This is how I envisage their next board meeting going.
‘Look, we can try and dictate our policy and outdated bylaw to the ordinary man in the street but lets face it we haven’t got a hope in hell with the likes of Google etc. I realise that all of us here are the wrong side of 75 years of age now but we really must try and bring the NT into the 21st Century’ and accept things have changed … ‘Benedict, wake up man, you were snoring, and Dominic, that’s a Smartphone, there’s no dial’. 
AT LAST!
Update to my FOI request to Southend Borough Council. Another council that has no legitimate authority to stop any drone pilot from taking off or landing on public land, despite what some signs say in some areas.
Re: Freedom of Information Request
I am writing regarding your request for information, which was received on
23.04.2021.
In that request you asked us for information below:
Q. Can you please advise if you have any byelaws relating to the use off
UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) from your land, and if so can you
please either provide a copy or the link to their location on a
website.
Q. If you do not have any byelaws, do you have any other policies
relating to the use of UAVs on your land?
Q. Can you finally advise if these have been reviewed in relation to
CAP722C published by the Civil Aviation Authority in December 2020.
I can confirm that the search for the information you requested has been
completed and I can advise you of the following:
I can confirm that there are no byelaws in place for the use of
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, and there are no other policies for their
use.
It is however worth noting that London Southend Airport have their own
statement regarding the Air Navigation Order below:
“If you would like to operate a drone in either the Flight Restricted
Zone (FRZ), the Runway Protected Zone (RPZ) or in controlled airspace
surrounding Southend Airport, then please contact Southend ATC through
the enquiries e-mail.”
A pound to a pinch of sh*t it’s the same for the vast majority of County and Borough Councils up and down the country but relying on peoples ignorance is far less agro and time consuming.
Social media team won’t have a clue about their own drone policy, it’ll be lost on them until they Google it.
Then demand you take it down
The Facebook team knew it posted the link to their policy with some speil about drones being dangerous etc.
That’s not going to happen 
I also wrote about the same time and got basicly the same response, the main reason I wrote is because what you point out and its full ofassumptions ! like “most drone flyers do not have a licence” “most do not have adequete insurance”
NT are so outdated in fact we are cancelling our membership to them we will pay for parking in the future…if we bother going.
In Cornwall they have employed rangers in brand new 4X4’s to drive the length of the coast at 1am in the morening banging on any car van or motorhome they believe may be overnighting and telling them to move on some reports of people being woken up at 3am by angry rangers telling them to move or else !
NT get a grip.
I also added that we did not want to fly (section 33 of the criminal justice act 1994 I believe states that anywhere the public has access to we can film with whatever that includes shopping centers anything) when people are there and so why not do an added membership where say £15 a year for a permit to fly between like 6am to 8am and 6pm to 11 pm for drone pilots that submit insurance etc, I suggested they keep going on about how they are short of money…o look a pig just flew past !
I’m curious as to what you’re referring to here, but Section 33 of the CJA 1994 is very definitely not about that.
very
Definitely not allowed to traffic drugs to a NT property 
# Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
#### 33Abolition of corroboration requirements under Sexual Offences Act 1956.
(1)The following provisions of the [M1](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/section/33#commentary-c13101101)Sexual Offences Act 1956 (which provide that a person shall not be convicted of the offence concerned on the evidence of one witness only unless the witness is corroborated) are hereby repealed—
(a)section 2(2) (procurement of woman by threats),
(b)section 3(2) (procurement of woman by false pretences),
(c)section 4(2) (administering drugs to obtain or facilitate intercourse),
(d)section 22(2) (causing prostitution of women), and
(e)section 23(2) (procuration of girl under twenty-one).
(2)Nothing in this section applies in relation to—
(a)any trial, or
(b)any proceedings before a magistrates’ court as examining justices,
which began before the commencement of this section.
Think that is Irish legalisation.
It implies that anywhere ther public have access to we are allowed to film…sorry i dont do drugs and would not tyraffic
1974,
This is increasingly off topic.
But that’s a link to a 1972 amendment to the 1936 Public Order Act. Which was not about allowing photography in shopping centres, but about banning the likes of Mosley’s British Union of Fascists from wearing political uniforms in public.
In you original post you put 1994 … I was joking regarding the Irish law for that section
http://www.legislation.ie/eli/1994/act/15/section/33/enacted/en/html
sorry mate I get so use to people putting me down lol please accept my sincere appologise.
I just bought my first drone having already got my license with the express intention of taking my daughter to Clumber Park over the next couple of weeks to practice before we head to the Devon coast.
Guess I’ll just be careful of any interaction with NT employees while we’re there. If we are approached I’ll make sure I record any interaction to add to any GDPR concerns that they have.