The pilot, a 50-year-old Swindon man, was ordered onto a training course by police
Does this mean that they have told him to pass the 20 question registration test or are they paying for him to get a PfCO? 
If you get caught speeding in a car you are invited onto a speed awareness course as a means of reducing fines.points on your licence. Do the police have a similar scheme for errant pilots?
My thoughts also. Puzzled that police actually have powers to order a training course. If so expect Gulags soon for non mask wearers.
I am guessing it went down something like āTo prove we are not totally unfeeling, do a course at your own expense or we will confiscate your drone and prosecute etcā¦ā. Presumably it would be PfCO and not at the taxpayers expense.
Personally I think he should have been used to set an example with confiscation, prosecution under a welter of national publicity rather than a minor local story. Otherwise there will be other chancers who will think āWhatās the worst that can happenā and carry on as their normal.
3 times Iāve had someone overflying my back garden, on the second time it happened I thought Iād see what the local police had to say about it.
The police were not interested because āit might just be ākidsā ā she said.
My question to her was āare kids exempt from the drone codeā? No answer from her.
3:00am, semi awake, I hear the unmistakable sound of a drone outside flying past my garden again.
Iām now thinking itās someone delivering spare parts for free if I can catch itā¦
I donāt think heād report the incident to the policeā¦
Maybe I just need to get out more and stop relying on conversations I have with my cat and the voices in my head, but other than at my flying field Iāve yet to see any kind of model RC or drone out in the wild.
I have, however, been baselessly accused of flying my robot minions in various no-go areas of my town. How can this be as the only folk whom have first hand knowledge of my activities are the Darby and Jones Formation Flying Team at my model flying club, my cat, and the ever present voices in my headā¦ Oh, and my wife whom talks too much. Iāve lived in this town 26 or so years, my wife only 10 or so, but she works in the local supermarket. If Iām asked about my wife Iāll reply āSheās the 4ā10ā American that works in Sainsburyāsā. ā Oh, you mean Blah Blah. We chat all the timeā. will often be the reply. And sheās told far too many normals about my activities.
So when my wife comes home to find me sat on the couch in my lounge pants, executing random acts of violence in GTA5, accusations are thrown at me about leaving the house and scaring the natives, instead of completing my mandatory domestic chores. When I protest my innocence she retorts that one of my electronic subordinates were seen flying over the town.
Now seriously, even though on this forum Iām known to harbour a kind of sickness, Iāve never instructed any of my minions to rage over the town. If I do fly in my yard they never go above head height or beyond the perimeter of my property. But acts like the one illustrated in the op news article do concern me, and as my wife has spoken to many about my addiction, itāll just take one to make a tenuous link between a random drone sighting and me and my wife and I could end up being the new Gatwick couple. It isnāt helped by the media falsely inflating the hype of Citizen Smith seen flying advanced weaponised machines of death over baskets of innocent and cute puppies, kittens, and babies.
Nidge.
I wonder if they emphasised the invasion of privacy over the flagrant safety issues and breach of the drone code because that gives them more powers under the criminal justice system?
I donāt think invasion of privacy is a crime, I think itās a civil matter. I doubt they really know what the law is or what their powers are.
As long as the drone code is being followed invasion of privacy via drone use doesnāt seem to be a crime. I think any prosecution would have to be under a different law.
There are plenty of recent high profile instances of filming in peopleās faces without permission and publishing said videos extensively. No privacy issues there apparently? Woe betide anyone who these days kicks off against peopleās civil rights to photograph and video pretty much anything they wish. Police body cameras are commonplace and TV shows are based on footage from them with a nod to privacy of blurring out faces. So video footage taken with a drone would seem to be little different than in your face photography probably rather less intrusive.
There are or rather were issues with publishing videos and photos but they are not specifically related to drone activity. Not sure what the situation is these days but in the early days of internet before any social media existed publishing pictures of identifiable children on my school website was a no-no and that applied universally then. Nowadays local newspapers especially produce captioned photos of school children in sports events etc. and TikTok etc. is a smorgasboard for paedophiles and groomers. I think we have more to worry about than a bit of drone footage taken respectfully and with consideration.
Privacy these days is almost totally reliant on good manners, self restraint and courtesy all very much not in great supply.
Rules are made for fools to ignore and wise men to follow.