So ‘somewhere’ in the Lake District, an area well known for having a plethora of hills 
Indeed but you can discount a fair amount of the area as it is covered in water 
so… you think it’s a good thing then?
Well yes, I think laws that let the police prosecute or disrupt terrorists and foreign intelligence officers, like the Russians that seem to keep getting themselves arrested all over Europe for sneaking around near military sites recently, but still leaves the onus on the state to prove that’s what they are, not on the individual, are a good thing.
‘Why do we need new laws?’ is a very valid question, but the simple fact is the Official Secrets Act was written in 1911, when manned aviation was in its infancy and drones weren’t even dreamt of. Terrorism evolves with time, look at the aircraft hijackings of the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s versus the IRA’s tactics, then we move onto 9/11 and big attacks like Bataclan. Following Al Qaeda’s almost complete destruction after 9/11, terrorism evolved into smaller attacks, and the laws have to change with it.
If they’re a covert/discreet house/premises like that, the very last thing on earth the armed forces/security services will want to do is draw attention to it by prosecuting anyone for flying over it while filming!
don’t be surprised if the UK goes the way of France as a lot of areas are nfz… basically all residential areas and many other areas. you are also supposed to get permission from the landowner for overflying their property
… don’t be surprised with what you end up with giving your civil liberties away…
I was in Nante… could not fly … went to the coast nearby … could not really fly… except for a small park area… went to the castle at falaise with a lot of British Norman history… could not fly…
sure NT, EH, police etc will love that arrangement of increased restriction… don’t be surprised with what you wished for and thought was needed.
it someone is going to do something illegal or an act of terrorism… no law will stop them… they only have to get it right once… to stop them you have to be right every time
The ‘no law will stop them’ argument is fairly lame, TBH. Shall we abolish all laws because people can break them and get away with it sometimes? The fact that there’s around 200 terrorist offenders currently in prison in the UK says that laws do stop them. Not to mention the many thousands of suspected terrorists or those who have served their sentences and been released, who are under so much supervision, overt and covert, that they can’t even fart without the security services knowing about it.
Sure, terrorism can’t be stopped 100% of the time, but there’s been about 100 terrorism related deaths since 2001. In the same time period, there’s been over 50,000 deaths on the roads. I’d suggest that the terrorism laws are doing their job pretty well.
As opposed to road traffic laws which by your admission seem to be doing a shit job …
The existance of a law does not prevent someone from breaking it, if they are so inclined.
That’s because there’s tens of millions of motorists in the UK, versus a few thousand terrorist suspects. Hardly comparing like for like, is it?
Plus, car ownerships has massively increased in the UK over the last 50 years or so, and yet road deaths hsve massively gone down. Which would suggest those laws are working well too, surely?
Are they?
Well if massively driving down road deaths when the car owning population has massively increased doesn’t count for you, then frankly i dont know what does. How would you measure success here?
Walking past this establishment in Southampton this evening, I only noticed this sign after flying very close by!
Section 4 & 5 covers drones : causes an unmanned vehicle or device to access, enter, inspect or pass over or under a prohibited place.
1 Like
“There are some places the Government will be placing off limits to protect national security. Most of them will already be protected by existing restrictions. Don’t fly there, it’s stupid.”
How the hell did he manage to stretch that out to 46 minutes?!
(sorry, just realised this was a resurrected thread from last year… )
1 Like
spotted today at Old Portsmouth. The sign is self explanatory however what appears interesting is the wording around Royal Naval vessels at either berth or transit. It appears such vessels are now designated under the National Security Act.
5 Likes
… but there is no defined zone of exclusion around a vessel underway (+ some RN vessels may not be painted battleship grey… so there is some ambiguity… does it apply to all RN vessels or the support vessels too.
like most things in life… common sense applies… if you fly too close don’t be surprised if they dispel with your drone…
I agree it needs to be clarified more clearly on that point, but I’m guessing this will only apply to vessels alongside and those entering and exiting the immediate vicinity of a naval base. But saying that if a drone comes to close to such vessels and becomes invasive, then the NSA should/would apply?
Absolutely!
As a yachty I believe we are not supposed to be closer than 50 M
There is no defined legislation of that on the open seas, but It’s obviously common sense not to get too close.
The legislation regarding the 50m distance applies when alongside a naval base. For example The Dockyard Port of Portsmouth Order 2005 covers the 50m distance :
(3) No vessel shall, without the permission of the Queen’s Harbour Master, navigate—
(a)save as provided for in sub-paragraph (c) below, within 50 metres of any of Her Majesty’s vessels or foreign warships or auxiliaries alongside any Crown Establishment or which is at anchor, a buoy or a mooring within the Dockyard Port;
(b)within 50 metres of the walls, slipways and boundaries of any Crown Establishment; or
(c)within 100 metres of any submarine alongside in any Crown Establishment or which is at anchor, a buoy or a mooring within the Dockyard Port.