Moderator: ArthurWankspittle
You didn't need to repost the whole thing, Vamps....vampireLOREN wrote:I must thank you for taking the time to investigate and then produce this well written opinion.Forsyth wrote:I'm getting very close to deciding he's actually a very well done parody. In the last 24 hours we've had....
Perhaps I can best sum up my opinion in a few short words The man is a raving Lunatic.
I find this more worrying.exiledscouser wrote: He does worry me though. I doubt he has many friends and in his paranoia he might build himself up to doing something truly spectacularly stupid, "go postal" as our colonial cousins might say.
Time will tell but if he exhibits a more extreme outlook on future vids then I might consider dropping a dime to the Salford cops.
It seems he is just waltzing around a Police station almost unchallenged.Forsyth wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yof9fkQ ... .be&t=1750
It would seem that at least one, and probably two, of the constabulary's finest are already well aware of him.
>>>This took place at some local authority or council building. He's had problems with various state benefits being stopped for both himself and someone else who by the sounds of things is a tinder box who is ready to blow. Birds of a feather and all that.wranglepin wrote: It seems he is just waltzing around a Police station almost unchallenged.
Aha!exiledscouser wrote:This took place at some local authority or council building. He's had problems with various state benefits being stopped for both himself and someone else who by the sounds of things is a tinder box who is ready to blow. Birds of a feather and all that.wranglepin wrote: It seems he is just waltzing around a Police station almost unchallenged.
Yes, it's a housing benefit issue so probably the local council's main customer reception. As you say, he is immediately hostile and hectoring in his tone, demanding that they allow him to administer another person's business without any proper evidence of being authorised to do so.exiledscouser wrote:This took place at some local authority or council building. He's had problems with various state benefits being stopped for both himself and someone else who by the sounds of things is a tinder box who is ready to blow. Birds of a feather and all that.
Shaun as usual forges straight into confrontation mode which inevitably leads to the plod having to turn up.
Joinder wrote:He managed to raise the issue of "treason" during the visit, which is pretty impressive.
Whichever regiment it belongs to, he will immediately be recognised as a "Walt" or "Walter". All regiments take seriously the allegiance to "their own" and this idiot only needs to meet one wronged person in the wrong situation and he'll get his head kicked in.Skeleton wrote:It looks like a Para's Beret to me BTW.
Unless their is s specific rule on filming, it would be wrong to turf him out because of that.Hercule Parrot wrote:Yes, it's a housing benefit issue so probably the local council's main customer reception. As you say, he is immediately hostile and hectoring in his tone, demanding that they allow him to administer another person's business without any proper evidence of being authorised to do so.exiledscouser wrote:This took place at some local authority or council building. He's had problems with various state benefits being stopped for both himself and someone else who by the sounds of things is a tinder box who is ready to blow. Birds of a feather and all that.
Shaun as usual forges straight into confrontation mode which inevitably leads to the plod having to turn up.
One point that always annoys me is that managers and security staff ask him to stop recording under threat of being thrown out, but then fail to act upon that. The same scenario appears at the beginning of many vainglorious youtube recordings. It creates a pattern, encourages others.
The applicable law is very clear. The fact that a particular place is "a public bullding" or was paid for with public funds does not give an absolute right for any person to enter or remain within it. An authorised person (which obviously includes managers and security staff) is entitled to ask any person to comply with applicable rules, or to leave. In fact they are entitled to direct any visitor to leave at any time, regardless of whether rules apply, or are being complied with. If the visitor refuses then reasonable force can be used to exclude them from the premises, and does not constitute assault.
Every time one of these blustering idiots gets away with this behaviour, it encourages others.
I think his choice of a beret is most applicable, Tom has the Panama ...let this fellow wear his choice of headwear in pride. I rather think a Davy Crockett hat might suit him.ArthurWankspittle wrote:Whichever regiment it belongs to, he will immediately be recognised as a "Walt" or "Walter". All regiments take seriously the allegiance to "their own" and this idiot only needs to meet one wronged person in the wrong situation and he'll get his head kicked in.Skeleton wrote:It looks like a Para's Beret to me BTW.
He won't be the first or last person to adopt a belligerent and hectoring tone with the reception staff or to spout a lot of nonsense to them. I am sure they are trained how to cope with those situations politely and with tolerance. Which is what they did. However, I am sure you accept there comes a point where the situation has to be ended either because someone is being overly aggressive or the conversation is becoming repetitive and pointless.Joinder wrote: Unless their is s specific rule on filming, it would be wrong to turf him out because of that.
Also, it would be unfair if they don't like his tone, or his questions.
It IS a public building, paid for by us, and the only place he can go to enquire about his case.
I thought he was treated with a fair degree of tolerance.
Yes indeed, having a camera seems to make people seek reactions just for the film, hence the aggressive and hectoring tone they adoptNormal Wisdom wrote:He won't be the first or last person to adopt a belligerent and hectoring tone with the reception staff or to spout a lot of nonsense to them. I am sure they are trained how to cope with those situations politely and with tolerance. Which is what they did. However, I am sure you accept there comes a point where the situation has to be ended either because someone is being overly aggressive or the conversation is becoming repetitive and pointless.Joinder wrote: Unless their is s specific rule on filming, it would be wrong to turf him out because of that.
Also, it would be unfair if they don't like his tone, or his questions.
It IS a public building, paid for by us, and the only place he can go to enquire about his case.
I thought he was treated with a fair degree of tolerance.
LOL how true, Monkeynutscom on YT festooned himself and his bike with cameras and would deliberately put himself into danger for YT hits and to be fair it worked. His "Its all on Camera" when he antagonised one to many motorists, was very like Shaun's "Take your hands off my private conveyance." Monkeynuts has now moved the cameras into a car, which he drives around wearing for some weird reason a full face motor cycle helmet, collecting footage of other peoples bad driving, trouble is most of the footage he now collects is of his own aggressive and far from perfect driving"Joinder
As a keen cyclist I am appalled by head cam nuts who deliberately put themselves in dangerous situations for a YouTube video.
I still can't work out if he is a giant leg pull though
Lol, I remember monkeynuts and his bike just watched some car vids, I liked "woman nearly pulls out" in one of them. North Wales is full of bad drivers !Skeleton wrote:LOL how true, Monkeynutscom on YT festooned himself and his bike with cameras and would deliberately put himself into danger for YT hits and to be fair it worked. His "Its all on Camera" when he antagonised one to many motorists, was very like Shaun's "Take your hands off my private conveyance." Monkeynuts has now moved the cameras into a car, which he drives around wearing for some weird reason a full face motor cycle helmet, collecting footage of other peoples bad driving, trouble is most of the footage he now collects is of his own aggressive and far from perfect driving"Joinder
As a keen cyclist I am appalled by head cam nuts who deliberately put themselves in dangerous situations for a YouTube video.
I still can't work out if he is a giant leg pull though
Shaun I doubt is a leg pull, he has mentioned in YT comments that he is ill but he has not specified to my knowledge what is wrong with him, I actually feel sorry for the guy.
As you'll guess, I don't agree. Just because taxpayers paid for that building doesn't mean that anyone can behave as they wish there. The taxpayers also appointed managers to administer the facility, and to set rules for how it will be used. Anyone who doesn't like the rules can challenge them through the taxpayer-funded complaints system or the taxpayer-funded courts.Joinder wrote:Unless their is s specific rule on filming, it would be wrong to turf him out because of that.Hercule Parrot wrote:Every time one of these blustering idiots gets away with this behaviour, it encourages others.
Also, it would be unfair if they don't like his tone, or his questions.
It IS a public building, paid for by us, and the only place he can go to enquire about his case.
I thought he was treated with a fair degree of tolerance.
IDIOT wrote:Towards the end of the benefits office video he tells police he learning difficulties.
