Page 1 of 1

Urban Explorer's

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:56 pm
by whitevanman
Following on from another thread, is this glamorised trespassing, is it on a par with burglary or is it an harmless hobby?

Urbex's do trespass on private property and many think that this is wrong, but they never break into anywhere and never take anything away apart from photographs and maybe some dust on their boots. All that they want to do is take photographs, for the record, of premises that were previously unaccessible, and then leave.

It is very interesting and exiting hobby, but many are intent on stopping it with their ill informed interpretation of the law.
Trespass with intent to..... (a) cause damage (b)cause harm (c) to steal etc are criminal offences and are, justifiably, treated as such.

The simple act of trespass is not a criminal offence but a civil offence. If you are caught on private property and are asked to leave, you leave straight away and no action will be taken. For the land owner to take any action they have to prove beyond any doubt that you have cost them money by being there. They cannot force you to delete any photo's (you can then sue them for criminal damage), they can't confiscate any equipment, and they can't "arrest" you unless they find evidence of any wrong doing. Even the police cannot delete any of your photo's unless evidence of terrorism is found.

Many of the premises entered have never been seen by the public and are interesting both for photography and history. There is a web site that i'm sure most of you have come across were most of the photo's are published (28dayslater) where many interested people can see the pictures.

In some places it can be dangerous, but you go dressed and equipped appropriately, knowing that any mishap is purely down to you.

Re: Urban Explorer's

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:13 pm
by Westmorland
In the early 1970s my Grandparents lived on Perlethorpe Ave in Mansfield and their bungalow backed onto Queen Elizabeth school playing fields which I used to go on at the weekends. In the grounds were two former World War Two Air Raid Shelters which were underground and I used to go down and explore these shelters. So 40 years on the curiosity to explore dis-used buildings still exists and until Mansfield Hospital is demolished then I think people going into the building to explore will continue

Heres some links from internet showing Urban Explorations of Mansfield Hospital

http://www.derelictplaces.co.uk/main/sh ... JQYysUxouc

http://www.derelicte.co.uk/mansfield-general-hospital

Re: Urban Explorer's

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:49 pm
by BigAl
How would this work out if the owner of the property walked in on them and "battered" them with a baseball bat as he is protecting his property in accordance with the new laws being passed for rights of of property owners ??

According to the new laws the property owner would be within his rights to do so, just as if someone broke into your house.

Just a bit of food for thought :D :D

Re: Urban Explorer's

PostPosted: Fri Nov 02, 2012 11:13 pm
by whitevanman
Two totally different scenarios, Al. An Urbex will not be breaking in anywhere, let alone a private house. The places of interest are derelict and usually in disrepair and probably have been for many years and contact with any other person is actively avoided.
The places have always been looked at beforehand and an owner has never been found to be sitting in the middle of the property waiting for anyone. Even an owner would have the sense too know that there is little chance of anything serious happening and would be in serious trouble if he battered anyone, that is unless he is of Red Indian descent and believes you have pinched his soul if you photograph him.

Oh, just a little correction of your statement
Instead of "According to the new laws", it should be "According to the PROPOSED new GUIDELINES"
You will still have to show you was in genuine fear of being harmed to inflict injury on someone.

Re: Urban Explorer's

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 1:06 am
by Caz
I seem to remember a few years ago there was something similar about Ollerton Hall. We may have discussed it on here in fact. I don't know if they called themselves urban explorers then but it was a group of people who specifically did this kind of thing, so it may be the same people.

Re: Urban Explorer's

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 9:34 am
by BigAl
Ok i stand corrected :D :D we only get the bits about it that sky news and the beeb tel us therefore i got the wrong info :)

Still think its not right, going into properties that are owned by someone wether its derelict or not :|

Re: Urban Explorer's

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 12:47 pm
by m8tey
BigAl wrote:Ok i stand corrected :D :D we only get the bits about it that sky news and the beeb tel us therefore i got the wrong info :)

Still think its not right, going into properties that are owned by someone wether its derelict or not :|


You must have been reading the Chad Al.......... :D

Re: Urban Explorer's

PostPosted: Sat Nov 03, 2012 2:37 pm
by Warsop Person
At the end of the day if the owner of a building does not want people in a building they should secure it, the second someone forces entry into a secure building they have broken the law.

I don't agree with this on the grounds that these glorified criminals that call themselves urban explorers, because of a loophole in the law, will be the first to claim compensation if they get injured, and don't say they won't because cases have already been in front of the courts that have.