UK Croydon Police Pick the WRONG Drone Pilot to Challenge
UK Police Watch
2,124 views
In this video, two Met officers approach a drone pilot who is filming outside Croydon Police Station — and what begins with a simple “do you mind identifying yourself?” soon turns into a revealing lesson in UK drone law. The first officer claims there is a height restriction over public land (there isn’t), asks for the operator’s name without explaining any legal power to require it, and repeatedly suggests that flying a drone in a public place “can be” an offence — yet never actually identifies the offence. The auditor responds by referring to the Air Navigation Order, the CAA’s 250-gram threshold, and the fact that police stations are not automatically designated flight-restricted zones in the same way certain locations, such as prisons, can be. But the encounter takes an unexpected turn. There is no arrest and no seizure. Instead, a member of the public ends up explaining operator ID registration and separation-distance rules to the officers who initially approached him over their concerns. By the end, the officers accept that the drone flight was lawful. We examine the claims made during the encounter section by section, including one point where the auditor himself gets it wrong: the GDPR argument does not stand up. If you operate drones, record in public, or simply want to understand the difference between an officer making a request and having the legal power to require something, this breakdown covers it in detail.
Video credit: @koleeberks
Subscribe to UK Watch Line for calm, forensic breakdowns of UK police audits — no shouting, just the law.
#DroneLaw #PoliceAudit #UKPoliceAudit #CroydonPoliceStation #KnowYourRights #CivilLiberties #DroneUK #UKWatchLine
3 Comments
UK Croydon Police Pick the WRONG Drone Pilot to Challenge
UK Police Watch
2,124 views
In this video, two Met officers approach a drone pilot who is filming outside Croydon Police Station — and what begins with a simple “do you mind identifying yourself?” soon turns into a revealing lesson in UK drone law. The first officer claims there is a height restriction over public land (there isn’t), asks for the operator’s name without explaining any legal power to require it, and repeatedly suggests that flying a drone in a public place “can be” an offence — yet never actually identifies the offence. The auditor responds by referring to the Air Navigation Order, the CAA’s 250-gram threshold, and the fact that police stations are not automatically designated flight-restricted zones in the same way certain locations, such as prisons, can be. But the encounter takes an unexpected turn. There is no arrest and no seizure. Instead, a member of the public ends up explaining operator ID registration and separation-distance rules to the officers who initially approached him over their concerns. By the end, the officers accept that the drone flight was lawful. We examine the claims made during the encounter section by section, including one point where the auditor himself gets it wrong: the GDPR argument does not stand up. If you operate drones, record in public, or simply want to understand the difference between an officer making a request and having the legal power to require something, this breakdown covers it in detail.
Video credit: @koleeberks
Subscribe to UK Watch Line for calm, forensic breakdowns of UK police audits — no shouting, just the law.
#DroneLaw #PoliceAudit #UKPoliceAudit #CroydonPoliceStation #KnowYourRights #CivilLiberties #DroneUK #UKWatchLine