Wrong
Wrong again. You're doing well here.
He was asked to destroy the film or face prosecution. He chose the sensible route.
Agreed. But if they break these regulations above my land then I can and do expect them to be dealt with. Identifying a Lufthansa Airbus cutting the corner is easy but some of the helicopters are hard to trace.
Assuming the subsidies pay for the costs of raising them (which they roughly do) then a mature lamb fetches around £50. Welsh hill farmers get greater subsidies so it is worth raising them but not sure if their lambs are good enough to get top whack at market so it may balance out. With the move to the Single Payment Scheme then most farmland will come out of production as imports will always be cheaper.
You mean he chose to allow your bullshit to intimidate him. Whilst I would have apologised and respected your wishes wrt getting off private land if I inadvertently strayed onto it, had you made similar threats to me, I would have laughed at them. You had *zero* legal recourse in that situation.
You got lucky, he saved you a lot of money and time that wouldn't have gotten you anywhere.
Quite right too.
You might own the land, but they have the right to fly above it, subject to the normal rules of flying. I am not too sure what they are, but contact your local air control tower and they will tell you.
Dave
If you mean tailgating another car at 70mph on a motorway then definitely. The police should throw the book at these idiots.
Conversely if you mean at 5mph in the rush hour then that's safe. As you say it's dependent on the stunts being performed.
You are missing the point which given how long this thread has dragged on is understandable. I was arguing that I *should* be allowed to prohibit dangerous flying above my land.
In article , Cynic writes
The crew all seemed like mercenaries;)...
It was well loaded...
No I'm well used to estimating heights having done a bit of flying and climbing aerial and mast structures and I'm telling you the height wasn't a mistake!. Took a bloody long time to climb. Nothing like the queasyjet 737 out of Nice just before Xmas, and that was packed.
Pleasant to hear that a lady captain was at the controls:)).
When was the assault and criminal damage done?
Taking photos in a public place is OK, but as soon as you are on private property, you must gain the permission of the owner of said property.
Dave
Tell me, which country do you reside in then.
Dave
That was the advantage of oval pistons. Valve gear always operates without inlet hitting exhaust so why have lots of wasted space between them. Placed on opposite sides of the narrow aspect of the oval you get bigger (also oval) valves which hence need to open less and so can rev higher.
In article , Mike writes
So what will they, the farmers, do then?.
Still haven't explained why they end up deceased ....
On private land, you must first get permission to take photos. If there is no permission, then it becomes a breach of the law.
Please expand on this. I doubt that you are correct.
Dave
I phone Manchester Airport ATC and they can usually identify culprits. But it seems many helicopters do fly without identifying themselves to them so these are difficult to trace, especially at night.
They retail at USD 4 million after conversion, so it would appear so.
The rules are the same for aircraft within any one category, although some countries have more lax rules than others. For example, a Briton buying an aircraft from the USA that has been privately owned is well advised to have a British aeronautical engineer survey it first.
Certification costs make innovations very expensive. ISTR that fitting floats onto a well proven design cost about GBP 1 million in certification costs a few years ago. That means that, if a design works, it tends not to get changed for decades, which is where I started in this thread. However, that does not mean that there are no new designs. A lot of development is done in homebuild / kitbuild aircraft, which do not have the same requirements for certification. Designs that start out as kits may even develop into certified production aircraft, as happend with Lancair. Some years ago, Aerospatiale developed a range of light aircraft, simply to use spare capacity on the equipment built to make the Airbus. It was cheaper than having the equipment standing around idle. The current area of innovation is diesel engines, as they can use turbine fuel, which is cheaper and often more readily avilable than aviation gasoline. They are appearing with innovations that petrol engined aircraft could have done with long ago, like advanced engine management systems and a single power lever, instead of separate throttle, mixture and, on more complex aircraft, propellor pitch controls.
Colin Bignell
Actually you may have hit it. I believe in Scotland the limitations on photographing things (or more precisely where you photograph them from) may not exist.
In England the government is trying to extend this with their ridiculous photgraphic catalogue of listed buildings but the human rights act should put the kybosh on that.
Maintain the land is what is called "good agricultural condition" and be paid for doing so. But the easiest way to do this is not to use it of course. Absolute nonsense but that's the system.
You mean the lambs ? The ewes miscarry. Then we have to pay to dispose of the foetus as well now.
Good. Please explain what law you could invoke to carry out the prosecution you previously stated would be possible. I'm sure your "lawyer" would have explained the charge under which such a prosecution could be brought.
Or perhaps he failed to explain the difference between a civil case and a criminal case? And did he explain how much money Madonna had to spend and how long the case took? In what way would you claim to have suffered damage?
Criminal law allows anything unless it is prohibited under a specific law. There are currently no laws that prohibit covert audio and video monitoring of a private citizen by another private citizen whether on private property or not. If you believe any different, you should quote which Act makes it an offence. There is an exception wrt monitoring your telephone, which is specifically (and narrowly) forbidden.
Actually getting the covert equipment in place would have to be done in a legal manner, and it would be illegal to use it to carry out any criminal acts such as blackmail, obtaining information to use in a planned theft or obtaining indecent images of people under 18. You
*might* also manage to get an ASBO placed on me, as that new law is broad enough to cover just about anything - but that would only do the same as an injunction and stop me doing the same thing again, it does not amount to a conviction.Obviously you could bring a civil case against me - you are free to do that for any reason at all. It would be a gamble as all civil cases are, and there is no doubt whatsoever that you would end up significantly out of pocket at the end of it whether you win or lose.
I stress that I would never do such a thing, and I would not be terribly upset if it *were* to be made illegal, but am simply stating that that is how the law currently stands on the matter.
What utter codswallop.
No serf ever had to carry identification showing who he was. When going about his master's business in places where he might not be known, he might have carried something to show who his master was.
Because they are useful?
ID cards do not in any way make us into serfs, or anything like it.
They would almost certainly have still used the book - though perhaps applying a slightly less generous safety margin than you are used to.
A friend of mine many years ago flew Super Constellations on the sanction-busting "meat run". On one return, after requesting permission to land at Salisbury airport, the controller asked, "Will this be a normal landing sir, or are you running on all engines today?"
In the first place you are incorrect with that statement. There is no general law that prohibits the taking of photographs on private property. The owner of such property may make it a specific condition of entry, but all he can do if someone ignores it is to insist that the person leaves the property. In the second place, even if it were correct, it still would not permit anyone to destroy the photographer's property. Reasonable force may however be used to expel a trespasser *who refuses to leave when asked*.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.