OT: VE day warplanes

[Cynic]

England.

[Mike]

Fully aware of difference. Trespess is a civil offence and it is expensive though not impossible to deal with.

But even the slightest damage done to the property he is on whilst trespassing is a criminal offence and our local police are quite good at dealing with this round here. There is also intent to remove eggs from bird nests (the actual reason for not wanting photos taken though not sure if this photographer realised what he was taking photos of or not), conspiracy to commit a crime, and several other options.

Haven't talked to my solicitor about such an unlikely occurance but on a quick google how about this. If the police don't (didn't ?) have powers of surveillance then you definitely don't !

RIPA 2000 under review

To authorise or not to authorise? That is the question. When it's an authorisation under the Regulation and Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) the answer is: "It depends...".

The purpose of RIPA is to provide a statutory framework, compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Human Rights Act, for the use of investigative techniques, including covert surveillance which will interfere with individuals' ECHR Article 8 right of respect for their private and family life.

Prior to RIPA there was no basis in law for conducting covert surveillance. Without Part II of RIPA, any interference with Article 8 rights by covert surveillance would not have been in accordance with UK law once the Human Rights Act came into force. RIPA provides that the police may interfere with an individual's rights in accordance with law if it is both necessary and proportionate for a purpose specified in law ....

[Dave]

After your somersault above. An I.D. card would fit in here. Our master would be Mr. B Liar right now :-(

Care to expand on that? And why should I, as a pensioner, have to pay to have an ID card? The guvmint wants it, the guvmint pays for it. According to this mornings paper 1% of this country owns 25% 0f the countries wealth.

Dave

[Cynic]

Explain which criminal law he was breaking. Trespass is a civil offence (i.e. unlawful as opposed to illegal). Photography of or from private property is not even a civil offence of itself (unless prohibited as a condition of entry). If it were, the tourists would be in trouble!

Cite which law would apply if you believe I am incorrect. Or even try to give the Act that you believe applies.

You were lucky. Had he refused you would not have been able to legally do anything about it.

That is certainly your right, and I would expect you to do so. You will obviously need to clarify your perception of what the regulations actually are before making yourself look foolish.

LOL! A Lufthansa airbus that "cut the corner" would either be acting perfectly legally and properly, experiencing a serious emergency, or the pilot would be in very deep trouble without any need for you to report the matter at all. They are flying IFR and so under *very* strict constraints wrt to their flight path, and also being constantly monitored (and recorded), usually by several radar heads.

There are regulations on the minimum size of the registration letters. If you can't read them, it's unlikely that they were too low. A helicopter is in any case probably quite legal even if it comes within hovering height over a private field, (and we used to do so frequently whilst I was training). Most pilots would avoid flying anywhere near livestock, and training establishments will respect the wishes of farmers who express displeasure.

Personally, I frequently enjoyed flying low over farmer's fields - with the farmer in the passenger seat not only enjoying the flight but also being able to carry out a very worthwhile inspection of his crops and fences. Incipient problems that are not apparent from ground level are frequently readily spotted from the air.

[Mike]

Good idea. Prince Charles can buy us all ID cards once his mum has approved them :-)

[Dave]

RAOTFLMAO

Dave

Just goes to show how some things are taken for granted.

[Brimstone]

Prosecution for what?

[Cynic]

. OK - Cite the Act that backs up your assertion.

You are implying that anyone who takes a photo in a pub or club is breaking the law unless they asked the landlord for permisiion first. the landlord would be perfectly within his right to make it a condition of entry that people in his pub do not take photographs, but his only recouse in the event that they did would be to deny entry and/or insist that they leave. It would not amount to a criminal act, and a civil remedy would be most unlikely unless the circumstances were exceptional.

He later stated that he did not force the person to destroy the film, and so my condition was not met. Had force been used however, it would amount to assault and criminal damage. The OP was entitled to use reasonable force to expell the trespasser from his land *if* the person had refused when asked, but was in no way entitled to use force to destroy the trespasser's property.

[Cynic]

Quite *wrong* actually.

[Cynic]

You can get the registered owner's name & address from the registration letters. It's even available on the Internet. Much easier than identifying a car.

Flying lower than the legal height at night? I don't believe it unless you have a particulary high number of suicidal pilots in your area.

[Alex Heney]

What on earth are you on about?

What somersault?

ID cards would fit in where?

No.

Unless you can show some way in which you believe it could possibly do so, then there is no need or point in expanding on why it doesn't.

Start by learning something about what a serf is.

You shouldn't.

IF ID cards are made compulsory, then they should be free, at least for initil issue. Replacements for lost cards should be chargeable, but a nominal charge.

[Cynic]

I was thinking more of overtaking a car at 70MPH on a dual carrigeway, or driving past an oncoming car on a single carrigeway when you are both travelling at 50MPH. Both bring you within 5 feet of the other vehicle at high speed, and both are normal & safe.

Formation flying would be more akin to driving side-by-side at the same speed as the car in the lane next to you. Which is not an offence, though usually a bit inconsiderate.

Absolutely - and non-aerobatic formation flying requires about the same level of concentration as driving in heavy traffic, and about the same level of skill most of the time except wrt getting the distances absolutely perfect to make the formation look aesthetic. Mistakes rarely lead to any accident because there is so much room to get out of the situation - much more than on a normal road.

You can report any dangerous flying and the pilot could be prosecuted. Of course, it is not for you to make the final decision as to what is and is not dangerous.

Prohibiting air traffic in general has about as much justification as a call to prohibit traffic from travelling along a road that goes past your land. Also you may bear in mind that any aircraft that *do* crash in your land probably had an accident when they were outside it. A low-flying fixed wing aicraft has zero chance of crashing into land that it is directly overhead!

[Cynic]

Quite.

Taking photographs does not cause any damage to property.

That is totally new information and has nothing whatsoever to do with taking photographs. He could be prosecuted for those offences, and the camera and photographs might even be confiscated and used in evidence, but the photography itself is *not* the criminal offence (and nor is the trespass).

As an addition, you may recall several TV programs that have been shown where a reporter took covert videos inside private buildings. the most resent was the teacher who used a hidden camera on unruly pupils. Also hidden cameras inside garages showing dodgy pracitces etc.

You might think about why those reporters were not prosecuted - given that the footage was something that the owners of the property would definitely *not* have wanted to be made public if they could have avoided it.

Perhaps surprisingly the police have *less* powers in that respect than a private citizen. they have to get specific authority before bugging private premises without the owner's permission. It is quite arguable that the failure of the UK to have a law that makes covert surveillance by private people illegal is in contravention of the HRA "right to privacy" clause. The HRA does not however govern the actions of private individuals, only governments and its agents. So you could not bring a case against me if I were to invade your privacy in that way, but could possibly take the UK government to the HRC for failing to adequately safeguard your privacy by making adequate provision in law.

I have little doubt that Blair will make a raft of new laws in due course that will correct that anomally and probably criminalise a lot more besides.

Perhaps a bit misleading. UK law does not *have* to conform to the HRA. Also the HRA does not cause any automatic changes to the law or create or repeal any laws. It does mean that there is an obligation (of sorts) for the UK to ensure that its laws are made or changed so as to conform with the HRA (though they have refused to do so in some cases), and it also means that the Courts must, whenever possible, interpret all laws in a way that conforms to the HRA.

[Phil Bradshaw]

I'd guess not for as long as conventional poppet valves that rotate which does a lot to prevent sticking and burning. Interesting idea though. What happened to it?

[Ian Stirling]

Actually, some work has been done on automating this. Humans really, really suck at controlling this flight mode, as the response time is so slow, they end up overcontrolling to an extreme extent. Computers on the other hand can do almost nominal landings, in some cases.

[Ian Stirling]

Broke a leg, due to fright, and had to be put down, in great pain.

[nightjar]

You should have stood next to the target. From what I've seen of Americans doing low level runs on a bombing range, you would have been safe there.

Colin Bignell

[The Natural Philosopher]

That is only marginally so, and that because the yanks have taken out the radar early on with cruise missiles which fly using "Low, fast, tactical flying, using the natural contours of the land for protection from radar "

[The Natural Philosopher]

Well that means you juts pay twice for it.

Once to get it made for you, and once again to pay all te bureaucrats the money has passed through (IYSWIM) on its way to IBM or whatever.

[nightjar]

In WW2, lone bombers on nuisance raids and ground attack aircraft on target of opportunity raids used to fly low because it gave the AA defences much less time to react to their presence. I suspect that advantage of low flying will not change, no matter who the opponent.

Colin Bignell