Sid, - you have an unpleasant way of inventing personal "issues" where none were expressed, why do you need to do that? It sounds cheap. It is cheap.
You also seem to have a comprehension problem.
Several employers "did not feel the need to". How hard is that to understand? Clearly I did not make their policy.
But thanks for your patronising and unnecessary explanation anyway.
There's still no need to inform them - because its still not their concern, nor of any interest either I suspect. Do they really have the time to be regularly bothered with trivia like this? I doubt it very much.
Do we have to call the police before we fire a gun or put on a crash-helmet because "someone might think there is a robbery going on?" Or for any other legal activity for that matter? No, we do not.
If someone did report a suspected crash they'd be quizzed as to details, prior warning or not, and if there is any doubt the police are required to investigate further, so what have you gained? Absolutely nothing.
Sid, just because there may be specific times when you'd inform them (congested area, near busy public places etc) or the fire brigade or coastguard or even the local Bishop doesn't translate into you should do it every time, does it?
I wonder how much charter flying you've done? Most high-value clients prefer - and pay handsomely to come and go discreetly and without delay and rely on the discretion of the carrier to achieve that, so a bored copper popping up with his notebook out and officiously demanding details "just for the record, sir" -as they sometimes do - is unlikely to impress on occasions. You know the press monitor police radios, so you're asking to attract even more unwanted attention by doing this. Doesn't sound too good an idea to me.
Memo to silsoe sid; before slagging off, please read posts properly, dont make baseless wild assumptions/accusations and maybe engage just a little brain.
===================================================
Jim Ball, the act you refer to (Public Order act) was, I think, written to provide a way of dealing with a specific form of Criminal Trespass - namely Hare Coursing. The part you quoted refers specifically to "more than one person" who have refused to leave the land
and have "caused damage or loss"
or have "more than 6 vehicles on the land", though you'd have thought that all the above was already amply covered by the pre-existing laws, perhaps this illustrates how difficult it must be to prosecute for trespass, even with damage, refusal to leave, and driving all over farmers fields.
It doesn't seem to relate directly to the basiccommon law Trespass, for which you can't be arrested.
(Even so some might advise informing the plod before taking the dog for a walk so they won't have to respond when someone reports you for suspected hare coursing
)