First UK prosecution

It's not the first prosecution case here in the UK. There would be more if the CAA was not so under resourced.
IrishSights is correct. This is at least the third prosecution for similar offences in the last two years. However this is the first such case to be brought by the Crown Prosecution Service

Toward the end of 2013 there was a chap up in Cumbria who was prosecuted for flying his foam wing, though he states he lost control, over a busy bridge. It was later retrieved from a BAE secure facility. He was a member of the BMFA but they refused to represent him because the radio equipment he was using, a UHF long range system, was not legal for use in the UK.

Then last year a chap was prosecuted for flying his TBS quad over and through Alton Towers amusement park. This was the same guy who posted the popular Blackpool Pleasure Beach video on YouTube.

I believe this guy was initially cautioned about flying over football stadiums but he continued with his antics.

Regards

Nidge
 
I note this is a Crown court prosecution,much higher penalties possible. We must hope he receives a serious fine, these guys are doing serious damage to our sport. He deserves fining for stupidity for publishing his crime on youtube.
 
Toward the end of 2013 there was a chap up in Cumbria who was prosecuted for flying his foam wing, though he states he lost control, over a busy bridge. It was later retrieved from a BAE secure facility. He was a member of the BMFA but they refused to represent him because the radio equipment he was using, a UHF long range system, was not legal for use in the UK.

Obviously a unrelated to control range, but your post did make me wonder if BMFA (or FPV.org) insurers could skip out if any radio equipment was illegal (in the UK) and could in some tenuous way have contributed to an incident.

I am here obviously thinking of video transmitters which exceed 25mw.
 
Just out of curiosity does the UK have to actually prove a case against someone tobe able to find them guilty? Like it is in the US Or is someone presumed guilty unless they can prove beyond doubt they are innocent ?.

Actually American and English law are pretty much the same, along with Canada, Australia, New Zealand. Not Scotland though. Some differences like wigs and wooden hammers and the names of things..

The rest of the world have weird legal systems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: J.James
This bloke was interviewed a while back and he responded that he thought he was flying within the law - he had in my opinion deliberately mis-quoted and misunderstood it, so he continued flying.

Put simply, his flights were not safe and this is the primary requirement made by the CAA - that ALL flights must be planned and conducted in a safe manner. Flying low over a football stadium during a match can never be safe, so he is guilty on this point alone. He could have crashed, caused a riot within the ground or any number of other public safety issues.

I doubt very much that he will learn and no doubt he will do the same again... As soon as they let him out :)
 
A lot of the current brouhaha is unwarranted, and is excessive legislation and hysteria. Now, for the small part that is warranted .......

Selfish idiots fly these things and hurt people. Anyone can buy one. I don't want to be standing at a game, having paid big money for a ticket, and get sent to the ER with multiple cuts from some VitaMix falling from the sky. Or lose an eye.

To fly and film over these venues is tricky at best when everything goes right. To "assume" and insist that one has a "right" to do this is just a sign of the times when one person's desires trumps over all others. ME, ME, ME! Screw you, get some bandaids and sutures and get over it, cause I want to do it.

There is no "right" I know of to fly when and where one wants to. In this case, they are obviously flying over private property, photographing people without their consent, filming brand names and copyrights without permission, endangering people, and just "assuming" a lot.

If someone's behavior is out of line, it is out of line. Don't be flying around my face with multiple propellers, or I'll take it out. It would be like that one prize fight where the fan on the parachute landed in the ring. Lucky no one was killed or maimed, except the pilot, IIRC, who got some instant justice.

I can live with "REASONABLE" rules that are attempting to protect me. It's the unreasonable ones I don't like. It's up to us to behave like reasonable men, and not selfish children, and to treat these people with the attitudes they deserve.

It's always the few knuckleheads who cause grief for the rest.

OLD MEN RULE! AND OLD AGE AND DECEPTION WILL DEFEAT YOUTH AND CUNNING EVERY TIME.
 
For those of you recalling the name, there was a MLB player by the same name.
As well as an actor from New Zealand.
And as I recall, a character in a few movies and tv shows.
Its also a right proper British traditional name like John Smith.
 
Just out of curiosity does the UK have to actually prove a case against someone tobe able to find them guilty? Like it is in the US Or is someone presumed guilty unless they can prove beyond doubt they are innocent ?

I dont know how it works over there other then some silly looking authority figures will silly looking wigs on.

Tho over hear in the us im wondering how they could ever prove some one flew out of THERE line of site and also that they did it intentionally and also that they knew it was against the law which is also one of the required elements a jury must weight to be able to even find someone guilty. and also a person does not have to testify or say any thing in there defense. Which is why most people if they are smart and dont agree to talk them selves in to trouble can beat just about any charge unless there is physical proof and witness that can prove some one did some thing. But I'm wondering how any one else can know what some one else line of site is or how they can prove for a fact that some one flew past that limit. I know the kid across the street can see my phantom for about 200-400m more then I can cause I'm blind as a bat. But no one knows that I dont have hawk eyes. Yet I would assume the kid had bad eye site being he wares glasses but he is usually always able to keep track of it when he spotting for me. even if he takes his eyes off it for a second.
In England, ignorance of the law is not a defence.
 
In England, ignorance of the law is not a defense.
That sucks for people them. Tho for a lot of things here in the states it is. Even tho there is a false myth that says that its not and excuse. But thats actually to do with police arresting some one for some thing that is not against the law and what is known as false arrest. Tho that also is also a very widely held myth that you cant fight city hall. Tho I'm pretty sure that rumor was started by some one in a city hall some place to intimidate people and make them lose a fight by default if they just give up before the even try. Same as how lawyers here like to tell people that a person representing them selves if court have a fool for a client or like a dr operating on them selves yet statistics show you have about 90% better odds of winning a case if you know the law and represent your self. Being a lawyer dont usually want to fight for you the same as they would want to fight for them selves and they usually never want to get a case dropped if they can instead go to trial and get a much bigger bill. and even when a lawyer wants to help some one they usually will never go to far or do any thing that would rock the boat to much or ruffle any one else feathers being they are all pals and buddy's. I dont know how it is over there but over on this side of the pond courts are all just a big racket and every one is all in cahoots with each other and just pushing product and for the most part they really never care one way or the other about the people whos lives are effected by it.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,358
Members
104,935
Latest member
Pauos31