bave any relevance to my potential experiences as a normal person going about my life.
In my view that’s an extremely sheltered perspective. In my experience how someone treats a random person is very revealing. Same as it’s always said that if you go on a date with someone and that person is seen to be rude to the waiter for no reason, it’s quite a red flag.
In my view that’s an extremely sheltered perspective. In my experience how someone treats a random person is very revealing. Same as it’s always said that if you go on a date with someone and that person is seen to be rude to the waiter for no reason, it’s quite a red flag.
They aren't a random person, they're someone who is actively looking to film and provoke a confrontation for content, always actively looking to make someone's day more difficult. That is why they go out with a camera in the morning. They are antisocial tossers and I'd prefer them not to be on the network.
I enjoy the idea that I have a sheltered perspective. It's always very funny every time I hear that from someone, usually after claiming on here that I am just a normal guy doing normal guy things. Perhaps I should get out more?
I don't get treated the same way as auditors because I am not one and don't behave like one.
They aren't a random person, they're someone who is actively looking to film and provoke a confrontation for content, always actively looking to make someone's day more difficult. That is why they go out with a camera in the morning.
Why shouldn’t their activity makes someone’s day more difficult? If someone films outside my office, it doesn’t affect me, doesn’t make my day more difficult, and wouldn’t bother me in the slightest. If I was curious I might just ask what it’s all about, but that’s all. The only reason this stuff comes to attention is precisely because (some) people respond in a way that’s frankly irrational.
I’m not an auditor, yet I’ve had unsatisfactory encounters with others, including with security staff. I’m quite happy for this sort of stuff to be highlighted.
I’m not an auditor, yet I’ve had unsatisfactory encounters with others, including with security staff. I’m quite happy for this sort of stuff to be highlighted.
The funny thing about auditors specifically is I've never actually come across any of their content except for people linking to it here. I've also never known to have seen one ever, and I have seen quite a few recognisable transport youtubers and people just randomly filming themselves and others on trains and transport. To be honest I'd probably never have even heard the term if it weren't for it being mentioned here. Now perhaps I just get lucky and don't move in any of the same circles as them.
That's probably just because of recommendation algorithms. I never see auditor stuff either but nor do I see My Little Pony or 17th century French literature stuff. Judging from the viewer numbers if you do seek them out it's pretty clear that those who consume auditor (or auditor adjacent) material are seeing plenty of it!
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Why shouldn’t their activity makes someone’s day more difficult? If someone films outside my office, it doesn’t affect me, doesn’t make my day more difficult, and wouldn’t bother me in the slightest. If I was curious I might just ask what it’s all about, but that’s all. The only reason this stuff comes to attention is precisely because (some) people respond in a way that’s frankly irrational.
As an aside, I *really* don’t understand why some of these companies make such an exhibition of themselves when an auditor turns up. If I were a perspective customer and happened to come across a video I’d be far more likely to do business either way a company where the attitude is “yeah feel free to film us, this is what we do, if you have any questions about what we do please ask” rather than “go get a proper job I don’t want you here”. But I don’t think I’ll ever understand people and their weird ways.
I hope you realise that the companies that do act professionally and follow the guidelines aren't going to appear on the "auditor" channels - not because they don't exist, but because it's not going to make the "auditor" any money. The "auditors" may even have multiple positive experiences when trying to bait an organisation, before they manage to trigger a reaction - they're not going to post / mention the positive times, only the negative one.
If you want a realistic portrayal of the security industry, and/or how companies deal with the public, don't bother with the "auditors". Their content is both selective and biased against their targets. One of the key ways they provoke a reaction is to continually stretch the rules over multiple days/weeks - it's rarely a one-off encounter that generates the reaction they need. The only real tactic available to stop them bothering an organisation they think they can trigger is to take out an injunction, but that is a whole load of work, and will likely get reported by the "auditor" anyway.
That's probably just because of recommendation algorithms. I never see auditor stuff either but nor do I see My Little Pony or 17th century French literature stuff. Judging from the viewer numbers if you do seek them out it's pretty clear that those who consume auditor (or auditor adjacent) material are seeing plenty of it!
No of course. It's only because people regularly discuss them here in connection with transport YouTube. I'm a long time subscriber of AlterEgo's channel for example.
So you think "auditors" go out with their cameras without the hope or expectation that something watchable will happen? Sorry but anyone who films in public knows there are certain ways to behave to avoid confrontation; people do not often like being filmed directly or if they are being made the primary subject of a shot by people they don't know. So you don't do it - unless you want someone to take exception.
In any case, these troublemakers often catch the police exceeding their authority and acting unlawfully or unreasonably but I doubt that would be an objection to, say, having more police on the network. Revenue protection staff are regularly caught overstepping the mark in the Disputes section - should we not have any more of these then?
I find it quite telling that several people on the forum say they regularly have negative interactions with security staff. What are you all doing and why does this never happen to me? Or, in fact, anyone I can think of in real life?
Exactly this. "Auditors" are no more than content creators who go out of their way to ensure content. And content isn't some pleasant, amenable interaction because that won't get them their views. They deliberately go out of their way to find situations where they know there will be confrontation. They are no more auditors than I am the King of Denmark.
I hope you realise that the companies that do act professionally and follow the guidelines aren't going to appear on the "auditor" channels - not because they don't exist, but because it's not going to make the "auditor" any money. The "auditors" may even have multiple positive experiences when trying to bait an organisation, before they manage to trigger a reaction - they're not going to post / mention the positive times, only the negative one.
Precisely why MI5, via the NPSA, recommend acknowledging the auditors so they know you're aware of their presence, being polite, but ultimately limiting your interaction with them. The footage won't be interesting enough to upload to social media and you'll actually end up safer as a result:
When interacting with suspected Auditors, we recommend a CALM approach - Chat, Assess, Limit, Monitor.
Chat in a friendly manner
Assess for hostile intent
Limit interactions beyond what's necessary
Monitor risk of escalation
It is important that all personnel remain polite and professional if responding to a situation where someone is recording premises and/or staff. When engaging, remember that your first words will often dictate the tone of the interaction.
Just last week this auditor was handed a 5 year criminal behaviour order for threatening behaviour against an emergency worker, mandating he stops filming when asked to do so by an emergency worker and leave property when asked to do so by the owner: https://www.westyorkshire.police.uk...ntent-creator-served-criminal-behaviour-order
That's probably just because of recommendation algorithms. I never see auditor stuff either but nor do I see My Little Pony or 17th century French literature stuff. Judging from the viewer numbers if you do seek them out it's pretty clear that those who consume auditor (or auditor adjacent) material are seeing plenty of it!
Watch just a few of the auditor videos, or anything with sovereign citizens, and you'll soon get loads. You'll also get to see a lot of videos of auditors in the USA that have been prosecuted and jailed for harassment, especially when other video footage turns up from the establishment they were harassing - or police/security officers that release their bodycam footage.
There are a large group of well-known auditors that have made a very good living from these videos, and obviously they only get content when they can help create it. As you'll see from many videos that shows 'the other side' these people can find themselves ignored for a long time, so keep pushing and pushing until they're almost trying to get into private and restricted areas to provoke a reaction.
It doesn't seem like there are as many people doing it in the UK, but one of the most notable agitators going around causing grief is Piers Corbyn and his entourage. I've also seen some others, but only because they're also connected to people putting up flags on lampposts or cutting down ULEZ cameras and the like. Seems like there's an entire community that a lot of people won't know about unless they do some searching.
(Incidentally, I got into the sovcit stuff through the many content creators that expose them and publish the police footage, or court appearances. Again, mostly US-based because all the camera footage from the police is released and courts usually share footage too).
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Precisely why MI5, via the NPSA, recommend acknowledging the auditors so they know you're aware of their presence, being polite, but ultimately limiting your interaction with them. The footage won't be interesting enough to upload to social media and you'll actually end up safer as a result:
They're wind-up merchants, don't let them wind you up.
Didn't read the document, but a trick I've seen people use in the USA is to fire up Spotify or something and play copyrighted music out loud on a phone (or in a building) because YouTube will flag the video and demonetise it. A video that can't earn money is worthless.
If you play music, I guess there's also the ability to see selective editing too, from all the gaps and jumps.
I’m with AlterEgo on this. In my nearly half century on the earth - I’ve never had issues interacting with staff - unlike those who go out of the way in their behaviour to provoke reactions so they can keep their grift going
I likewise agree with AlterEgo. I have never had a negative experience with any member of security staff or railway staff and my dealings with them - unfailingly civil even in disagreement - have definitely led me to believe that those who have regular issues with them are probably in need of a mirror. I don't consider myself someone who suffers fools gladly, but even then I haven't had any issues at all.
As for self-appointed "auditors", I think the phrase is "couldn't care less" - although hearing the tales of some of the less aggressive ones does give me a good laugh on occasion. I just let the people get their clicks and move on, because they're not getting mine.
The only times I’ve had a negative interaction with security staff has been when visiting a sister company’s site - my employer treats guards as the face of the company; the other bunch seems to select for a lack of people skills/reasoning ability. Incidentally, that site had a very poor interaction with an auditor.
