Gatwick drone pilot arrested

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 02/01/2015 10:00:51:

 

You still haven't answered the question, though. What if, despite being asked nicely, he refused to land the drone? How are you going to resolve it?

Pete

 

by locking up the people threatening to harm a law abidng citizen with violence ! they are the one breaching the peace and acting in an unlawful manner with their threatening behaviour !

Edited By Codename-John on 02/01/2015 12:58:06

 

It appears that the community did the right thing in complaining to the police rather than taking matters into their own hands. The police will have a certain amount of experience with excited groups of people and it can be surmised that their judgement was that the situation could have got out of hand if the flying continued.

Someone made a point about the use of helicopters being common but this is a different situation in that however upset people become, they have no direct redress with the operator.

In the case of a police officer turning up at my field and asking me to land my model - I suspect that however much I was enjoying myself, I would agree land without delay and discuss any problems reported - however much I knew I was operating legally at the time. At the end of the day, it was a small UAV (no that isn't technically a model aircraft) which was actually landed without visible damage (I'm sure the pilot would have made reference to anything not obvious in the photos) so the police action did little or no harm.

I take Erf's point about investigative journalism having curbed excesses of people abusing privilege but this case appears to have hinged on a photographer wishing to take sensationalist pictures of the result of a tragedy - I see no public interest in this, just a desire for financial gain or personal gratification.

Edited By Martin Harris on 02/01/2015 13:28:59

[Chris Jones 7]

Interesting discussion this. And one which has been had before...

A few years back the photography forums were full of incidents where Police/ PCSOs/ civilian security guards had insisted on photographers not taking pictures despite the fact that the photographers were completely within their rights. Sometimes cameras were forcibly taken from people, images deleted and photographers arrested again despite the fact that they were acting in complete compliance with the law. It resulted in some court cases, if I remember correctly, and many photographers carried a small card around with them explaining the law (remember lawyers are experts in the law not Police necessarily). I've withdrawn a little from the photographic forums but I believe that things have calmed down and now such instances are rare largely due to a concerted education program.

If we take for red the fact that this journo was flying legally then he broke no law and, I feel, should have been protected by the police in the execution of his lawful business.

That said, any decent person would've landed when the circumstances were explained to them, however, I feel the journos actions are more of a statement as to how pressurised, underhand and lacking in morals their industry is than it is a statement of his own personal character.

The journos business is not life saving or anything like that and I think it should be simple enough to get a law sorted that states that you have to land your drone when requested by a Police officer. it doesn't help if the Jouno refuses but at least there is something to charge him with, if the Police get it wrong it can be argued out in the courts which can then be passed back to rank and file for education. It's costly but I think it works once the wrinkles are ironed out.

Of course none of it helps if the Journo refuses to land and I'm not going to suggest a solution cos I think youre damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. There's no way the Police are going to invest the money in teaching every officer to fly every type of drone that's for sure. However if there was an offence of not landing a UAV when requested maybe the occurancies of this happening would be reduced. (There will always be the odd Pratt of course!)

[Pete B]

Wow, nipped out to do the shopping and come back to a degree of reaction - but still no-one's offered a sensible explanation as to how they are going to resolve this!

I'll respond to each poster individually and make my point within their comments. For those posters who are seeing the larger picture and appreciate the point I'm trying to make, I thank you.

Posted by Erfolg on 02/01/2015 10:17:12:

I do not know, although I suspect that the response from the police was in part driven by general concerns of authorities with respect to the operation of drone/quad type aerial vehicles. Seeing the device operating, I would not at all be surprised that their thoughts went along the lines "we will nip this in the bud and do it now".

No, it looks like the officer in charge at the scene had to make a judgement at the time based on circumstances. If you're looking for an ACPO conspiracy to combat drones, you're barking up the wrong tree....

The operator of the drone, was trying to earn his living, operating a drone legally, gathering images.

He can legally operate a drone, yes, but in those circumstances and that time his activity was causing unrest amongst a group of people who were trying to come to terms with multiple deaths within their community. This is not about the fundamental right to fly a drone - it's what he was doing with it that matters

The point has generally been made, that if the images were to be captured via a helicopter, nothing would have been said or done.

Totally wrong, I'm afraid. In such incidents, where aerial photography is requested by the Press, the airspace over the scene will be controlled by ATC and Press aircraft will be allowed in to get their footage in consultation with those on the ground. I've seen both sides of it - with scenes I've been managing on the ground and in police aircraft, standing off to allow the Press to do their job.

Looking at this case, I suspect it is a relatively trivial event in its self, where the police probably being determined to impose their authority.. A photo journalist, being less than co-operative. The result is over reaction by all the parties. I am less than convinced that how the police seized control of the drone was safe or even legal.

The event certainly wasn't trivial and without the action of the police, it may well have escalated significantly. Yes, the police sometimes do have to impose their authority - usually for very good reason!

I suspect we will read far more about similar situations for some time, until a generally accepted parameters are established by all users, the authorities and to a lesser extent the general public.

As I've said twice already, a system of dealing with an un-cooperative flyer needs to be established.

I personally have no issue with journalists, film crews using these devices.

I suppose you might re-consider that if it was the mortal remains of your family they were seeking to film?

Pete

[Prop Nut]

How do we know he was attempting to photograph mortal remains? He may have been - but the article makes no mention of that.

Edited By Prop Nut on 02/01/2015 14:37:42

Edited By Prop Nut on 02/01/2015 14:45:22

[Pete B]

Posted by Dave Hopkin on 02/01/2015 10:49:28:

Pete I am very serious! Apart from this case where the Journo aledges the TX was wrested from him (and if that were true he might face a charge of impeding the police so I take it with a pinch of salt) - there was a case before Xmas in Manchester where a numpty was flying a FPV-UAV over and down into the City of Manchester Stadium shortly before a match, he was arrested in the Adsa Car Park about 300m away, but I have seen no details on how the Police Arrest was carried out or how the UAV was landed.

I think that they chose the least-worst option in dealing with him by way of the B of P - there was no penalty imposed on him and the situation was resolved. If his activities had interfered with the investigation at the scene, i.e., bodies had to be covered and the work suspended whilst he was over-flying, then a charge of obstructing police may have been considered. Re the Asda incident, perhaps the flyer was a little more cooperative with the police?

In my experience the Police have no concept of the laws surrounding Model Flight

No, you're probably right - they've got more than enough to be getting on with - and with a rumoured cut of a further 10000 officers by 2017 they're probably not keen to take this on as well! Be very afraid, folks - you'll miss 'em when they're no longer there....

So if locals made complaints against a flyer(s) and the police felt they were getty upity and liable to cause troube - in your definition of breach of YOU would be arrested in your words.

No, the model flyer wouldn't be arrested. Complaints are normally made and dealt with in a civilised manner and are dealt with by the local authority. This incident was unusual for a number of reasons and required a specific course of action.

The Justice of the Peace Act 1361 has been subject to multiple amendments (Criminal Law Act 1967, Magistrates Act 1980 and others, so its applicability would highly contraversial (as the exercising of any of the laws that still exists from the middle ages would be) especially if used by a Police Office who holds a Warrant and is not himself a Justice of the Peace.

The Act is still there to be used and is a very useful tool when presented with circumstances that may not be adequately covered by statute law - don't knock Middle Age laws - they knew a bit about the KISS principle in those days!

Pete

[robert Jones 14]

Being able to see the larger picture does not mean people will agree with you, which is what you are try to imply- and you haven't responded to my point which is:

"Most of what you say, Pete, makes sense, but this doesn't! So the police can break the law themselves if they make the judgment that it will prevent someone getting a good hiding? How about them arresting the people threatening to do the hiding, because is definitely against the law?"

I'm off to do some flying now (and not a drone!).

[Dave Hopkin]

Pete - The issue you seem to be arguing is not the fact the Journo was flying but the fact he was taking photos of a sensitive emotional incident

The police have no authority to stop photography in a public place (whether for commercial gain or not) unless the subject of the photo comes under the Official Secrets Act or other restricted areas (prisons, crown mines etc)

If the police suspected that the irate locals may have taken the law into thier own hands then the police should have established control over the unrully locals as is thier duty rather than take the path of least resistence by nicking the journo

I totally agree there should be a protocol for handling situations like this, where the Police request the Drone be landed as soon as it is safe to do so - if the pilot refuses, then I would suggest the Police could use "Impeding the Police" laws as a deterent threatening arrest if he continues refuse to land

If that fails to get the drone down, then I think the police must exercise restraint (no not that kind) in the same way they do in car pursuits (police officers require authorisation for close pursiut) and a judgement made on the public saftey should the Police sieze the XT (lets assume the drone will crash either immediately or when the LiPos flatten) - if over open country then let it crash, if over an urban area then no

At the end of the day the drone IS going to land, so there will be occassions where the Police have to back off and wait, just as they do in some car pursuits

[Pete B]

Posted by robert Jones 14 on 02/01/2015 11:03:04:

Most of what you say, Pete, makes sense, but this doesn't! So the police can break the law themselves if they make the judgment that it will prevent someone getting a good hiding? How about them arresting the people threatening to do the hiding, because is definitely against the law?

How are they breaking the law? They used powers under Common Law to detain the individual. Practicality and a moral judgement dictates that the antagoniser is removed rather than 10, 20 or 100 individuals.

The police shouldn't be allowed to interpret criminal law as they see fit in individual circumstances.

They don't. The Courts interpret the law. Police officers carry out their duties based on the Guidelines to Chief Officers published by the Home Office. So what do you suggest - that everyone involved all sit down round the teapot and discuss it? Sorry, we're in the real world here...

What if someone was arrested for drink driving and they said they would give their pub landlord a hiding because he has served him drinks when he was incapable of driving safely?Suppose the police on the spot agreed the landlord had been morally wrong, as he should have done more to prevent his customers drink driving? Would it be okay then for the police to arrest the landlord and take him into protective custody for several hours, then release him without charges, to protect him from getting a hiding?Of course it wouldn't, they are not allow to make judgments as to what part of the criminal law applies in different situations. That is contrary to the Rule of Law, of which this county used to be proud.

Struggling to follow your argument here, I'm afraid...

Pete

[Codename-John]

THIS bit of advice from the Met police given out to its officers sums it up quite well, It might be a different force but the same law applies throughout England, especially the paragraph 4th from bottom, the last one I`ll pick out -

Freedom to photograph and film
Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.

Contact with photographers, reporters and television crews is a regular occurrence for many officers and staff. The media influences our reputation so it's crucial to maintain good working relations with its members, even in difficult circumstances.

Creating vantage points
When areas are cordoned off following an incident, creating a vantage point, if possible, where members of the media at the scene can see police activity, can help them do their job without interfering with a police operation. However, media may still report from areas accessible to the general public.

The press and the public
If someone distressed or bereaved asks the police to stop the media recording them, the request can be passed on to the media, but not enforced.

[Pete B]

Posted by Donald Fry on 02/01/2015 11:13:42:

So to summarise all of the above 1. The journo is an insentative person. 2. Police officers can't fly quads. 3.Showmen who have just lost members of their community are a bit tribal in their outlook. I am filled with astonishment that the world can be so.

Correct. Welcome to the real world, Donald!

Pete

[Pete B]

Posted by Erfolg on 02/01/2015 12:07:57:

I am not a journalist or have any connection with the job.

In their defence i would say that they are seldom welcomed under most circumstances. Most have little if any respect for their work.

Rather than stop them operating, the police should protect all going about their legal business, even if some do not like it.

A bit like the police, eh, Erf?

I would say that the overwhelming majority of journalists and photo-journalists do have an effective working relationship with the police, each respecting the other's responsibility to their profession. Conflicts do occur, of course, and there is always going to be the odd renegade, but by and large things tend to be resolved to the satisfaction of each side.

Pete

[Pete B]

Posted by Codename-John on 02/01/2015 12:56:01:

Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 02/01/2015 10:00:51:

You still haven't answered the question, though. What if, despite being asked nicely, he refused to land the drone? How are you going to resolve it?

by locking up the people threatening to harm a law abidng citizen with violence ! they are the one breaching the peace and acting in an unlawful manner with their threatening behaviour !

Nope, still not there, John...

He wasn't a law-abiding citizen at the time as his actions were likely to provoke a Breach of the Peace. As I mentioned in an earlier reply, the eminently-sensible J of the P Act 1361 took the view that if 1 person is upsetting 100, you remove the source of the antagonisation. That's how policing works - 95% commonsense and 5% legislation.

So, doing it your way, you'd arrest 100 people who had been genuinely and understandably moved to outrage by this person? If you don't mind me saying so, perhaps it's best if you stick to your day job.....

Pete

[Codename-John]

Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 02/01/2015 15:18:05:

Posted by Codename-John on 02/01/2015 12:56:01:

Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 02/01/2015 10:00:51:

You still haven't answered the question, though. What if, despite being asked nicely, he refused to land the drone? How are you going to resolve it?

by locking up the people threatening to harm a law abidng citizen with violence ! they are the one breaching the peace and acting in an unlawful manner with their threatening behaviour !

Nope, still not there, John...

He wasn't a law-abiding citizen at the time as his actions were likely to provoke a Breach of the Peace. As I mentioned in an earlier reply, the eminently-sensible J of the P Act 1361 took the view that if 1 person is upsetting 100, you remove the source of the antagonisation. That's how policing works - 95% commonsense and 5% legislation.

So, doing it your way, you'd arrest 100 people who had been genuinely and understandably moved to outrage by this person? If you don't mind me saying so, perhaps it's best if you stick to your day job.....

Pete

Still not what YOU think I should say you mean ?

I do mind you saying so please stop trying to patronise me, and perhaps you should read the advice given out by the Met Police -

The press and the public
If someone distressed or bereaved asks the police to stop the media recording them, the request can be passed on to the media, but not enforced.

Edited By Codename-John on 02/01/2015 15:24:33

[Pete B]

Posted by Chris Jones 7 on 02/01/2015 14:13:12:

Interesting discussion this. And one which has been had before...

A few years back the photography forums were full of incidents where Police/ PCSOs/ civilian security guards had insisted on photographers not taking pictures despite the fact that the photographers were completely within their rights.

Yes, I remember that, and a very unedifying situation it was, too. Back in the 80's, as a photographer within the job, I'd had to remind a number of colleagues that they didn't have the right to ban photography in a public place - it often came as a surprise to them!

If we take for red the fact that this journo was flying legally then he broke no law and, I feel, should have been protected by the police in the execution of his lawful business.

As I've said several times, there was no issue whatsoever with him flying legally under the ANO. He stepped outside the boundary when he continued flying in a provocative situation - that's what was unlawful.

I think it should be simple enough to get a law sorted that states that you have to land your drone when requested by a Police officer. it doesn't help if the Jouno refuses but at least there is something to charge him with, if the Police get it wrong it can be argued out in the courts

Of course none of it helps if the Journo refuses to land. However if there was an offence of not landing a UAV when requested maybe the occurancies of this happening would be reduced.

Yep, I suggested something along those lines earlier in the thread.

Pete

[Erfolg]

Pete

I am assuming you are or were an policeman.

If that is the case you will be aware that the Chief Constable does have meetings with his police committee, which are essentially political appointees. Although some are headed by directly elected individuals. In most respects it does not matter, what matters that the Chief Constable is guided and answers questions posed by this committee or individual.

The Chief Constable will also have his views which he feeds down into the body of the police force operational priorities, concerns etc.

We have all seen what only be considered Public information News items where Quads and the broad operational issues have been presented in the BBC/ITV and Newspapers.

This is not a conspiracy, theory. It is how the police force forms its response to various issues.

As to the issue if he was trying to film bodies. If it were my family, a lot depends on what is shown. A body enclosed in some covering, really would not bother me, beyond the distress of what had happened. I do reflect on some of my fathers WW2 books, which showed many images of dead and dying soldiers of all nationalities. In this era, such images are unacceptable, certainly not to UK authorities. Now this is a conspiracy theory, because I believe, images of this type does not fit with presenting an image of war as being clinical and almost a game. Whereas it is very brutal and the public may ask, should we expect our youth to sacrifice their lives and limbs on such adventures.

It has been published that images of the aircraft returning to Brize Norton had to be controlled, as these images could lead to a unwanted response from the general public.

As to this incident, I expect the police to protect the public when carrying out legally permitted activities. I do accept though it is much easier to deal with this individual.

Again, if it had been myself as a hobbyist I would have come down and probably have desisted. Yet, if it were my means of making a living, I would not necessarily desist and expect support from the police, if what I were doing was legal.

[Dave Hopkin]

Pete - "Flying in a provocative situation" what law defines that?

He was flying legally in accordance with the ANO, He was licenced to use an UAV for commercial purposes, he was flying from private land with permission, he was taking photos of a public area - to many of use that sort of photography might be distateful but that does not make it illegal

The Police should have focused on the unruly locals and left him to continue his lawful activity

If the locals do not like it, then it becomes Police responsibility to maintain the peace and curb any possible vigilantism by the locals

In reality the custody sgt at the nick should have apologised for false arrest and sent him on his way instead of unlawfully imprisoning him for 5 hrs

[Pete B]

Posted by Codename-John on 02/01/2015 15:23:33:

Still not what YOU think I should say you mean ?

I'm not asking you to say anything you would not wish to say or do not believe. All I'm trying to do is suggest that there are two sides to the story, a fact which seems to be conveniently overlooked by those who choose to see it as yet another chance to have a pop at the police and are too narrow-minded or naive as to be unable to appreciate the bigger picture.

I do mind you saying so please stop trying to patronise me, and perhaps you should read the advice given out by the Met Police -

No intention to patronise you, I'm sure - just making an observation. Your suggestion to arrest everyone else was the wrong answer, I'm sorry to say, so you may not be cut out for a difficult, demanding and sometimes dangerous job where every decision you make can be subject to forensic scrutiny by those with the benefit of time, hindsight, law books and a comfortable office - oh, and not forgetting every Tom. Dick and Harry on the internet.....

The press and the public
If someone distressed or bereaved asks the police to stop the media recording them, the request can be passed on to the media, but not enforced.

We're not talking about distressed or bereaved people but a crime scene or images of deceased persons, so that doesn't apply in this instance.

Pete

[Pete B]

Posted by Dave Hopkin on 02/01/2015 16:01:31:

Pete - "Flying in a provocative situation" what law defines that?

Well, no law I can think of - i just made up that phrase to describe the likely atmosphere prevailing at the time. Heaven forbid that we need every possible permutation of every occurrence in life enshrined in legislation, just in case it happens, before the police can take any form of action! You expect your police to deal with everything thrown at them. To do that they have to be trusted and given credit for their judgement and decision-making. Have a bit of confidence in them, will you? They're doing it on your behalf, for goodness sake. No, they don't always get it right as they are human beings and fallible, but by and large, you should be very grateful for the police service you enjoy in the UK. If you presented these circumstances to any 100 officers, I'd say 95+ or more would come up with the same answer.

He was flying legally in accordance with the ANO, He was licenced to use an UAV for commercial purposes, he was flying from private land with permission, he was taking photos of a public area - to many of use that sort of photography might be distateful but that does not make it illegal.

I refer you to the answer I've given several times before - apart from pointing out he wasn't filming a public area but a privately-owned residential home park.

The Police should have focused on the unruly locals and left him to continue his lawful activity. If the locals do not like it, then it becomes Police responsibility to maintain the peace and curb any possible vigilantism by the locals

Sorry, the real world doesn't work like that....

In reality the custody sgt at the nick should have apologised for false arrest and sent him on his way instead of unlawfully imprisoning him for 5 hrs

Wrong in every respect.... I think you've failed the Police Entrance Exam too!

Pete

[SR 71]

I think its time you all called it a day on this one before it all gets out of hand, you will never agree with each other

let it lie while you are all friends,

The rights and wrongs seem to over shadow the deaths of two young kids and there mother

R.I.P

[alan p]

The committee at my club is having a discussion on how to best approach the situation with drones/quadcopters at the moment. It's been amusing and informative to read this blog ,but unless you are going to have handbags at three paces its beginning to get tedious. As SR71 says agree to disagree for every plus you may find, someone will find a minus and before its questioned I do not fly quads but did fly full size.

Happy New Year to everyone and safe flying

[Codename-John]

Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 02/01/2015 16:32:38:

Posted by Codename-John on 02/01/2015 15:23:33:

Still not what YOU think I should say you mean ?

I'm not asking you to say anything you would not wish to say or do not believe. All I'm trying to do is suggest that there are two sides to the story, a fact which seems to be conveniently overlooked by those who choose to see it as yet another chance to have a pop at the police and are too narrow-minded or naive as to be unable to appreciate the bigger picture.

I do mind you saying so please stop trying to patronise me, and perhaps you should read the advice given out by the Met Police -

No intention to patronise you, I'm sure - just making an observation. Your suggestion to arrest everyone else was the wrong answer, I'm sorry to say, so you may not be cut out for a difficult, demanding and sometimes dangerous job where every decision you make can be subject to forensic scrutiny by those with the benefit of time, hindsight, law books and a comfortable office - oh, and not forgetting every Tom. Dick and Harry on the internet.....

The press and the public
If someone distressed or bereaved asks the police to stop the media recording them, the request can be passed on to the media, but not enforced.

We're not talking about distressed or bereaved people but a crime scene or images of deceased persons, so that doesn't apply in this instance.

Pete

Of course we are talking about bereaved or distressed people otherwise what has the camera man done ?

Even if it was a crime scene Point 1 of the Met guidance says -

Freedom to photograph and film
Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.

Please show us the reports of the 100 marauding carny men Pete, or is this just something that you've invented to make it look like the police had no other option than to arrest the camera man before a breach of the peace occurred, as all I can find any reference to is some "complaints from local residents and bystanders". Along with your disturbing descriptions of someone you have never even met earlier in the thread, you are making things up to fit your narrative based purely on conjecture. IF THATS WHAT IT TAKES TO PASS A POLICE ENTRANCE EXAM IT DOESNT BODE WELL FOR THE NATIONS FUTURE

[Pete B]

Posted by SR 71 on 02/01/2015 17:00:38:

I think its time you all called it a day on this one before it all gets out of hand, you will never agree with each other

let it lie while you are all friends,

The rights and wrongs seem to over shadow the deaths of two young kids and there mother

R.I.P

Point taken, SR71 - I've had my say and there comes a time to stop flogging a dead horse......

Pete

[Rob Dunn]

Been ready this with interest, As SR71 stated needs to come to an end before it get out of hand. Before anyone does something stupid lets make friends and get flying.

[Bob Cotsford]

Yep, I agree - time to lock this one!

[cymaz]

Decisions about where, when and rules about flying them will be made by people in government and agencies that don't fly anything or have no experience of model aviation. Probably....