A video popped up on YouTube last night as mentioned in the title above so thought id give it a watch & it seems like things are set to get tougher / prohibited on where some may want to fly moving forward, can be found on ‘Gv’s channel’
Then this morning I stumbled on a short video from windswept Robert regarding the same thing below,
It seems some of these restrictions are all ready in place but ( not yet ) showing on certain drone maps !
Yes all caused as I said they would by the so called Auditors, I said years ago that their actions would impose further restrictions and sadly it has
Yes I was going to mention that but thought id not need to as I thought id let others be the judge of that but yes 
Edit : no doubt they’ll be out in the countryside soon wrecking the hobby even more !
What gets me for a well organised drone group as this, many said it wouldn’t happen, that these auditors would not affect our hobby, alas they are doing
From what I’ve seen or tried to understand,
The casual town / city industrial flyer may have all good intentions ( not realising ) within that area is something government related then ya f****d 
It has to be noted a number of civilian defence company sites are also now covered under the NSA 2023 (prohibited place). Leonardo based in Southampton are just such one as I discovered the signage whilst flying nearby last year.
I’m sure he used my Portsmouth picture I posted on this forum!
Edit! Actually no, extremely similar. 
so without watching GV video - no idea if he says how one can find out if your in one of these area’s covered by this article 239 - how will one know ?
I generally do go and google a location before flying in it to see if there is any bylaws - statements of no drones on a locations website ( county parks etc ) but does this mean we as drone pilots now need to google every company / facility we wish to fly near to check what it makes to ensure we are not at risk here ? Seems a bit OTT really when I am sure the location mentioned here will be on Google maps - BAC Systems on the Clyde most defo is but I guess this too falls under these rules as they have warships there ( loads of video’s and photos of this location on line )
Think these sensitive places really do need to reach out to the CAA to put something in place so its easy enough to know and if not then well all they can do is issue a warning to say don’t and remove the video - anything above that… well yeah that’s the tricky bit
I’m sure he said these are being rolled out & are pretty much the here & now moving forward, apparently they should start to show up on drone safety maps etc.
Common sense would dictate that if you’re flying near a civilian defence establishment for example, it’s worth checking first. The signage to be fair is very visible and clear.
The MOD Police in Portsmouth had the right idea in placing signage near known flying locations away from the base to forewarn those about flying over it.
how would you know ? I use to live in Tamworth and there was a drone factory there that I had no idea till some guys went and painted the roof red and sat on the roof in protest due to what these drones were being used for - not a drone you and I would ever be buying - but would I be in breach of this reg if I flew over it and recorded the area around it ?
So yeah you can try all you want but without it being clear this will be an issue - but as @Kirky has said sounds like this could be made a load easier in the future with these area’s being shown on maps.
Hope so
Naturally not every site is going to be shown on such a map for obvious reasons.
I guess you have to carry out your own due diligence before flying in an area you’re not familiar with.
Oh 100% and I do - but then the law needs to take in to consideration that if there is no signage or notice that is easy enough to find online that all they can do is request you to remove the footage and not fly there again.
They need to prove your intent - but this does open up a can of worms that basically any establishment could come out to you and say - dont fly here or over here as your in breach of article 239 and they dont even have to tell you why or what they do in order to be under that - mmm gets all very muddy this
Its 2025 there’s a lot going off in the world and as we all like flying our drones whatever make and model they may be but as things are right now I believe it is now a case of fuck about and find out
As for the guy in the video he could of handled things better and agreed to take the video down and i am sure the conversation would have been much different and would more than likely would have saved himself the bother he has now brought upon himself
Point being he knew what the building was his was flying over and probably thought it was a good idea after checking out drone related apps and if that’s the case I hope he put in a flight plan a few weeks before so his ass would be covered should that knock on the door happen eh
Again a DJI wally who knows more about his rights than his wrongs acting no different to an auditor type on youtube
I wonder if he is a member on here 
Honestly, I’m not sure I see what the worry is. They weren’t there to talk to this guy about flying his drone, they were there talking to him about filming a site where filming is prohibited under the National Security Act. That his camera happened to be on the front of a drone is by the by.
And it’s not exactly new that there are places you aren’t allowed to film. If you stood outside AWE Aldermaston 20 years ago and pointed a camcorder through the fence you’d have had armed police standing next to you in minutes asking you some questions.
Common sense says that there are some places it’s not sensible to fly a drone over and/or film. A weapons factory is obviously on that list. I suspect he knew that when he went, and the fact he had cameras set up to film the police from three angles says he was expecting the chap on the door.
“I’m filming under legal advice” Is that right, Fannybaws?
Basically…
Pretty much exactly what happened in the video above. Police have come around to advise him that his video needs to be taken down and he needs to not fly there again… but, of course, frauditors have got to fraudit.
From:
https://www.npsa.gov.uk/national-security-act/national-security-act-2023-and-prohibited-places
Mad you should mention AWE my neighbour has just gone back to work there after a few months break, she was telling me only last week that your not even allowed to take your phone on site, has to go in some sort of locker at the start of the day where you then collect it at the end of the day,
I also remember a few stories from when my dad worked there as a contractor back in the 80’s & it was well strict back then let alone now .
I may or may not have worked there in the '90s / '00s and have a few stories of my own 
Yes one of my own just sprang to mind in 2006, when I went to turn a roundabout & ended up going straight across it resulting in landing about 12 foot away from the perimeter fence 
Mod are red hot there, they stayed until motor was recovered & we had all gone !
On another note you get seen by the Mod there twice in a short space of time guaranteed your getting pulled & interrogated
Hmm I’m not sure about that. The National Security Act doesn’t mention anything about “intent”
Here’s the relevant section of the act
“ [quote=“uav_hampshire, post:1, topic:66058”]
4 Entering etc a prohibited place for a purpose prejudicial to the UK
(1)A person commits an offence if—
(a)the person—
(i)accesses, enters, inspects, passes over or under, approaches or is in the vicinity of a prohibited place, or
(ii)causes an unmanned vehicle or device to access, enter, inspect, pass over or under, approach or be in the vicinity of a prohibited place, and
(b)that conduct is for a purpose that the person knows, or having regard to other matters known to them ought reasonably to know, is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.
(2)In subsection (1)(a) a reference to inspecting a prohibited place includes—
(a)taking, or procuring the taking of, photographs, videos or other recordings of the prohibited place;
(b)inspecting photographs, videos or other recordings of the prohibited place.
(3)For the purposes of this section, a person engages in conduct mentioned in subsection (1)(a) if the person does so in person or by electronic or remote means.
(4)Subsection (1) applies whether the person’s conduct takes place in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
(5)A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or a fine (or both).
(6)In this Part “vehicle” means any form of transport.
[/quote]
Wait until they check his hard drives 
I put money on it he is a left handed site user with a VPN
