reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Speaker 0 warns Speaker 1 that sharing certain information may lead to an arrest for a public order offense. Speaker 1 insists they are just expressing their opinion and heading to a gig. Speaker 0 explains that they have the right to detain Speaker 1 to discuss the offense. Speaker 1 denies any offense and claims that the group they mentioned supports terrorism. Speaker 0 states they will address any offensive behavior from the group as well. Speaker 1 argues that their comments are free speech. Speaker 0 emphasizes their duty to allow peaceful protests. Speaker 1 expresses frustration with ongoing issues in the UK. Speaker 0 acknowledges Speaker 1's right to their opinion but questions why they shared it with the group. Speaker 1 explains their frustration. Speaker 0 concludes by stating that the group may be a terrorist organization, but Speaker 1 should not share that information.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 argue about a man choking a girl. Speaker 1 accuses Speaker 0 of choking her. Speaker 0 denies it, pointing out that Speaker 1 is wearing a mask while they are not.

Speaker 0 tells someone to get off of them and questions what they can do with them. Speaker 1 mentions that it's about a map, but Speaker 0 disagrees. Speaker 1 suggests calling someone, possibly the police, but Speaker 0 asks if they will arrest them. Speaker 1 doesn't think the person can be arrested for not wearing a mask. Speaker 2 tells someone named Raven to call the cops and asks if they will talk to them. Speaker 0 expresses uncertainty about whether the person is a real officer. Speaker 1 mentions that the person is harassing someone for not wearing a mask. Speaker 0 asks about their own mask. The conversation ends abruptly.

The speaker confronts Miss Stewart for not wearing a mask in a store, accusing her of putting others at risk. Miss Stewart argues that it's her business, but the speaker insults her and demands she stay away. The speaker threatens to call the manager and tells Miss Stewart to keep her distance. The conversation becomes heated, with both parties exchanging insults and profanity. The transcript abruptly ends with the speaker expressing frustration over Miss Stewart not wearing a mask.

Speaker 0: Are we going to buy masks or not? Speaker 1: Wearing masks is useless for the general population. Speaker 2: Masks are only useful when you are sick. Speaker 3: Don't wear masks or gloves. Speaker 4: I have banned the sale of masks. Speaker 1: Don't rush to buy masks, it's pointless. Speaker 0: I don't know how to use a mask. Speaker 3: Masks are useless for the public. Speaker 4: There is no shortage of masks. Speaker 2: We have millions of masks in stock. Speaker 0: There is no shortage, we have them. Speaker 2: Stop lying to the French. Speaker 4: I don't think I'm lying. Speaker 0: I don't lie, it's nonsense.

The speakers engage in a heated argument, with one person telling the other to go back to where they came from and take off their mask. Racist remarks are exchanged, and there is mention of a fight. The conversation ends with uncertainty about whether someone was punched.

You need to follow the rules and stay in designated areas. You can go to the laundry, but wearing a mask is mandatory. You cannot approach the fence or talk to others outside your balcony. There are strict lines that must not be crossed. If you breach these rules, such as walking onto the path without a mask or crossing the yellow line, you could face a $5,000 fine. It's essential to understand and obey these regulations to avoid penalties.

Speaker 0 mentions wearing a mask and finding it strange. Speaker 1 talks about talking with a mask on and filling up with air. Speaker 0 mentions paying for the train and wearing a mask, saying they can drink on the train. Speaker 1 disagrees, saying it's not allowed to sit without a mask. Speaker 0 argues that they can drink with a mask on. Speaker 1 asks if they are drunk. Speaker 0 confirms and says they followed the rules. Speaker 1 advises against it. Speaker 0 insists they followed the rules and wore a mask on the train. Speaker 1 tells them not to drive. Speaker 0 repeats the statement. Speaker 1 accuses them of thinking they are more important than others. Speaker 0 denies it and wants to go to work on time. Speaker 1 calls them annoying and says they are leaving everyone behind. Speaker 0 mentions the mask. Speaker 1 says they are also going to work and calls them a coworker. Speaker 0 expresses frustration about the situation and curses, saying the city is empty and they can't even drink.

Speaker 0: In a rule of law, we should be protected from the government's immense power. The government can completely destroy us. Speaker 1: You don't even need to ask for permission, you can demonstrate. So your reaction is a bit childish. People have the right to demonstrate, especially when the government is acquiring so much power. Speaker 0: You still need to notify them? Speaker 1: Yes, you need to notify them, but even if you don't, you can still demonstrate. It's necessary, considering the measures we've taken. Demonstrating is the last line of defense for many people. It's complicated, but we can't let the police overpower peaceful protesters. It's not about political goals, I've allowed many demonstrations during the pandemic in all cities, because it's a right.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to keep going for safety. Speaker 1 disagrees and is asked to leave. Speaker 1 mentions harm caused. Speaker 0 tells Speaker 1 they don't have to stay for the recording.

Speaker 0 warns not to touch their phone, as their boss can put someone in jail. They don't care about the consequences and tell the other person to go ahead and touch their boss. The speaker doesn't give a care and says they will go home once their phone battery dies. They tell Kevin not to touch their boss again, but Kevin dismisses it. The speaker pleads for Kevin to calm down, and thanks someone at the end.

Speaker 0 is telling people to mask up. Speaker 1 is also wearing a mask. Speaker 1 asks how someone is doing and tells them to stay safe. Speaker 1 comments on how covered up the other person is, implying they are wearing more protective gear than Speaker 1. Speaker 1 offers the other person water.

The conversation centers on police attempting to remove a man from his long-time home, with his family contesting the action and a dispute over capacity and legal orders driving the tense exchange. - The man (referred to as “Dad” and later identified as Jonas Sveritis) is told by Speaker 0 that “the police is here to take you away” and that Donna “wants you to to be taken away with the police.” They ask him to tell the police officer what he wants. - The man expresses his intention to stay: “arranged nice night to go to the old home. She Myself, I don't need no help here or anything. I just on the way today to see where I gonna go and retire. Okay. I Now it's my place and my sons, and we are all in peace.” He says he wants to stay in his place, stating, “We don't need policemen and everything. We're not fighting or anything at all. We're doing right way with the lawyers and whatever needed police, the police gonna be involved with the lawyer.” - Speaker 0 asserts the man has capacity and can make his own decisions: “He's got capacity. He wants to stay here. He wants to live here, and he wants to die here.” The other party counters that the judge has overridden other decisions: “The judge has kind of overridden all of our decisions. So … Not his decision. Not his decision.” - A lawyer appears: Speaker 1 says, “My lawyer comes. I know.” Speaker 0 counters, “You don't have a lawyer. He says that if his lawyer comes, he'll talk to his lawyer.” Speaker 2 notes, “the judge overrides that decision by the lawyer,” and asserts the need to hear from the man: “Do you understand why … Does he look like a guy with severe dementia?” - The dispute about process and timing includes: “there's a court order to extract them,” and “we appealed March 30.” They discuss documents and an appeal, with references to “the court of appeal,” “a factum,” and a denial of a stay by a JP (JP Sweeney) who “overrides the court of appeal.” - The family conflict includes a history: Speaker 0 recounts, “This man that's what we want. This man he lived here for almost seventy years. He was taken with undue influence out of his home by my sister. She took his farm … 37 after my mom died. He went in the hospital two days after. My sister took him out of the hospital, and I didn't know anything about it. And I didn't see him for almost six years.” - Communication barriers and safety concerns are prominent: “I can't read a document that you're trying to show me,” “through the glass,” “you've got guns. You've got tasers,” and “I don't trust a police officer with guns.” They propose to continue discussions “through the glass” or via a warrant to breach glass and talk inside. - The parties discuss arranging a peaceful meeting with Donna: Speaker 0 says, “Donna can come in a peaceful manner. We offered that.” Yet Speaker 2 asserts the need to speak to the father directly through the barrier. - Ending mood: Speaker 0 insists on keeping the glass closed for safety, while Speaker 2 expresses frustration at the lack of civil, direct conversation, proposing a PA system or a future arranged visit. The exchange ends with hostility: “Fuck off.”

Speaker 0 informs Speaker 1 that they are in an area governed by a Public Space Protection Order, also called a safe zone, where certain activities are not permitted. Speaker 1 states they are praying for their deceased son. Speaker 0 says they must advise Speaker 1 that they are believed to be in breach of the ruling regarding prayer and acts of disapproval. Speaker 1 says they are just standing and praying. Speaker 0 acknowledges this but states the PSPO is in place for a reason and must be followed.

Speaker 0 tells Speaker 1 to leave, citing offensive behavior. Speaker 1 argues they did nothing wrong, but Speaker 0 accuses them of causing a disturbance. Speaker 1 questions Speaker 0's commitment to freedom and democracy. Speaker 0 insists on maintaining order and accuses Speaker 1 of being disrespectful. The confrontation escalates with insults exchanged.

In the exchange, Speaker 1 indicates they are checking up on them and have received keys, while Speaker 0 asserts clear boundaries about entering the property. Speaker 0 repeatedly states: “You cannot come to my house,” and “This is my property.” They insist that Speaker 1 cannot walk onto the premises, cannot ring the doorbell, and cannot visit; they caution about needing to pass a background check to come to someone’s house, and insist Speaker 1 must leave immediately. Speaker 0 clarifies that they have kids and expresses concern about potential criminal activity, saying, “Call the police and say hi. I have kids. I don’t know. I’m not sure if you’re a criminal.” Speaker 1 agrees to leave after these warnings. The children’s safety is a recurring theme in Speaker 0’s statements, with multiple refusals for access and visits, including a claim that Speaker 1 cannot use childcare or be a friend to gain entry, underscoring the need to leave. During the confrontation, Speaker 0 also notes that they are recording because they do not want their face shown on social media, and claims to have Speaker 1’s information and “saw it already in the system.” Speaker 1 responds with a remark about privacy rights and asserts there is no right to privacy in that context, while continuing to attempt polite closure by saying “You guys have a good day.” Despite the tense exchange, Speaker 1 maintains a calm demeanor and explains they are simply visiting local daycares and that “everybody’s been very nice.” They insist this is not harassment, recounting that they knocked on doors to say hello. They offer New Year’s greetings at the end, repeatedly saying “Have a good day” and “Happy New Year,” and remark that the area feels “very friendly here.” Overall, the interaction centers on a strict boundary set by Speaker 0 regarding entry to the home, safety considerations for children, and the assertion of recording and monitoring, contrasted with Speaker 1’s attempts to explain their benign intentions and to end the encounter with courteous farewells.

The video begins with Speaker 0 stating that they are allowed to film in a public place. Speaker 1 acknowledges this and says they don't have to talk. Speaker 0 insists on speaking and explains that they need to establish why Speaker 1 is in the public place. Speaker 1 questions what crime has been committed and Speaker 0 mentions that Speaker 1 is not wearing a face mask, which is an offense. Speaker 1 claims to be exempt, but Speaker 0 insists on seeing their exemption and proceeds to place Speaker 1 under arrest. Speaker 1 resists and a struggle ensues. The video ends with Speaker 1 being restrained by the police.

Speaker 0 mocks someone wearing a mask and threatens to confront them. They believe COVID is no longer a concern and instruct the person to lower their mask. The speaker then tells them to drop their phone and position their hands on the steering wheel at 10 and 2. The video abruptly ends.

Speaker 0 questions Nicole about online posts to the Prime Minister of Canada, asking if she has anything to say about that. Speaker 1 asks for specifics: what post, what she specifically said, and whether there is a screenshot. Speaker 0 cites that she online said something specific and asks for clarification. Speaker 1 replies that she said, "he's a Zionist scumbag, and he's not my prime minister," adding that she believes she is not spoken to properly and questions whether she looks like a threat. Speaker 0 explains that they came to talk because those threats were made. Speaker 1 pushes back, saying that the officers should be busy addressing real crime rather than harassing her over things she says online, and questions whether she seriously looks like a threat. Speaker 0 acknowledges and continues. Speaker 1 accuses the officers of wasting tax dollars and asserts that they should not be harassing her for what she says online because she dislikes the prime minister. Speaker 0 states Nicole should be aware that if such behavior continues, there will be consequences, implying potential arrest for threats. Speaker 1 asks what kind of threats they are referring to and demands to see what she said, noting that she still has not been shown. Speaker 0 attempts to explain what she said and what constitutes threats, warning that if those threats continue, she could be arrested and charged. Speaker 1 complains about being interrupted, asking to show what she said, and then launches into a hostile remark, calling the situation Communist Canada and asking how the officers can take pride in their work. Speaker 0 reiterates that she may have her opinion, but she insists she cannot say what she says. Speaker 1 refuses to discuss further, telling them not to touch her door. Speaker 0 says a report will be filed, stating that the search behavior continues, and mentions Trump in a dismissive way ("the Trump blah blah blah blah blah"). Speaker 1 asserts she will say whatever she wants about the prime minister and that they cannot control her speech, calling it just words. Speaker 0 responds that they are asking for non-threatening language. Speaker 1 concludes by stating they will continue to speak freely and that the conversation is over, wishing them a nice day and goodbye.

Speaker 0 asks if they can go out, but Dave says no. They are concerned about getting arrested or shot if they go out.

Just follow the rules, wear masks, and social distance. Trust the news and government. Don't question anything. Some arguing ensues, but the message is to wake up from psychological manipulation. The speaker tries to make a point about the same number of deaths occurring each year. The situation escalates, leading to a confrontation. The speaker urges the person to realize the seriousness of their actions. The conversation ends abruptly. Translation: The speaker emphasizes following guidelines, trusting authorities, and being aware of manipulation. Despite some conflict, the focus remains on awakening to the truth about the situation.

Joining the protest against COVID restrictions means breaking the law and facing serious consequences. Losing your license, getting a criminal record, and even hindering your job, livelihood, and international travel, including to the U.S. We acknowledge your frustration with COVID and safety measures, but it's time to go home now.

Speaker 0 tells Speaker 1 to leave, claiming they are offensive and in their space. Speaker 1 argues they did nothing wrong, but Speaker 0 accuses them of causing a disturbance. Speaker 1 questions Speaker 0's commitment to freedom and democracy, calling them a communist. Speaker 0 responds aggressively. Translation: Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to leave, stating they are offensive and intruding on their space. Speaker 1 defends their actions, while Speaker 0 accuses them of causing trouble. Speaker 1 questions Speaker 0's belief in freedom and democracy, calling them a communist. Speaker 0 responds angrily.

I'm giving you a warning to stay on the block and follow the rules. You can go to the laundry, but you must wear a mask. You cannot leave your balcony to talk to someone else. There are strict lines drawn for safety, especially in this highly infectious area. If you breach the rules again, it could result in a $5,000 fine. I'm here to ensure compliance, not to argue. Being in this situation feels horrible, like being in prison. It’s inhumane; you feel small and overpowered.

Speaker 0 repeatedly declares, “I don’t care,” and then issues violent and abusive commands: “I will kick dog,” “I kick your dog, call him fuck off 10 times,” and “Take him away.” They also order, “Take daughter. Now. Put vodka on her face.” The cycle concludes with, “The camera, I don’t care.” Speaker 1 responds by noting, “Okay. We've asked you to listen.” They say, “I've just texted the British,” and add, “trans properly, so you need to go. The camera, I don’t care.”