KingKade Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 This may have been discused elsewhere however i cant find any discussions.... Link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kc Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 This may set a precedent which could affect all model flying. To snatch a Tx away from somebody is so dangerous if you dont know what you are doing. Even a very experienced flier would need to know what Mode it's flying on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingKade Posted December 31, 2014 Author Share Posted December 31, 2014 At least the guardian had a link "got a drone for christmas" to the side of the news piece.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cymaz Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 Receipe for disaster this one. Most of the tweets supported the journalist. So the next time someone manages to endanger an aircraft for real, will the same people applaud the actions? I don't think so.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Jones 2 Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 Usual issue here, the drone is not the problem, it's the twit on the sticks..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaunie Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 I think there's a good case for the police being prosecuted for reckless endangerment. The video clip shows the policeman saying "I've asked you before to land that drone" but is there any proof of that? not sure if the pilot ignored police requests to land or not. Shaunie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Hopkin Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 Posted by Steve Jones 2 on 31/12/2014 20:02:55: Usual issue here, the drone is not the problem, it's the twit on the sticks..... In this case I don't think I would agree (from what I understand from the linked article) he was flying "near" Gatwick but doesnt say how near or at what altitude he was flying at, it gives no reason as to why the police got involved at all, and I am sure if he was even remotely likely to endanger anything using Gatwick it would have been highlighted in the article, So on the face of it, it looks like rash police intervention of a lawfull flight. It does say he was released without charge so the Police are admitting he did no wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malcolm woodcock 1 Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 It would appear that 'plod' has forgotten that he's the servant of the people not the master. This is what happens when unlicenced people try to to take the Tx off of a licenced person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete B Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 Sorry, Shaunie, there's no such thing as 'reckless endangerment' in the UK - that's a peculiarly septic thing..... There's bound to be another side to this story - if he was apparently being arrested for a 'Breach of the Peace', I'd hazard a guess he's been flying in such a way as to upset other members of the public - and the police have no choice but to follow up the complaint. That's the 'servant of the people, not master' bit, Malcolm.... Once the risk of a breach is over, there is no further power to detain unless there are criminal issues involved, which is probably why he was released. Digging around, it seems he was persisting in overflying the scene of a fatal fire whilst three bodies were being removed - have journalists and photojournalists no morals whatsoever? I'd also hazard a guess that he was probably causing a lot of anger amongst residents of the mobile home site, not to mention the police and fire service personnel who were trying to get on with their job. Was he hoping to sell the footage to the Beeb or ITV for your enjoyment? - you bet he was... Yes, there's clearly a procedural issue here about how to stop someone flying a drone if they refuse to obey instructions. However, if you're going to fail the attitude test, he can't complain at the consequences. I sincerely hope the CAA find grounds to rescind his licence - nothing would give me greater pleasure..... Pete ps Here is a news report on the matter. Judge for yourself just what sort of person he is: Surrey Police said the arrest was made following complaints from local residents and others in the area where a mother and her two young children had died. Detective Chief Inspector Antony Archibald said: "A number of uniformed officers and detectives were sent to the scene of this tragic incident to assist Surrey Fire and Rescue Service with their investigation. "While in attendance, concerns about the behaviour of a man were raised to officers from people who believed he was acting in a disrespectful and intrusive manner. "At the time of the arrest, the main focus for officers and fire crew at the scene was to conclude the initial forensic investigation and to allow the dignified removal of the bodies of those who had sadly died. "This was a deeply distressing incident which has devastated the community and the impact will be felt for some time. The thoughts of all at Surrey Police are with those affected by the fire." A police spokesman said that once the "risk of the breach of the peace" had ended, the man was freed from police custody. Edited By Pete B - Moderator on 31/12/2014 21:51:01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 It doesn't make good reading Pete, shame they never charged him with something...it also show's having a licence for dog don't make it behave John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaunie Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 There are two things that concern me:- The first is the intrusion into the grief of members of the public and if there were in fact complaints of a breach of privacy, then the Police are quite entitled to ask him to ground the Quad. Being too intrusive can only show these craft in the worst possible light. I live locally to the incident and imho it would have been unlikely to endanger a full size aircraft unless it was to climb out of control to a considerable height. Having been asked to land the Quad he should have done so immediately and a member of the Police should have remained with him to ensure he did so and packed it away. However to wrestle the transmitter out of his hands is tantamount to reaching over and wrenching on the steering wheel of a car from the front passenger seat. Perhaps their mindset was "it's only a toy, how hard can it be?" They could have caused a safely (but intrusively) flown quad to cause a danger to others. Which of these is the worst offence though? Perhaps there is no such thing as reckless endangerment but the CAA still take a dim view of deliberately risking the safety of any aircraft, no matter what size it is. Shaunie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codename-John Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 31/12/2014 21:47:41: ps Here is a news report on the matter. Judge for yourself just what sort of person he is: Surrey Police said the arrest was made following complaints from local residents and others in the area where a mother and her two young children had died. Detective Chief Inspector Antony Archibald said: "A number of uniformed officers and detectives were sent to the scene of this tragic incident to assist Surrey Fire and Rescue Service with their investigation. "While in attendance, concerns about the behaviour of a man were raised to officers from people who believed he was acting in a disrespectful and intrusive manner. "At the time of the arrest, the main focus for officers and fire crew at the scene was to conclude the initial forensic investigation and to allow the dignified removal of the bodies of those who had sadly died. "This was a deeply distressing incident which has devastated the community and the impact will be felt for some time. The thoughts of all at Surrey Police are with those affected by the fire." A police spokesman said that once the "risk of the breach of the peace" had ended, the man was freed from police custody. Edited By Pete B - Moderator on 31/12/2014 21:51:01 That's not a news report though, that is a one sided press release statement released from Surrey Police reported as "news", you cannot judge anything about a person from that. What is the difference between a news reporter standing with a normal camera on his shoulder trying to get film footage at a tragic event and someone using a "drone" ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erfolg Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 I would just ask the question was the pilot braking the law? We may disagree with the ethics and morality of what he was doing, which is another issue. I would also ask were the police exceeding their authority and breaking the law? Relying on not responding to ............ type argument is a classic way of authority of breaking the law and then trying to say, when we break the law, that is different. Both should be treated equally under the law, no favours and nods and winks just because some think that authority must be supported because it is authority. Although I do not like quads, it is far to late to un-invent them. If the regulations do not operate effectively, they should be amended. But they should not be amended as a means of censorship, to control news or knowledge of events. If I am honest, my concerns were raised when it was decided that images of our dead servicemen and women being returned from Afghanistan must be limited to official channels as a means of controlling public opinion. This has made me very nervous of authorities attempts to limit public access to information. Although I am not suggesting that this is such a case, it is almost certainly something where i have no wish to see images. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Harris - Moderator Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 What is the difference between a news reporter standing with a normal camera on his shoulder trying to get film footage at a tragic event and someone using a "drone" ? Very little if any - either would be intensely upsetting to the victims' relatives. What public interest could be served by filming bodies being removed from the scene of their deaths? On the balance of the information I've seen, my sympathies are with the police - yes, they could have endangered the drone and there may have been a small risk of injury, but given what seems to be a refusal to desist from an action they felt likely to cause a serious breach of the peace - or even worse - at some point they had to make the decision to take robust action. Edited By Martin Harris on 01/01/2015 20:35:33 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cymaz Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 I'm sure all this has been noticed by the CAA? Hopefully no knee jerk reaction, but a carefully considered decision in conjunction with interested bodies. The FAA has come down harder and swifter in the US so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codename-John Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 From the pictures it would appear the guy is standing alone in a field, how is he, by operating with permission, safely and legally, the one causing a breach of the peace, the police caused more fuss and danger by their actions. Probably more like based on their opinion they've ordered him to stop what he was doing and they've got on their power trip when he hasn't complied, ( because he wasn't doing anything legally wrong ) then excused their behaviour by a trumped up charge they don't actually have to prove Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Bennett Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 he had permission to fly from the field, did he have permission to overfly the fire site and take pictures. that is the question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codename-John Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Posted by Tony Bennett on 01/01/2015 21:01:28: he had permission to fly from the field, did he have permission to overfly the fire site and take pictures. that is the question. Yes Link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete B Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 I don't think there was ever a suggestion of any sort of conflict in the air, Shaunie - this was purely about aggravating a volatile situation and possibly creating an amount of public disorder - particularly unhelpful given the circumstances of why the police and fire services were on that site. Believe me, their presence would not have been welcome there. If you haven't had experience of dealing with such incidents, it's difficult to make informed comment, I'm afraid. Remember, just because one is flying a drone at the time, it doesn't make one immune to being subject to normal criminal law - or applying civilised standards of conduct to your behaviour. This guy was making a delicate situation far more difficult than it already was. Fortunately, most people choose the sensible course when asked to cease and desist from doing something unlawful or obstructive. This idiot clearly chose not to - and created the situation entirely of his own making. I think it could have been handled better, sure, but getting the drone out of the air would have been a priority at the time. I would agree that some thought must now be given to coming up with a way of dealing with an operator who refuses to land the device, although these circumstances are rather unusual and I don't think it would be an everyday occurrence. Depending on whether instances of drones creating danger, public order or privacy issues become more commonplace, it may suffice to add a section to the legislation making it a specific offence for an operator to fail to comply with the direction of a PC or CAA official. Any other ideas? Now, dealing with CJ's comments: That's not a news report though, that is a one sided press release statement released from Surrey Police reported as "news", you cannot judge anything about a person from that. If you'd bothered to follow my link you'd have seen that my quote was part of a news report - the drone flyer had had his say - I was merely putting the other side of the story. Something that most of his knuckle-dragging followers on Twitter seem to have overlooked, too...... What is the difference between a news reporter standing with a normal camera on his shoulder trying to get film footage at a tragic event and someone using a "drone" ? Quite simple - it's a lot easier to control the activity of a ground-based photographer. Normally, they would be asked to not photograph anything of a sensitive nature and, if necessary, screens or vehicles would be placed to protect the scene from intrusive cameras - that's not an option when you have a camera overhead. News editors do use their discretion when publishing images, I would agree, but when the photographer knows that his pics won't stand a chance of being published, what purpose would he have in continuing to take them after being asked to stop? Personal enjoyment, perhaps? Sharing them with his mates - probably! To be honest, I'm at a loss as to why you think this specimen's action need defending. In my working career, I encountered those circumstances on a number of occasions myself - and removed far more bodies of adults and children from fire scenes than I care to remember. It's not something for public curiosity or consumption, believe me. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Codename John - if you are ever overcome with the urge to make a post on this forum about model aircraft please do be sure to PM me - I'd hate to miss it! BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codename-John Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 I find your description of this man quite offensive Pete, words such as " Idiot, specimen, Knuckle dragging followers" when he was acting in a legal manner, he has obtained a licence from the CAA allowing him to partake in such activity and had permission from the landowner, The very fact he didn't get charged with any offence relating to the actual flying of the drone goes to show he committed no offence, it would be fairly easy to prove any offence given the amount of witnesses to it My reply to you regarding the "news report" was on the basis you had asked us to "judge for ourselves what kind of man he is" based on the part you included in your post. If you were tasked with sorting this out do you think Surrey Police would be classed as an independent witness in the matter ? I would suggest not, yet you automatically formed an opinion and tried to influence others in their opinion based soley on what their PR department released as a statement to the press Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codename-John Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 01/01/2015 21:43:10: Codename John - if you are ever overcome with the urge to make a post on this forum about model aircraft please do be sure to PM me - I'd hate to miss it! BEB Lol so multirotors and their pilots don't count as Model Aircraft now ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete B Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 I'll not withdraw one word of my description - if you don't like it, tough. He's not worth wasting your concern upon, I'd say. Forget the drone and the CAA legislation - it has nothing to do whatsoever with this incident. It was just an instrument which created potential for a Breach of the Peace and what he was doing was clearly offensive to people. Flying a drone doesn't make you immune to the law, as I've already said. As I explained in my original post, once the Breach is unlikely to recur, the power of arrest lapses and the offender can be released. A regularly-used procedure to take the heat out of certain situations. A bit of research may help you to understand how it works. Of course I'm trying to influence others - up to the point where I revealed the actual circumstances, it was just another case of the nasty police bullying a poor helpless drone flyer! Let's not allow facts get in the way of a good story, eh? TBH, I know I'd rather rely on Surrey Police's statement than that of the twittering idiot and his mates.... So you still think it was his right and entitlement to video the dead woman and children for his own purposes, then? Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codename-John Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 I morally think it was wrong of him to do what he did, but Criminally he did nothing wrong and that is what I will defend. As I said there is no difference morally in him and a camera man with a camera on his shoulder getting images, so why should he be specifically targeted just because he used a different method of camera equipment. For there to be a breach of the peace and people to complain of his actions etc then it would imply there were others at the scene who had no business being there, What were these other people ( the people not connected to dealing with the incident ) doing there if not to Stand and Gawk at what was happening, what is the moral difference between them being there for their own purpose and him, yet he is the one who gets arrested and detained for 5 hours Edited By Codename-John on 01/01/2015 22:35:37 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete B Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Oh dear, I rather hoped you'd do a bit of 'reading between the lines' and work it out for yourself but I'll offer an interpretation of what I suspect the scenario to have been. The caravan site is apparently the home base of travelling fairground folk - most funfairs have 'winter quarters'. Indeed, I had one on my beat in years gone by, so I'm not entirely unfamiliar with how they work. They have a fairly simplistic approach to life and are often not given to procrastination, tending to use their fists or whatever comes to hand, rather than stand about discussing issues nicely. Now, pleasant enough though most individuals might be, it's not unknown for them as a group to be fairly unwelcoming of police attention but sometimes it's unavoidable, such as in circumstances like a fire. Their toleration level would have been stretched to the limit. This was a terrible tragedy and emotions would have been running high. The police and fire service would want to get their investigation done as efficiently and quickly as possible and then withdraw and allow the community to grieve. Along comes Mr Drone, journo, after his 'scoop'. Up goes the drone, residents on the site ask what it's doing. Police say that it's a journo doing a bit of filming of their tragedy. Residents tell police that if he doesn't stop, they'll stop him themselves. Put yourself in the bobby's position - does he tell the residents to ignore the drone, tell them there's nothing he can do- and risk the journo getting filled in? - or does he suggest to the journo that it's inadvisable to continue filming for his own safety? I know what course I''d take - and, quite frankly, the journo is probably too thick-skinned to realise that he should be grateful to the police for saving him from a darn good hiding - at least! Pete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.