Cotswolds villagers call for ban on tourists' drones after man filmed in bath
'No drone zone' signs have now been plastered across the windows of homes in Castle Combe in the Cotswolds, as well as in the local church and the public car park.
Residents say the aircraft are constantly flying over their gardens and streets – and even by one man's bathroom window.
Retired police officer Hilary Baker, 69, told The Sunday Times: 'It's almost like some of the visitors have lost their moral compass, they have lost their boundaries. When you go into your back garden and put your washing out and there is a drone hovering 20 yards above your head, it really quite rankles.
'Another neighbour had been working in his garden and jumped in the bath and there was a drone at his bathroom window, watching him in the bath. You just think, really?
'I should think on a monthly basis I will get verbal abuse [for asking them to stop].'
Police were reportedly called on a pilot who would not land his drone last month and verbally abused locals when they asked him to respect their privacy. It is claimed he filmed children playing in a back garden and flew up and down the high street hovering at first floor window level. The Independent has contacted Wiltshire Police about the incident.
Before the drones, tourists were overstepping boundaries in Castle Combe for years, according to residents, with signs seen asking visitors to not pick flowers or walk down homes' side alleys.
But Ms Baker, who has lived in the Wiltshire village for more than three decades, said there has been a recent surge in tourists flying drowns for their social media channels, especially since the Covid-19 pandemic.
While the picturesque village is only home to a few hundred people, thousands of visitors descend on the area every week, having seen videos on various social media platforms. Often referred to as one of the 'prettiest villages in England', its historic centre is a particular draw as well as its chocolate box cottages.
Sisters Lydia Chia, 27, and Deborah Chia, 24, who were posing for photos on a trip from Singapore, told The Times: 'I saw it on my friend's Instagram and a little bit on TikTok. It's really pretty. I pick where to visit based on pictures and aesthetics, and whether or not it's Instagrammable.'
Chairman of the parish council Fred Winup found that just over half of tourists chose to visit Castle Combe after seeing it online, in a visitor survey he conducted last year.
The retired bank director told of a time a drone followed him along the high street 'just five feet above my head', adding: 'It was a Californian [piloting it], he was a nice guy who didn't know the rules and said he was sorry.'
Wiltshire council has now put a sign up in the public car park, following calls from the parish council. The warning to drone pilots reads: 'If you use these devices where people can expect privacy, such as inside their home or garden, you are likely to be contravening CAA [Civil Aviation Authority] guidelines'.
The rules that are in place around drones, while complicated, typically require pilots to have the aircraft in their line of sight, to avoid getting close to crowds or building, and to respect people's privacy.
With some devices having reportedly crashed into the church roof or resident's trees, Mr Winup said: 'People do lose control of drones and they could take an eye out.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
14 minutes ago
- BBC News
Liverpool Metro Mayor criticises Ex-Sun editor's government role
The reported appointment of a former editor of The Sun newspaper to a senior role in government communications has been described as "deeply insensitive" to the people of Liverpool, by the mayor of Liverpool City Rotheram accused David Dinsmore, who edited the national newspaper from 2013-2015, of leading a paper which "printed falsehoods that caused unimaginable pain" following the 1989 Hillsborough Sun apologised 23 years later for its front page which made unfounded claims about Liverpool fans in the immediate aftermath of the tragic incident at the FA Cup semi-final, in which 97 supporters Government Communication Service has been contacted for comment. Posting on X, Mr Rotheram wrote: "Ordinarily, I wouldn't comment on staffing decisions - especially those involving civil servants who, too often, are subjected to unfair criticism - but given the context, I feel compelled to speak out about the appointment of David Dinsmore." He added: "For many people in our city, particularly those who fought for justice for the Hillsborough families, this appointment will be seen as a deeply insensitive choice, given the hurt caused to our communities unjustly targeted by that 'newspaper', Rupert Murdoch and his acolytes.""Liverpool hasn't forgotten. We haven't forgiven. And we never will."He said the "falsehoods" printed in The Sun under Mr Dinsmore's leadership "shouldn't be brushed off as a footnote in his CV"."There are legitimate questions that deserve answers."Mr Rotheram asked if the appointment process had been "genuinely open, fair and transparent".He added: "Were the views and experiences of those affected by that brand of journalism taken into account?"The metro mayor said he supported the government's ambition "to rebuild trust in politics", but appointments like that of Mr Dinsmore "risk undermining that effort"."Trust can't be restored by drawing from the same networks that helped erode it." Listen to the best of BBC Radio Merseyside on Sounds and follow BBC Merseyside on Facebook, X, and Instagram. You can also send story ideas via Whatsapp to 0808 100 2230.
Daily Mail
14 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Social media posts by Laurence Fox calling two people paedophiles would not have been taken 'seriously' by many people, Court of Appeal hears
Social media posts by Laurence Fox referring to two men as paedophiles likely would not have been taken 'seriously' by many people, the Court of Appeal has heard. The actor-turned-activist was successfully sued by now-Stonewall CEO Simon Blake and drag artist Crystal over a row on Twitter, now known as X. Fox, 47, called Mr Blake and the former RuPaul 's Drag Race contestant, whose real name is Colin Seymour, 'paedophiles' in an exchange about a decision by Sainsbury's to mark Black History Month in October 2020. A High Court judge said Fox should pay both men £90,000 each in damages and slammed the Reclaim Party founder for trying to 'attach blame and discredit' the pair during litigation. Fox called for a boycott of the supermarket and was called 'a racist' by the pair, as well as broadcaster Nicola Thorp, before he responded with the 'paedophile' tweets, which led to the libel claims. The judge dismissed Mr Fox's counter claims against the pair and Ms Thorp over tweets accusing him of racism. The 47-year-old is now challenging the £180,000 High Court ruling at the Court of Appeal in London, attending the first day of the hearing today. Sporting a tattoo of a crucifix on his neck and smoking a cigarette, Fox arrived hand-in-hand with his wife Elizabeth, who he married earlier this year during a private ceremony. The former actor was dressed in a white shirt, jeans and a pair of tan Vivo barefoot hiking boots worth about £296. Patrick Green KC, for Mr Fox, said in written submissions that the judgment which found Mr Fox had libelled the pair should be quashed due to 'errors of approach' by the judge, including over whether Mr Blake and Mr Seymour were caused serious harm. Mr Green said: 'Her conclusions were in any event, plainly wrong, on any fair consideration of the evidence.' The barrister added that Mrs Justice Collins Rice had wrongly decided damages for the two men, who, along with Ms Thorp, are opposing the appeal. Mr Green said that the decision on damages did not consider the actual words Mr Fox used 'and the likelihood that many or the vast majority of readers would have not have taken them seriously, particularly in their context'. The barrister said that in one of her rulings, the judge 'ignores the actual words used, or their all important context'. He also said the judge 'failed to account adequately or at all' for an apology Mr Fox made, or alleged misconduct by Mr Blake and Mr Seymour in 'exaggerating' the harm and distress caused. Mr Fox told the original trial in November 2023 that his use of the term was 'rhetorical', and 'there was no inference at any point that I thought they were a paedophile'. 'I was diminishing the ridiculousness of calling me a racist,' he said. And on Monday, Mr Green said it was clear Mr Fox was being rhetorical. The barrister told appeal judges: 'He's not saying "I am a racist and they are paedophiles' and everyone understood it in that way." Adrienne Page KC, for Mr Blake, Mr Seymour and Ms Thorp, said in written submissions that Mr Fox's appeal was 'lacking in merit'. She continued: 'The "paedophile" tweets did not embody the appellant's opinions about Mr Blake and Mr Seymour. 'They conveyed factual imputations of the most serious defamatory character.' The barrister added there was 'no meaningful retraction or apology' by Mr Fox. She later said: 'Whichever way one looks at it, the judge was fully entitled to reach the factual conclusions that she did on the serious, real-world, reputational impact of the appellant's tweets, for the reasons which she gave. There was nothing wrong with her analysis in fact or law.' Ms Page added that Mr Fox's case at trial had been 'largely devoted to hypothesising, as already noted, a series of different scenarios as to the various ways or settings in which his tweets may have appeared to different readers'. 'After very careful and conscientious evaluation, the judge was, unsurprisingly, not persuaded of this on the facts,' she continued. Ms Page continued that the sums of £90,000 in damages awarded to the pair were 'unexceptionable'. The hearing before Lord Justice Dingemans, Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing and Lord Justice Warby is expected to conclude on Tuesday. During the last court battle, Fox had counter-sued Mr Blake and Mr Seymour and broadcaster Nicola Thorp over tweets accusing him of racism. In a previous judgment in January 2024, Mrs Justice Collins Rice ruled in favour of Mr Blake and Mr Seymour, dismissing Mr Fox's counter-claims. During a ruling in April of that year, the judge said Mr Fox should pay Mr Blake and Mr Seymour £90,000 each in damages. She said: 'By calling Mr Blake and Mr Seymour paedophiles, Mr Fox subjected them to a wholly undeserved public ordeal. It was a gross, groundless and indefensible libel, with distressing and harmful real-world consequences for them.' During the previous court case, Lorna Skinner KC, for Mr Blake and Mr Seymour, had said the pair should receive 'at least six-figure sums' from Mr Fox, calling a suggestion the pair should only receive a 'modest' award 'nonsense'. However, Patrick Green KC, for Fox, said the starting point of damages should be between £10,000 and £20,000, with the total being 'substantially lowered' due to an apology from Mr Fox and the absence of malice. Fox previously described the original judgment as a 'bullies charter' and said he disagreed 'profoundly' with the result. He said in a post on X at the time: 'I don't know what the judge will award these people. But the costs of these proceedings are enormous. So a whopper of a cheque is getting written in the next few days.' Fox added: 'We are seeing the courts used maliciously across the west and that is a very concerning trend. So enjoy the victory guys and I hope it is short lived!' Mrs Justice Collins Rice declined to make an order requiring the 47-year-old to publish a summary of the judge's decision on his X account. During a hearing in March 2024, Mr Green had said there was no need for the Lewis actor to publicise the ruling decision on his social media. He said in written submissions: 'This has been the most high-profile libel action of the year and both the trial and the judgment were massively reported in the media.... There can be few, if any, original publishees in the present case who will be unaware of its outcome.' The barrister added: 'The outcome of this long-running case literally could not be better known than it is already. 'For whatever passing doubts or vague suspicions that may have at some time subsisted in the minds of readers, only a modest financial award in compensation should be due.' Mr Green added: 'The remarks were quickly retracted and apologised for, and at the very least it was clear to the public at large at an early stage that the allegation was baseless.'
Daily Mail
14 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Victorious Lionesses are our 'national pride' say MPs and call for squad to be given damehoods following stunning Euros victory
The Lionesses should be awarded damehoods for the Euro 2025 victory, MPs have declared - hailing the players 'a total inspiration' and 'our national pride'. Tory MP Wendy Morton said the entire England women's football team should be honoured, insisting their collective achievement must not go unrecognised - unlike last time they won. 'These girls have done something extraordinary,' she said. 'They are such an inspiration so they absolutely should receive recognition for that. 'It was a team effort, so they should be honoured as a team. Often the people behind the scenes, and those who practice but don't actually get called to play, miss out on the glory - and they shouldn't.' Fellow Conservative MP Caroline Dinenage also backed calls for official recognition, saying: 'They are our national pride. They showed remarkable resilience, teamwork and strength of character. 'They are a total inspiration and one of our most successful national teams.' The Lionesses captured the nation's hearts with their run of historic victories, and campaigners say it is time their achievements were properly rewarded. When they scored their first historic European Championship victory in 2022, just four of the players got gongs. At the time, honours committee chairman Sir Hugh Robertson said the panel wanted to reward outstanding performances rather than the whole team, as they hadn't won the World Cup. Yesterday, Labour's Sarah Champion MP said she supported giving damehoods to all players '100 per cent'. 'Their courage and dedication to the game has inspired women and girls across the country to get involved with football,' she said. 'It would publicly show that we recognise and celebrate the achievements of women and girls, and they could do the same.' Nigel Huddleston, shadow culture, media and sport minister, said 'honours should be lavished upon the lionesses'. 'The purpose of the honours system is to recognise outstanding contributions and achievements, including in the field of sport,' he said. 'The lionesses have certainly been outstanding. 'While not every member of the team may receive an honour this year, I am confident that most will be recognised over the course of their careers - and deservedly so.' Shadow sports minister Louie French MP added: 'These incredible players deserve to be celebrated and honoured in any way our nation can.' Tory MP Shivani Raja said recognising the Lionesses would show young girls and future athletes what is possible. 'They have once again shown just how powerful and inspiring women's sport can be,' she said. 'Their incredible performances reflect real strength, determination, and talent. We must keep backing brilliant role models like these.' Last night, a Downing Street spokesman hinted that members of the victorious team may be recognised in the honours system, saying: 'There is an independent process for nominations, but I hope we will see lots of nominations for this team.'
