So I was out with my day job yesterday testing a system we have built and to do it we needed to have a large vista to view, so we took it to Devils dyke, which is a NT area.
While there the NT staff approached us and asked if we had a ‘filming license’ when I explained that although the system has a camera that we weren’t filming they were ok and left us to it.
That got me thinking more about these restrictions.
#1. (just being pedantic) I looked up the ‘land map’ and they own the road into the carpark, so I broke there byelaw like everyone else that drove there as I operated a motor vechile on their land!
#2. I have looked more into the ‘filming license’ and they’re trying to claim that if you take pictures on their land that they can’t be used or uploaded anywhere without a license from them. Surely this can’t be legal as it’s open land? I’m not talking about prodcast quality production, but any commercial work (outdoors!).
I’ve shot loads of video and taken loads of stills when I’ve visited their sites before with no issues at all. Its absolutely impossible to police and maintain. Just look on FB and other social media. millions of images taken on their property.
What they’re trying to do is protect their brand and image rights all the while knowing that in reality there is very little to nothing they can do. They can police it at certain locations such as historic building etc where they try to protect priceless pieces of art from the effects of flash photography (I think that’s bullcrap too but its what they say)
They really don’t do themselves any favours. They are still stuck in the 60’s and 70’s years before the advent of social media and the Internet. I’ve had no reply to numerous pieces of correspondence I’ve sent them these past few weeks (like a dog with a bone me )
Yeah, I’m starting to get like that, I’ve been looking at ‘holes’ in their maps working out if it’s worth going and standing in that space that they don’t own that runs through the center of their land and fly from there!!
lol
I understand they can police the use of photography etc inside their properties, just I don’t think they have any right to stop people outside taking any images they want for any purpose they wish to use it for.
If I ever do fly from a carpark and get told I can’t i’m going to ask for help to push my vechile off their land as I can’t drive it off!! lmao
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‘Look, we can try and dictate our policy and outdated bylaw to the ordinary man in the street but lets face it we haven’t got a hope in hell with the likes of Google etc.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’.
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.
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 !
# 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.
)
