Got up at stupid o’clock this morning and drove 40 miles with my trusted hound to get these. This Iron Age fort is on the same site as a huge neolithic chalk carving - the only neolithic chalk carving in the UK - so there was probably a settlement here before the Iron Age. The thing that amazes me is that there is nowhere on the ground that you can see this horse in it’s entirety, only small portions of it. It makes you wonder how they managed to create it.
Pano of the Horse, Castle and Manger. None of these images give a true sense of scale.
Thank you for your comment. All of the above lol. I have another couple of covert ‘missions’ planned when the weather is right. T.B.C. There will be a video when I get it completed.
The hill just below the white horse is Dragon Hill. It is supposedly where St George slew the dragon and the exposed chalk patch is where the dragons blood was spilled.
Lol are there really security guards for drone flying over English heritage. What really happens if they catch you and can they really control the airspace.
I’d like to see the actual copy of the byelaw that English heritage refer to. If it’s anything like the National Trust, then it’s a complete load of twaddle.
The NT use a byelaw from 1965! So bang up to date then!!!
Saying that no person shall ‘moor, park or leave any conveyance except in mooring or parking places provided by the trust.
No unauthorised person shall ride or drive any conveyance over or upon trust property otherwise than upon roads, tracks or waterways authorised for the use of such conveyance.
They add that the word conveyance includes any air, land or water vehicle or machine other than wheelchairs or perambulators.
Interestingly , horse riding is prohibited by notice and where damage is likely to be caused to NT property even if there is no prohibition notice in force!!
The Human rights act trumps the byelaw tho.
Article 1 of the first protocol give EVERYONE the right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions .
This imposes an obligation on the state, or elected and non elected government and other bodies, not to interfere with peaceful enjoyment of property, except where deprivation or control is carried out lawfully in the public interest. What is considered to be in the public interest and any interference must strike a fair balance between the general demands of the community and the individuals fundamental rights. So in other words, they cannot just put a blanket ban on flying drones. If a couple of dozen turned up at one go, then they would be justified in limiting flying to say one or two at a time.
At the risk of hijacking this thread (which would bee a shame because Steve’s picyures are excellent) I think NT can use a catch-all in one of their bylaws about causing disturbance to other visitors. It was there to curb the use of gramophones and portable wireless sets but, if they can find someone to swear that they were disturbed by your aircrafy they have you bang to rights. And the penalty is a ten quid fine …
