Clickbait Mail

Love them or loathe them, 'audit' videos are undoubtedly a very interesting window on human behaviour and the ability - or usually lack thereof - of our police.

It's very difficult to know why people react so badly to lawfully-flown drones and why they so fervently - often violently - believe they own and control the airspace above their land-based property.

In some cases, the general public appearing are clearly just thugs with something to hide who react to any perceived slight with violence. 

A very revealing fact about the police is that a business spotting a drone brings immediate and often multi-unit responses. You don't get that for a burglary. The question is: why?

 

In others, it's an inability to accept they have no authority to do much of anything themselves if they feel something shouldn't be happening. 

Yet others - by far the majority and often seen on the videos to include police officers - just can't admit they are utterly ignorant of the topic they've just launched themselves into, nevertheless trying to assert they are experts, "used to be a lawyer" or "work in the industry" (all real examples).

I wasn't surprised, it has to be said, to find the Daily Mail have been driving their well-honed, increasingly journalist-free, AI-driven wedge into public opinion recently, when the ran this strap and invited people whose businesses had been "targeted" by auditors to get in touch - presumably so they could run more banshee-istic stories and get those all-essential clicks to drive up their profits.

 

Ironic that a right-wing, self-righteous newspaper that infamously supported Oswald Mosley, seeks to condemn auditors so that it can get millions of hateful clicks off the back of it all. 

Natural Resources Wales' Drone Policy Mess

Image: Senedd Cymru.

A few weeks ago, I had my first 'audit' type encounter about flying a drone in the vicinity (I'll leave it to NRW to demonstrate it was within the boundaries of) a national nature reserve. Unlike an auditor, I wasn't looking for a reaction.

The first of many, clutching-at-straws, blurting of words of complaint was that NRW "has a policy" about flying drones.

Well, that will come as a surprise to everyone, because a thorough examination of NRW's website showed not a single mention of either 'drone' or 'UAV' - nor a policy relating to same. Which is odd, because it has very, very many words about lots of things that you can and can't do at NRW-controlled sites, both by specific location and in general.

As soon as I arrived home, I filed a FoIA request for a copy of this hidden policy. The statutory (i.e. legally-mandated) maximum period of 20 days for a response was, of course, not respected by NRW, who did not provide some (and not all) of the requested information until I sent them a reminder. Full information wasn't provided until a further reminder.

An associated GDPR request also went beyond the time limit and came with cynical attempts by NRW to claim I'm "not entitled to full copies of original documents, only the personal data within them". That's quite a distortion of the law, because that would permit organisations to redact everything except my name and address, which would tell me nothing about how my data is being processed. "Copyright" was also used to try and prevent publication - but this has no lawful basis, because there are exemptions to copyright enforcement (e.g. news reporting) - and fails to understand that my personal data belongs to me.

Here is the part of their policy. NRW claim it was adopted in December 2020, though the policy document is itself dated (in 'properties'), alongside its author's name, as 28th of May, 2021 - a policy apparently written 15 months after it was adopted! Whilst I wait for NRW to explain that anomaly, this part deals with what NRW assert is the law about drones:

 

This is immediately apparent as being a wholly incorrect interpretation of the law and there's no need for me to pull it apart, word by word; it's that bad. A search of some of the sentences pulls up identical text from other sites, including a solicitor's web site. I also wondered for a while whether someone had used AI to tell them what the law is. But AI does a better job of it, by far.

In the end, I suspect it was a case of someone at NRW searching online, using terms that arose from their already-held but wrong belief that the law prohibits drone flights over nature reserves. Unless they have applied for a CAA-mandated airspace restriction and been granted such, it doesn't. 

There is no evidence NRW have ever applied for a wildlife-related airspace restriction, so far as I can see, anywhere in Wales. How hard are they trying to protect nature if they haven't even applied?  Other sites in England, though not especially common, have obtained such restrictions, albeit for small, limited-extent areas, reflecting just how congested and complex UK airspace is; we all have to get along, somehow.

The timing of the policy, if we can believe a word NRW utters - which has often proved not to be the case -  might also suggest crosstalk between the National Trust's then growing chest-inflation about banning drones over its land and the NRW's often similar land management role (the NT owns large areas of wild areas as well as stately homes and the like). 

Certainly, the mention of "permission" for commercial operations, amongst other things, suggests it was written around the time of the Covid pandemic, when that requirement was abandoned.

What a surprise! Probably wholly unrelated to the £19 million tax debacle at NRW and her own assertion that the organisation is not corrupt, but merely "incompetent" (report above of 26 March, 2025, latter assertion made 24/09/2018)

 

The National Trust had to admit it was wrong about overflight in a 2024 FoIA response. But it is still (early April, 2024) publishing misleading information about drones on its web site and similar statements appear on NT Scotland's site (dated 2018). NRW seems similarly intent on sticking to its erroneous policy, so far as one of its Directors' refusal to respond to points raised about it goes.

All this ought to have been obvious to NRW at the site I was at, because it actually has an ATZ and a neighbouring CMATZ that cover significant parts of the airspace above the reserve and extending, at least in legal terms, if not necessarily in common practice, to the ground. 

I haven't heard, as someone who flies 'proper' aircraft regularly from one of those airports, of endless complaints against any of the three airfields and their traffic, two of which are RAF training bases. Of course, none of those airspace designation much matters in the context of NRW, because in the bits they don't cover, one can fly any 'proper' aircraft down to 500' above the surface (in the case of unpopulated land, such as this example), or up to 400' in the case of a drone.

Other laws, should you conduct a flight in an irresponsible manner that does or is likely to cause disturbance to wildlife could still become an issue, but that's entirely separate from airspace regulation and the law governing it.

A parallel that I draw is that you are permitted to walk a dog on a lead or otherwise under good control at all locations of this and most other reserves. You're not breaking the law by disturbing wildlife by the fact of having a dog with you. You might be doing so if you let it off the lead to run around, chasing some rare species of bird. But even then, a warden is going to have to be in possession of some pretty robust evidence to get a criminal prosecution out of it. 

Similarly for flying a drone, which is a lawful activity (provided you were operating it from land without any prohibition), and that, in and of the fact of its flight, does not, of necessity, mean you are disturbing wildlife. In my case, I was flying for a total of 4 minutes, mostly at a height of 393 feet above the ground. 50 seconds of that flight. as the digital flight record shows, was taken up by the NRW staff member refusing to move aside to allow landing where I had chosen to safely do so, because he wanted to show he had some authority. I had to raise my voice at him before he moved to allow the safe conclusion of the flight.

The Wildlife and Countryside Act provides a defence where disturbance to wildlife is:

 "the incidental result of a lawful operation and could not reasonably have been avoided"  

Parliament discussed and explained this, way back on March 15, 2002 (source: Hansard):

 

None of this is to encourage people to be disrespectful of wildlife - far from it. But we can't and should not tolerate random and, it has to be said, largely ignorant staff making rules up, simply because they don't like someone highlighting their erroneous claims, as though we are children who should not answer back. In response to increasing aggression by the NRW member of staff, I did tell him to consider a position in the US, where intolerance towards criticism of government bodies might be welcome at the moment. This, of course, went straight over his head, poor fellow.

Clear (and expensive) signs - but not a word about drones, anywhere on the site. The warden stopped people getting to the site by car for several days following the encounter, which is hardly in keeping with NRW's "proportionate" enforcement policy. The presence of a public footpath meant access was still readily possible.

 

Despite NRW's expectation that all their signs must have regard paid to them, they didn't actually have any signs at the site I was at; I checked before flying - which is one reason the NRW staff became cocky and aggressive, hanging around as though he wanted to punch me in the face. I guess NRW has only had some five years since their policy was adopted to put some 50p signs up.

NRW is, of course, just one organisation in an ocean of people who think that owning or controlling land means that they also control airspace. Try as Youtube auditors might, hardly any of them seem to learn and, indeed, most appear perfectly content to just keep on digging their heels in and, often, making complete fools of themselves.

At least the auditors will have plenty of material to work with, for a long time coming. I might even become one, myself!

An edifice to incompetence: NRW's completely eroded and partly-collapsed lookout at Newborough in 2014. Note the level of the sand to the rear (over which a boardwalk is now draped) and how far it dropped during just one storm.

 

As for NRW, I do always like to highlight that, at this reserve, which is a sand dune system, they paid £240,000 of our tax money (£347,400 at 2024 prices) to build a timber walkway and lookout which, as anyone except NRW knew, would quickly be destroyed, both by storm damage and inundation by sand. Which is precisely what happened within just a few months. They've been spending more money patching it up in retreat, ever since and by now, only a few planks of boardwalk remain. By now, their whole plan to increase income is falling apart as their tourist car park, which was enlarged a few years ago with no consideration given to the increased traffic congestion within tiny Newborough village, brings traffic chaos and many red, angry faces on a daily basis.

NRW: 'Not Really Working'. 

 

National Trust: Still Misleading

As we enter into another spring, some drone pilots will be taking an interest in National Trust properties and capturing fabulous images.

Flying towards and then over Plas Newydd, owned by NT.

Now, I can almost guarantee that when you read "National Trust properties", you're thinking of stately homes or maybe a park.

But the National Trust owns much more than this. They own vast tracts of land all over the UK - which probably explains the arrogant view of themselves that their 'drone rules' reveal.

Back in September 2024, the NT admitted, in response to a FoI request, that it could not restrict overflight of its properties at all. This, of course, would be abundantly clear to most drone pilots already. This is how The Defence Journal reported it:

 

The report correctly highlights that, despite this admission - which the NT must have tried very hard not to make - the NT web site continued to make the false assertion that overflight was not permitted. As of 05/04/2025, that claim is still being made, cynically and wholly improperly referring to the "CAA" and "byelaws":

The reference to "byelaws" would appear, in the applicable part, to be section 11. 

 

This does include a reference to "air" craft. However, reading through to 11(b), it's clear that there is no ban; it's a qualified expectation:

"No person shall ride or drive any conveyance to the danger or annoyance of or
without due consideration for other persons resorting to Trust Property."

In other words, you can ride, drive, boat or fly, so long as it's done carefully. There is no prohibition per se on any of these activities.

All this, of course, is in the expectation that the NT control the airspace above their property, which they don't. Because flying over NT land is perfectly lawful (and thus means, under the byelaw, you'd be "authorised" inasmuch as the NT does not control airspace and thus flight within that space falls outside their control), there is the simple counter-argument that flying has unavoidable and necessary consequences as a lawful activity and that this can't, I would argue, reasonably be held to cause "danger or annoyance" in and of itself. If the byelaw were effective in this way, the NT would have to be claiming no flights, of any sort, by any aircraft, at any height could take place over their property, which would be ridiculous. They are trying, in a tinpot fashion, to claim drones are in some way different, whereas in law, in this respect, they aren't.

An enquiry to the NT brought increasing degrees of stupidity. They tried to say that their rules were "outside the CAA's". Whilst that's literally true, it also gives - and I would say is intended to give - the impression that the NT's rules are superior to CAA-mediated aviation law. That's quite a troubling stance to take.

I asked the NT, because of this, where they thought 'CAA' airspace ends and the NT's begins. They didn't answer that one, choosing instead to write waffle about the distinction between criminal and civil law. Trespass seems to be the only thing the NT is now clinging to, as they mention a drone "could trespass, depending on how it is flown". That, also, is true, though it would be a pretty irresponsible drone flier who would fall foul of that one, because s76(1) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 explicitly exempts aircraft from claims of trespass when flown in accordance with the Air Navigation Order - in other words, in an ordinary, responsible way.

What the law says is not what the NT want to accept. Source: legislation.gov.uk, accessed 15/04/2025

 

And this last sentence is where so many are going wrong; they assume that drones are somehow 'not really aircraft' and that they 'don't really fall under aviation law governing 'proper' aircraft'. This seems to be fuelled by an unreasonable and baseless belief that all drone pilots are up to no good. Beyond that is sheer ignorance about ownership and control of airspace and an irrational, stubborn unwillingness to improve their understanding - because that would mean having to accept they are simply wrong.

The National Trust has a very big attitude problem, driven by an inflated view of itself as somehow enjoying a superior position in respect of airspace that, it has to be said, reflects its general worldview as some kind of defender of a glorious Britain - mostly created by slave owners and an issue the NT has, until recently, tried to resist addressing for a very long time. 

The NT enjoys no such position. Accepting it has to shut up and stop claiming it controls airspace is something it has had to do under the legal provisions of FoI, but refuses to do in any other way.

As you can see on the plethora YouTube 'audit' videos, NT staff are clearly still being told to very aggressively claim they can stop aircraft (i.e. drones) being flown over their properties. They will sometimes call the police. It all ends with either the police going away, doing nothing, or else arresting the drone pilot - invariably unlawfully - and then having to pay out a couple of thousand pounds for wrongful arrest - money that most 'auditors' then donate to good causes.

My own request for an explanation this week from the NT as to why they continue to deliberately mislead the public on drone flying on their website drew nothing other than a referral to their "imaging department". But that wasn't the enquiry I made. 

But it did reveal, once again, that money-making lies at the heart of the NT's unwavering efforts to stop what is, in fact, wholly lawful. None of these 'rules' make mention of any other aircraft, despite drones falling squarely under the same overarching controls: The Air Navigation Order. Try telling that to the NT (one video sees a NT staff member, who claims he was previously "a lawyer", claim the "CAA doesn't cover drones" (36:52) and that they only control "the airspace at 30,000 feet" (37:09)). He says an awful lot of other stuff that "a lawyer" elsewhere might find, well, surprising.

A response to a false request for permission I made to the NT drew this response from them:

"As we state on our website https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/who-we-are/about-us/flying-drones-at-our-places as landowner our rules fall outside the CAA’s so you can’t overfly without our permission."

This is a further extension of reality, suggesting very strongly that the NT's "rules" are superior to CAA-regulated airspace law and/or that the NT does not recognise airspace law. This response will be passed to the CAA as a matter of very real concern. The NT has been asked to clarify, in the meantime.

As for so many people who react badly to drones - which extends from the likes of NT all the way to the police - somewhere, an attitude has taken hold that drones are some kind of spy or terrorist device that only wrongdoers fly.

The NT has a troubling attitude that some might say borders of fascism - creating an environment where what they say - and not what the law says - holds sway. 

My advice?  Fly your drone as the law permits, especially over (but not from) NT property.