Merseyside UAV grounded by Campaign Against Aviation

[SpotterFC]

'Unlicensed' UAV grounded (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8517726.stm)

Thought the use of this UAV was too good to be true...

[BEagle]

"Your drone, is it sir? May I see your licence and insurance?"

:suspect:

[Yellow Sun]

You may recall (or you may not!) that about 25 years ago: when police aviation was in its infancy; Devon & Cornwall were successfully prosecuted in connection with their force helicopter. Subsequent to that incident the regulations regarding police employment of aviation assets was put on a proper footing.

Now we all know that Liverpool is a war zone, but in this case it's the CAA that issue the RoE:}

YS

[Low Flier]

If the Merseyside muppets didn't have the common gumption to read the ANO then they weren't fit to be in charge of a UAV over a congested area such as Liverpuddle.

[scarecrow450]

OK Calm down, calm down.

[Cows getting bigger]

Giz a job. I can do that.

[air pig]

It was the mini gun that stopped them really, neighbours complained about the noise and the mess. Don't have very good street cleaning in some areas. :E:E

[minigundiplomat]

They'll have to go back to breaking into Woodvale and vandalising helicopters like the good old days.

[handysnaks]

Low flier. Your point is not quite correct. When they set the operation up it wasn't illegal according to the ANO. It would be more accurate to say they didn't keep abreast of the changes to the ANO.

[glad rag]

Why the xxxx are we condoning the use of UAV's to monitor OUR population?

[Lima Juliet]

glad rag

Why the xxxx are we condoning the use of UAV's to monitor OUR population?

Why the hell not? If you have nothing to hide then you won't be that bothered. It's a bit like the ID card debate; it doesn't clamp down on my freedom, in fact it makes things safer and catches some of the scroats/chavs that seem to be getting a tighter grip on this country.

I say, if it makes the country a safer place (as I believe it will), saves money (far cheaper than a cholly-whopper) and takes away the liberty of those that choose to break the law, then bring it on :ok:

LJ

[barnstormer1968]

glad rag
I didn't know we were condoning it. Although we do have to accept that under the current regime, we do have more CCTV than anyone else, are filmed by the police in the streets, are filmed in our cars by speed and ANPR cameras, can have our houses raided by the police without a magistrates warrant, we even have local authorities who feel a need to weight our dustbins (as well as look through them) so they can fine us if we place inappropriate waste in them etc etc.
We also seem to have accepted (as a country, but God knows why) that nothing we do will make any difference to anything our elected leaders decide to do.

Sorry for ranty thread drift:(

[glad rag]

Barny, yes indeed even here in Perthshire, we have a council "rapid reaction" team of 3 wifies who arrive in their council car to back up the binmen when the proles dare to complain about the wheely bin lid being 5mm up and thus classed as a hazard!! Yours for £300 a month!

As for those idiots who spout the "nothing to hide" mantra, well they'll find out JUST what it feels like sooner or later.

Papiere bitte-----it's already here by the back door.:ugh:

Here Leon, you may enjoy the from 03:44 onwards....

YouTube - New German UAV -- microdrone (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4jtguSF0n4&feature=related)

[Bearintheair]

Rumour has it that the Merseyside UAV is more wetted than grounded !!!:ok:

[ericferret]

For once I actually find myself applauding the CAA and find myself rather bemused by some of the comment on this thread.

In recent years we have seen several mid air collisions involving fast jets and light aircraft at low level resulting in fatalities. Tornado/C152 Gamston, Tornado/Bell 206 North West, Jaguar/Cessna Wales. With all of these see and avoid has been the responsibility of all pilots.

How does a drone see and avoid? The operator will be looking at the ground and will have no visibility of what is happening in the air around the drone. The drone is also a small object and sight by a fast jet crew would be very late.

I wonder what will be said if a fast jet on a training run gets taken out by a drone?

The CAA are totally correct in their action taken to protect pilots military and civilian.

[barnstormer1968]

My comments above still stand, but I have long wanted almost every British foot patrol to have one of these for a long time.
A small UAV like this, with say a 500-600m range, and operated by I-phone (like the ones in the U.S.) could be real battle winners.
If these, and the new GMG's were combined, then just about every irrigation ditch or wall would be within easy reach:).

[VinRouge]

How many fast jets do you get over liverpool at 250 feet?

[cliver029]

Do The CAA confiscate & crush any flying things that don't have licences?

That would be a bit poetic:=

Cliver

[scarecrow450]

How many fast jets do you get over liverpool at 250 feet?


Depends how many get hot wired ! but if they are that low keep an eye on the wheels !!

[jayteeto]

It's not a UAV, its now a UUV......... (see bears post ;))

[Lima Juliet]

Oh FFS!

All of you get a life - this Quadrocopter is about the same size as your average model aircraft. You know, the sort of thing you can buy from the Gadget Shop or your RC Model Shop and legally fly without permission from the CAA as long is it is for personal reasons (up to 20kgs in weight).

Here is the data sheet for the device AirRobot®. Die universelle Plattform für die Überwachung, Inspektion und Dokumentation aus der Luft (http://www.airrobot.com/englisch/produkt_01_daten.php)

It weighs less than 1Kg - it's hardly an unmanned Tornado or a Predator/Reaper! See an avoid is for big stuff and anyway the Coppers have to keep it within 400ft in height - and most other air users are above 500ft anyway (especially in built up areas). Just how much "see and avoid" do you think is done by RC model flyers??? :confused:

The big issue was that the Police were doing "Air Work" with this small UAV and that requires permission from the CAA as stipulated by the CAA in the Air Navigation Order (ANO). See Civil Air Publication (CAP) 722 on UAVs, the ANO and CAP 658 on model aircraft for further.

As for privacy 'glad rag' - if you want to wear a gimp mask and a superman costume and be private then draw the bloomin' curtains! I would rather be safe and sound by losing a bit of privacy than feeling extra private with 3 crack-heads getting "medieval on my arse" whilst they rob my house. Furthermore, a Police Helicopter can legally fly over your house at either 500ft or 1500ft depending on your location and look in your window with an MX-15 camera and count the spots on your bottom - the only difference is that it is bloody noisy and bloody expensive (and I don't like that as it comes from my Council Tax!).

Sorry for the rant, but I feel there is a lot of uninformed debate on this thread when the only real issue is that the Feds did not get the correct paperwork in place. What they need is a bunch of retired and well-informed ex-mil aviators to run their UAV operations and let their flat-footers chase criminals and nick them! :ugh:

LJ

[robin]

As for privacy 'glad rag' - if you want to wear a gimp mask and a superman costume and be private then draw the bloomin' curtains! I would rather be safe and sound by losing a bit of privacy than feeling extra private with 3 crack-heads getting "medieval on my arse" whilst they rob my house.

I work with sensitive databases, and the number of errors are huge.

I'm sure that when Plod breaks your door down at 3 in the morning, cos they've used out of date or cr*p information, or they stop you on the motorway because they've misidentified your car (again) and think you are a Manchester-based drug baron, you will smile sweetly and say 'No problem officer, anything to oblige....'

After all, if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear. Just like that nice Brazilian at Stockwell.....


And as for the UAV operators, I spoke to one recently and he was standard Plod who flew model aircraft in his spare time. Just as the military are thinking of using gamers rather than trained pilots....

[Lima Juliet]

I can assure you that the military is not going to use "gamers" as UAV operators. My 8yr old kid is a "gamer" and she does not have the skill set to fly a Reaper in a complex air/land battlespace and execute a swing-role ISTAR and CAS mission - so let's put that notion to bed!

In fact the 4x RAF non-pilots that are undergoing trials will fly 30-odd hours as a pilot (inc. going solo), 60-odd hours learning instrument flying skills in the Tucano simulator, go on a 1 month UAV Fundamentals Course in the USA (which includes more sim flying), do the Joint FIRES Course, some other courses and then a 3 month US Predator OCU - to all intense and purposes about a year's training and they will be rated pilots in every sense. They are not "gamers" (apart from playing their Nintendo DS or iPhone games in spare time like anyone else!).

Surely, the increase in Intelligence, Surveillance and Recconaisance (ISR), that UAVs like this will provide, will stop the unlikely occurences you mention:

Plod breaks your door down at 3 in the morning, cos they've used out of date or cr*p information, or they stop you on the motorway because they've misidentified your car (again) and think you are a Manchester-based drug baron

It certainly won't make the situation any worse, will it?

I have also worked with your so-called "sensitive databases" and yes mistakes are made - some intel is never 100%. But what would you rather they do? Nothing!? I do concede that the De Menezes case was a tragic and total cock-up - it should never happen again (but as long as humans are involved it probably will!).

It staggers me the amount of resistance to this capability. It strikes me that it shares comparison with the need of a man to waive a flag in front of a motor vehicle about 100years ago!:ugh:

LJ

[Thor Nogson]

I can assure you that the military is not going to use "gamers" as UAV operators. My 8yr old kid is a "gamer" and she does not have the skill set to fly a Reaper in a complex air/land battlespace and execute a swing-role ISTAR and CAS mission - so let's put that notion to bed!


I don't think that anyone was suggesting they used 8yr olds. However...

The British Army Uses Videogames as a Recruitment Tool - So does the U.S. Army - Softpedia (http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-British-Army-Uses-Videogames-As-a-Recruitment-Tool-108906.shtml)

You could certainly make an argument that the best gamers (of recruitable age) would have a lot of the attributes the military might desire.

For UAV pilots, why not? Obviously they need appropriate training, but they might have a very relevant skillset that could be usefully employed.

TN

[glad rag]

As for privacy 'glad rag' - if you want to wear a gimp mask and a superman costume and be private then draw the bloomin' curtains! I would rather be safe and sound by losing a bit of privacy than feeling extra private with 3 crack-heads getting "medieval on my arse" whilst they rob my house.

I think if you look at the released court/newspaper reports of some recent cases of "medieval arse" you will find that the first thing they did was shut the building(s) down....

Anyway, you are really losing the point here, and I do feel sorry that your perspective is so skewed.

[Poose]

The famous Benjamin Franklin quote springs to mind...

"Any nation that trades a little of it's liberty for more security deserves neither and loses both."

Think about that people.

Some recommended reading for the pro-drone/ CCTV / ID Cards/ 'Police State' fans would be George Orwell's 1984. :ugh:

[air pig]

Poose.

You make an excellent point, do we want a Stasi state or a state were the forces of law and order are accountable to us, the people, or the other way around. We need more police on the streets, not doing paperwork, but nicking criminals. Until a few politicians have had their houses turned over and their kids attacked and mugged in the street or drug dealing scum selling in the house next door, very little will happen.

Rant off and apologies for thread drift.

Air pig

[ShyTorque]

Furthermore, a Police Helicopter can legally fly over your house at either 500ft or 1500ft depending on your location and look in your window with an MX-15 camera and count the spots on your bottom - the only difference is that it is bloody noisy and bloody expensive (and I don't like that as it comes from my Council Tax!).

Why 500ft or 1500ft?

[Lima Juliet]

Quote:
Furthermore, a Police Helicopter can legally fly over your house at either 500ft or 1500ft depending on your location and look in your window with an MX-15 camera and count the spots on your bottom - the only difference is that it is bloody noisy and bloody expensive (and I don't like that as it comes from my Council Tax!).

Why 500ft or 1500ft?

Sorry, my bad, 500ft and 1000ft. It's 500ft and 1000ft for flight over a built up area for the ANO rule 5 .

Here it is in full:

(b) The 500 feet rule
Except with the permission in writing of the CAA, an aircraft shall not be flown closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.
(c) The 1000 feet rule
Except with the permission in writing of the CAA, an aircraft flying over a congested area of a city town or settlement shall not fly below a height of 1,000 feet above the highest fixed obstacle within a horizontal radius of 600 metres of the aircraft.

[Lima Juliet]

Further, my bad...

(e) Police air operator’s certificate
Any aircraft flying in accordance with the terms of a police air operator’s certificate shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule, the 1000 feet rule, the prohibition on flying over open air assemblies and the prohibition on landing and taking off near open air assemblies.

Sorry for the bum info...:eek:

[ShyTorque]

Phew, thanks, I thought for a moment the rules must have had changed completely today and as the police know (or don't know), "ignorance of the law is no excuse".

P.S. How long since you last read the ANO before today? :p

[Lima Juliet]

Never really paid much attention to Rule 5(e) as I'm not a Policeman! :ok:

[ShyTorque]

But you still missed the change from the "1500 foot rule" over congested areas to 1,000 feet, which happened about four years ago and doesn't apply to policemen. ;)

[handysnaks]

Leon, to be pedantic

1. The police actually can fly at 300 ft AGL over yer grot if you live in a congested area (day only) CAP 612,Table 5, Section 3 Chapter 3, Page 5

2. No matter that the MX 15 or Star Safire III can see the spots on the aforementioned backside, they can't legally look through your windows unless there is a 'RIPA' authority in force!

RIPA (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_1)

[Stu666]

After all, if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear. Just like that nice Brazilian at Stockwell.....

Aah, but the Brazilian DID have something to hide; he was here illegally. Perhaps this was why he fled? Normal people don't flee from the Police, especially when they have sub-machine guns trained on you.

[handysnaks]

Stu, I don't think he fled from the police, he just got on a train whilst being ignorant of the fact that he was under surveillance!

[Lima Juliet]

Shy Torque - Nope, just my crap typing and proof reading - if I remember correctly it changed in 2005.

I do admit that the Police Air Operators Certificate was a revelation, though! :eek:

Handysnaks - do you need a RIPA for all Police Helo surveillance work? Or just for snooping inside private property?

[handysnaks]

Routine stuff, searching for burglars in gardens or open land, pursuits etc, no RIPA required.
Personal intrusion type surveillance then RIPA required (it isn't written like that in the act!!). There are of course, many confusing grey areas:rolleyes:

edited to add

snurgling back to base at night with OVC at 600 and 2000m viz is not something one does often (not round this neck of the woods anyway).

[ShyTorque]

Leon, glad you remembered, we wouldn't want any "uninformed debate", now would we? :E

[Lima Juliet]

Shy Torque - Me Sir? Perish the thought, old boy! ;)

Handysnaks - Thanks. What a shame the Merseyside Police Air Support Unit didn't help out the little UAV operators with the paperwork - or do you think it was conveniently overlooked? Also, I am surprised that the CAA didn't just say "Hey Chief Constable, you need a licence for that" and then helped them out quietly, rather than throwing the book at them and publicising it!

[Violet Club]

Apologies for the continued thread drift but Stu666's comment above cannot be left to stand.

Perhaps you have chosen to remain ignorant of the inquiry results into the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes. You need to be very clear that everything you said above is wrong – and everything we were initially told about his killing was a lie.

He did not run.

He did not jump over ticket barriers.

He did not flee into a train.

He was not challenged.

He did not threaten any officer.

He said and did nothing unusual.

He was shot at 11 times with hollow-point rounds, by an SO19 officer who was sitting on him - but who managed to miss with three shots while shooting him in the head and leaving his body unrecognisable.

The officer commanding received the Queen's Police Medal.


But if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

[robin]

Also, I am surprised that the CAA didn't just say "Hey Chief Constable, you need a licence for that" and then helped them out quietly, rather than throwing the book at them and publicising it!

This is the CAA we're talking about..........

What is one of the scariest things you can hear?

"I'm from the CAA and I'm here to help you"

[ShyTorque]

Receiving a letter on official notepaper from the Head of the Enforcement Branch, CAA, about low flying can be a little un-nerving, too.

[robin]

... even worse when 3 of them appear at the club to speak to you.

[barnstormer1968]

Quote:
As for privacy 'glad rag' - if you want to wear a gimp mask and a superman costume and be private then draw the bloomin' curtains! I would rather be safe and sound by losing a bit of privacy than feeling extra private with 3 crack-heads getting "medieval on my arse" whilst they rob my house.

Sorry, but could not resist this lovely quote.

I fear that if you were in your house with the above crack heads, then then UAV would not be able to see them, as it would be outside in the sky:E.

It may not be any use phoning the police either, as the one copper who is close enough to help you is flying the UAV outside, and can't leave it (in case it gets stolen!).

So, I would suggest two things: First make sure you lock your door; and failing that, get some Vaseline, to sooth your impending medieval bottom:}

[handysnaks]

Leon, I don't think it was 'conveniently overlooked', just overlooked. ASU's have enough of their own work to do without sticking their noses into anybody elses work! That said, aviation units have been aware of the problems that may be forthcoming with the operation of very light UAVs (or whatever you choose to call them). Up until the recent change in regulations it was perfectly feasible for those small surveillance devices to be purchased and operated on a local level. I appreciate that most people will feel that the police ought to have been aware of the change in the ANO but quite honestly Civil Aviation Regulations are not something that most police officers are required to deal with and it is an understandable error. I suspect that the end result of all this will be that UAV operations, where they take place within the police community, will have to become the responsibility of the respective force aviation unit, even if they are still operated at a local level.

One other thing, those that criticise the use of an increasing number of surveillance devices have a point. Remember we still hope to police by consent, so if the public regard the proliferation of surveillance devices as a step too far then the police should take heed.

[barnstormer1968]

One other thing, those that criticise the use of an increasing number of surveillance devices have a point. Remember we still hope to police by consent, so if the public regard the proliferation of surveillance devices as a step too far then the police should take heed.

May I just add something to this statement. I do not personally believe that the average policeman with a UAV is out to get me in any shape or form. I think that a major reason that any officer would be looking at something he shouldn't would be boredom*, and not any kind of corruption or malice.
The concern I often hear expressed about increased surveillance is generally targeted at the government, and a fear of what they want the info for...Not the police who gather it. Just my two penneth worth

*I am not going to tar any professional officer, but if it were me, I fear that on a hot summers day, the female sunbathers in the local park could become of interest:E (yes it may be sexist and old fashioned, but at least it's honest)

[timex]

*I am not going to tar any professional officer, but if it were me, I fear that on a hot summers day, the female sunbathers in the local park could become of interest (yes it may be sexist and old fashioned, but at least it's honest)

Not with the downlink running all the time....and 17 of his best mates looking over his/her shoulder.:ok::ok:

[jayteeto]

If the new unit doesn't want the help of the ASU, you can't force your help on them............:\

[ShyTorque]

Unless you represent the CAA, of course :E

[SPIT]

Hi
Just heard that the Merseyside Police section in the Community Charge is to go RISE by 4'5 %, what for ? I haven't seen a foot policeman in our area (which is a quiet one)for at least 10 Years , and yet they play with toy a/c ??? :mad::mad::mad:

[glad rag]

Photographer films his own 'anti-terror' arrest | UK news | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/21/photographer-films-anti-terror-arrest)

If you have nothing to hide my arse....

[Lima Juliet]

I can't believe that your best example is this prize pillock who only needed to give his name and address. His lack of cooperation oozed suspicious behaviour and I suspect it is this foolish act that started to confirm the Police's initial suspiscion.

Say, 50 people were blown to bits in Acrrington Town centre 2 weeks later? You and your Grauniad readers would be the first to complain when the Police revealed that they had been suspicious of an individual but didn't want to ask him and his friend what they were up to...:ugh:

If a Police Officer approached me in the street and asked me for name and address, I would not withold that information as:

1. I have nothing to hide.

2. I do not want to obstruct the Police's work - they have a hard enough job already.

3. I want to set an example to the Police that as a UK Citizen they can rely on my total cooperation as they should expect from any of us.

This "Bloody Minded" or "Cantankerous" 'wakner' of the "I know my rights" club wasted a lot of Police effort and could have been the distraction that allowed a real terrorist attack to get through un-noticed.:ugh:

As you might of guessed, this type of individual makes my blood boil.

LJ

[glad rag]

Fair comment Leon, EVERYONE is entitled to their opinions of course.

[BEagle]

If a Police Officer approached me in the street and asked me for name and address...

They must have reasonable grounds for such a request which they clearly explain at the time. It'd be the thin end of the wedge otherwise and it wouldn't take long before nuLabor's surveillance society routinely extended such powers to "HALT!! Ihre papiere, bitte!".

There's a case in today's Oxford Mail where some thick plod used anti-terrorism legislation to prevent a 59 year old ex-RAF man on his way to buy fish and chips in Kidlington from taking pictures of police in a public place. See: Police used terror legislation to stop ex-RAF engineer in Kidlington (From Oxford Mail) (http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/5024297.Police_used_terror_legislation_to_stop_ex_RAF_engine er_in__Kidlington/)

I generally support the police service - but police officers mis-using their powers must be reported.

[GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU]

Oxford Mail

Police spokesman Daniel Donovan said officers were called to the High Street at about 4.15pm after a gang hurled a bottle at a woman passer-by. Officers arrived and the louts were told to move on.


Interesting that one can be dragged to the cop shop for taking photographs but only told to move on for throwing bottles. OK, so it could be yet more crap reporting but it looks about right.

[glad rag]

It'd be the thin end of the wedge otherwise and it wouldn't take long before nuLabor's surveillance society routinely extended such powers to "HALT!! Ihre papiere, bitte!".

And still some fools cannot see the dangers of compulsory ID cards.

The state serves US it's citizens not the other way round.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. (http://www.youtube.com/watch#v=RKl2sEN4yNM&feature=related)

YouTube - The Police - Your Freindly Guides (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfQrDK9YHas)

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. (http://www.youtube.com/watch#v=HECMVdl-9SQ&feature=fvw)

[barnstormer1968]

glad rag.
I have just watched the film in the link you posted.
For me this film brings up a minefield of issues.

I do have to say that I found the two chaps who eventually got arrested very annoying, and have no idea at all whether the anti arrest monologue at 9.00 minutes onwards has any legal standing.
BUT on the other hand, the initial attitude of the police was wrong too. It is perfectly lawful to take any photo of anyone in a public place*, and it is worth noting that the police never told them it was illegal to do so at any time.

On the other hand, the second the chap filmed from inside the police van, that was illegal (although by that stage, if he had any sense he may have realised he was more than due for a slap!).

I think the police are far too quick to roll out the anti terror law rubbish, and use it as an excuse for anything quite often, which may be something Leon Jabachjabicz has not come across (with ref to the 'nothing to hide bit, not the refusing name and address bit, which was just stupid and childish).

I remember a friend of mine was stopped by the police (well PSCO's not real police), who demanded to look in his car's boot, and said they had the power under the terrorism law. He at first refused, as he was in a hurry, at which point they said they would have him arrested, and held without charge for several days!
He was apparently stopped as he was driving very late at night (this was suspicious to them). The odd thing is that his being in army uniform and showing them his army ID didn't seem to allay their suspicions (as they had decided to search his car before they had even noticed!)

There is of course the other local (to me) story of a member of the public taking a photo of a policeman in a chip shop (when meant to be on patrol). The policeman saw this, arrested the man under the terror laws (for taking photo's in a public place, which is not illegal) and smashed the camera! This resulted in the policeman being disciplined, an apology from the chief constable, and damages awarded. It seemed the only offence the photographer had committed was to catch the policeman deviating from work.

I think the local police were a bit touchy at this time, after several pictures of them had appeared in the local paper, showing different officers asleep in their cars at various locations of the town!

*I am very confident that I could photograph police/buildings or anything all day long, right under the noses of any police force (and in fact this used to be my job, in my army days). Do the police really think that any terrorist (the modern kind, and not SOXMIS types) would just walk around with a camera out in front of them waiting to be seen?

Barnstormer verdict:
The photographer and friend wasted police time, and seemed childish.
Sentence: In need of a slap, and to get down from their high horse, and to return 'self rightious licences' to the stores

Police and PCSO.
stop following stupid 'political' orders with no base in law.
Sentence: Don't waste time on non crimes, but still book the pair for failing to give details (and without making up bogus public complaints, or telling the suspect how they had been acting with no actual 'eyes on' knowledge).
Then, either arrest the video man for filming in a police van, or just hit the brakes hard at a good moment:}.

For a very good article on filming in a public place look up YouTube - Comedian Mark Thomas & Video Cops (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1RKRpS7CT8)

[glad rag]

Another example of, "Name and address, please?" when the 'accused' has done nothing wrong. Compounded by a threat to arrest when the slighted individual vocally protests the unwarranted intrusion and accusation.

Man Accused Of Being A Paedophile For Taking A Photo Of His Own Son While Out Shopping | UK News | Sky News (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Man-Suspected-Of-Being-A-Paedophile-For-Taking-A-Photo-Of-His-Own-Son-While-Out-Shopping/Article/201002415560029?lpos=UK_News_Carousel_Region_3&lid=ARTICLE_15560029_Man_Suspected_Of_Being_A_Paedophile_For _Taking_A_Photo_Of_His_Own_Son_While_Out_Shopping)

[ShyTorque]

With regard to "filming in a public place"; the police need to get their act in order.

On the now common "fly on the wall" documentaries about the police, it is by no means unusual for them to work alongside a cameraman. I have seen a number of instances where a person being arrested has requested / demanded that the filming be stopped. The standard answer from the police is that the cameraman is filming in a public place and therefore they have no powers to prevent this.

[Dengue_Dude]

One good point about it being airborne . . . no scouser can nick it :ok:

As for monitoring our population, there are areas where there are nearly as many RHs as there are in sandy places - openly professing to hate the country that clothed, housed, educated and nurtured them.

Still we are told we live in a free country - depends who you are as whether that's true or not.

Good luck to the coppers . . . it would be good if the CAA got them licensed asap.

[Canadian Break]

Apologies if I've missed it somewhere but:

"Merseyside Police said they had been unaware they needed a licence to fly the remote control helicopter, which is fitted with CCTV."

One of the principles of the law in this country is that "Ignorance is no excuse", not for me, you or the police (I hope).

Taxi for one!:ugh: