RAF Marham Police advice

[ridgmeister]

I spent the last two days at Marham and both days the RAF Police had to come off-base to move people from directly under the approach at Chalk Lane.
I spoke to the personnel and they said it was a safety issue - it is okay to take photographs BUT NOT UNDER the approach. They suggested people look at where the traffic lights are on the perimeter road and stay outside that area.
Although not a security issue, while the personnel are moving people away from danger, they will be distracted from other duties.
The land is private and the landowner is currently tolerant, so let's not give cause to change their mind!

[speedbird2639]

Not sure why you would bother to be under the approach at Marham anyway when the runway threshold is more than 1000m away from Chalk La - its not like Waddo or Brize where you would need a fish eye lens to get any plane overhead into the frame!

Edit: Unless they mean people are walking up to the fence from Chalk La?

[138EAW]

All the years I've been going to Marham, they've never been happy with people standing near the approach lights.

Speaking to blue suiters on various trips to Marham, I don't think they know the crap storm that's heading their way when the F-35s finally turn up. Marham will need a proper viewing area, sadly I can't see anywhere it could go

[st24]

And rightly so, standing directly under the approach is just absurd and asking for trouble yet it still happens post Shoreham - Fairford was a prime example for 7 days or so...

[Brevet Cable]

I don't think they know the crap storm that's heading their way when the F-35s finally turn up. Marham will need a proper viewing area

Or a heavy/heavier Police presence until the novelty has worn off.

[Thoughtful_Flyer]

What rights, if any, do the RAF police have over a civilian standing on private (i.e. not MOD) land? If the person declines to move what, if anything, can they do?

Obviously that is a completely separate question to what is wise, sensible or prudent behaviour particularly in the current climate.

[speedbird2639]

Most of the Laws these days are written in a such a deliberately woolly and imprecise manner that I'm sure they could come up with something which covered the fact that in their opinion you were somewhere where they felt you shouldn't be. The easier option is just to do as they ask and leave - if you start challenging them you are only going to finish up in the back of the van for 'obstructing an officer' or some such and then they will take you back to the Nick and keep you in a cell for as long as they realistically can and then release you without charge.

Easier just to move on and keep things polite.

Or get a camo Ghillie suit and just stand really still when they are about!

[pb643]

What rights, if any, do the RAF police have over a civilian standing on private (i.e. not MOD) land? If the person declines to move what, if anything, can they do?

Obviously that is a completely separate question to what is wise, sensible or prudent behaviour particularly in the current climate.

Unless things have changed in recent years, I don't think the RAF Police have any jurisdiction off base. However I am sure the local police would be happy to provide support to them if requested. The MOD police have the same powers as the local force.

Happy to be corrected if this is not the case.

[Brevet Cable]

Possibly explained somewhere in here , or possibly not......I haven't bothered reading it fully :

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/410011/20150319_SPCOP_Final_March_2015.pdf

[Alanko]

Given the recent attempted abduction at RAF Marham I think it is best to be somewhat sympathetic to the Police there, rather than trying to argue Jarndyce v Jarndyce about what they can and cannot do in and around the base and adjacent roads. They will be on high alert, and allowing a crowd of men to huddle unchallenged near the perimeter fence (probably wearing olive drab and other muted colours and carrying radios and cameras with long lenses) will, if nothing else, make them look bad.

Just a thought.

[FarnboroJohn]

Perhaps somebody responsible engaging with them early might help all concerned? Spotters have been enlisted as additional watchers in aid of security at various locations before - why not now?

John

[MC hammer]

What rights, if any, do the RAF police have over a civilian standing on private (i.e. not MOD) land? If the person declines to move what, if anything, can they do?

Obviously that is a completely separate question to what is wise, sensible or prudent behaviour particularly in the current climate.

I'm not sure this question ever really gets answered completely when it crops up.

However, for the sake of those that frequent Marham, (which I don't very often) and wish to continue doing so, I would move if asked. After all, going back to the OP, it's only people standing directly under the approach that are seen as being a problem and I don't see any advantage in standing there in the first place.
If the police say it's ok to take photographs and we are able to stand in fields which make that possible, surely we should embrace that positive attitude and respect the goodwill of the landowner, as much like the eastern end at Coningsby, if the landowner denies us access, the photos won't even be half as good as they are now.

[DOUGHNUT]

These topics pop up from time to time. While it is good to be informed and reminded of issues regarding standing or parking under the approach at any airfield I very much doubt it has much to do with the spotter community. Most offenders are likely to be locals walking the dog or drivers having a quick fag break. Sadly the summer months also bring granddad or mum out with the kids who see an aeroplane and stop in the first field opening, usually the crash gate, and try to wave mobile phones at it. I once heard one such mummy complain the the noise had upset her little one !!! Think most of the problems at Scampton are caused by these 'non - enthusiasts'

[Thoughtful_Flyer]

What rights, if any, do the RAF police have over a civilian standing on private (i.e. not MOD) land? If the person declines to move what, if anything, can they do?

Obviously that is a completely separate question to what is wise, sensible or prudent behaviour particularly in the current climate.

I'm not sure this question ever really gets answered completely when it crops up.

However, for the sake of those that frequent Marham, (which I don't very often) and wish to continue doing so, I would move if asked. After all, going back to the OP, it's only people standing directly under the approach that are seen as being a problem and I don't see any advantage in standing there in the first place.
If the police say it's ok to take photographs and we are able to stand in fields which make that possible, surely we should embrace that positive attitude and respect the goodwill of the landowner, as much like the eastern end at Coningsby, if the landowner denies us access, the photos won't even be half as good as they are now.

But this is a variation on the endless Duxford "naughty field" debate.

Airfield operators and airshow organisers frequently claim that it is necessary for certain fields to be empty during their operations for "safety reasons". They then seek to control, by various means, what happens on other peoples land, usually without any legal right to do so. Strictly speaking, if it is genuinely not safe to fly when people are in certain places, they should stay on the ground until those people move. If they have no legal right to move them on then you have a bit of an impasse.

Maybe the law needs changing but until that happens it does not give people in uniform the right to exercise non existent "powers".

Approach lights have always been an interesting point. Often they extend well beyond the airfield perimeter fence so presumably the farmer is paid some rent or compensation for accommodating them in a similar way to telegraph poles and electric pylons? Is the correct thing not those fields to be owned by the airfield and the farming rights to be leased out under the airfield's control. That way they could be properly fenced off and the airfield operator would have the right to control who is in them.

[Brevet Cable]

Or get a camo Ghillie suit and just stand really still when they are about!

Or 'hide' under trees/bushes like some of the muppits at RIAT did...
( I say 'hide' , because wearing a white or bright red shirt doesn't exactly render you invisible )

And Ghillies are no good....as any 'dodgy' will tell you , to be properly camouflaged you need to be wearing a hi-viz jacket & hard-hat.

[andygolfer]

Approach lights have always been an interesting point. Often they extend well beyond the airfield perimeter fence so presumably the farmer is paid some rent or compensation for accommodating them in a similar way to telegraph poles and electric pylons? Is the correct thing not those fields to be owned by the airfield and the farming rights to be leased out under the airfield's control. That way they could be properly fenced off and the airfield operator would have the right to control who is in them.

the actual term for agreements re things like electricity/telegraph poles and water mains / sewers (which I dealt with at work regularly before I retired) is a wayleave agreement. This probably applies to approach lights as well but it might be a different form of agreement for military equipment.
The agreement when set up compensates the owner for having the poles or pylons on (or water main/sewer under their land) and effectively sets up a sterile strip of land (it used to be 6m either side for water mains when I retired 3 years ago) on which the land owner still has right of way and can farm or use the land for normal activities but sets restrictions on other activities to protect the apparatus such as restrictions on development. There wasn't a lease arrangement for the use of the land by the apparatus owner and conversely if we went on to maintain the asset (which was part of the agreement) we would still pay compensation for crop loss where it occurred.
I don't know what the military arrangements would be but I would think it is broadly similar, the only military contact I had was the opposite way round where we had a water main on MOD land and then from memory the agreement was the same as for a civilian owner although I didn't do any wayleave work on high security areas that I can remember. As such I expect the MOD have access to the lights but do not own or lease the land but just have aright of way agreement . Hope that helps
Andy

[speedbird2639]

Seems odd that the RAF are getting their knickers in such a bunch about it, under the 'cover all' of safety, when at BHX for instance there are benches installed in the Sheldon Country Park North end of the runway positively encouraging you to sit directly under the flight path.

I think it is more likely they don't want the effort of having to drive out to chat to every individual who rocks up at their fence and they believe by issuing this proclamation it should go some way to minimising the problem for them.