The unpleasant lady I spoke to finished by saying ‘permission for your project is refused’, which bemused me a bit as I’m not working on ‘a project’ and never said I was! I can only assume she said that out of spite.
If I am in the right I am not going anywhere and continue flying.
1 Like
Then I have no idea why they were quoting you their policy for commercial drone flights @grahammoore
2 Likes
Pretty clear they just wanted to say no either way I’d say, I doubt logic came into it at any point.
1 Like
Seems their policy is no photographing their land and selling the picture, although it seems they’d have a hard time enforcing it. They could only go for trespass, which is a tort, not a criminal offence, and the Bernstein case established that taking a photo from publicly accessible land doesn’t count as trespass. They say they don’t allow this and that but it all seems bluff and bluster.
4 Likes
That’s exactly what it is, bluff and bluster. Unless you are on their land there is absolutely nothing they can do about you taking videos and photos of their properties and doing what you want with them, selling or otherwise.
As I’ve said before even if you were trespassed from their land and refused to leave being a civil matter all they could do is call the police who would have to establish a criminal offence has taken place in order to physically remove you. All very unlikely but it goes to highlight just what powers they do and don’t have.
4 Likes
At least you got a reply…
Below is the last email I sent regards flying OVER Lundy.
I got nothing back, just a sample
…
It isn’t a disappointment as it was the answer I expected.
I will fully respect your perspective and not bring my drone but may I just point out the reason for my request and the question about the fore shore.
You, or your legal team, may need to look into the fact that the Crown Estate allows TOAL (take off and landing) from their property and that the air space above Lundy is not restricted. Legally there is no invasion of privacy with a drone, any more than using my DSLR. Disrupting breeding birds I fully understand but flying 200ft out to sea at 400ft altitude will not disturb them even if the flight was in the breeding season (I wouldn’t personally fly anywhere near bird colonies).
…
Knowing the chap I suspect the response was muted from above,
6 Likes
I put fresh batteries in my (own) crystal ball and found this scenario…
The NT is fighting a test case in the High Court brought after trying and failing to make a conviction (in the local courts) against a drone operator flying over their land based on ‘their’ regulations.
The test case finally showed that NT did not have the right to regulate others flying over their property; only the CAA. Following that ruling the NT and other’s with a vested interest then try to get the Law changed to protect their interests.
in the mean time the news is flooded with idiotic drone flyers (who now have the idea that flying is totally unrestricted and approved in Law) now have no regard for people, or fauna and there is increasing close encounters with the public or actual flying incidents.
The public are now roused into action after being pumped up by press sensationalism.
The court is now persuaded to believe that the public need protecting from the ‘malicious’ drone community and pass laws that legally enable the restrictions that the NT and others ‘thought’ they had in the beginning.
then the crystal ball melted…
don’t shoot the crystal ball operator… but i say don’t poke the bear.
6 Likes
Alternatively, show up with your FPV drone and chase the hunters off the land - you’ll be doing the NT a favour!
1 Like
Funnily enough voters overwhelmingly voted to ban the trial hunts. Now the ball is in NTs court to act on what their members want. It’s also not a bad shout for drone operators to record the so called legal hunts from the sky to see if they are actually just that and call these tossers out once and for all. Also would be pretty funny doing it over NT land. Would cops get called to drag away the drone pilots while an illegal hunt was in progress. 
3 Likes
Just remember - they’ve got guns, so you want to stay at horse-level, not sky-level to prevent them from shooting at you. 
Probably! The hunt master and the chief constable are probably in the same funny handshake club!
1 Like
I thought it was sad that the views were only considered ‘advisory’ rather than actionable.
The pro hunt people said the low turn out to vote relative to the total membership numbers, meant that the vote was ‘meaningless’… great incentive to vote at all. 
I’m sure it would have been an even bigger landslide had everyone voted.
2 Likes
Am I reading that they encouraged members to not vote for having defibrillators on sites?
What’s the point of these votes if none of them are binding.
1 Like
No, they are saying that the proposed blanket criteria for deciding which sites should have a defib does not make as much sense as their current method of letting each site do their own risk analysis and make the choice.
At the end of the day, almost anyone could have a heart attack anywhere, and it would be better to have a defib than not, but I understand their reasoning for wanting to allow each site to decide for themselves.
Pretty much.
I don’t agree with that logic. A site that gets 40k+ visitors a year that charges for entry isn’t a bad way of deciding that. The more aed’s there are out there the more likely a life could be saved.
The fact is they do save lives when they are available, they would be able to get a bulk discount and also potential funding sources are available for the purchase of them. They could even run a campaign to fundraise for them which would be epic PR for them.
4 Likes
Straying a little off topic but…
Absolutely. I was merely pointing out that the NT response was not, “we do not want AEDs on our sites,” just that they believe they are capable of deciding for themselves where they are deployed.
1 Like