Trespassing, justified or not?

[Roger Hicks]

I have been urbexing for a few years now in the UK, recently taking my Leica along also..........dont ever break and enter, there is always a way in without force..........up, over under etc. you would be surprised.............its really all I photograph.

Like others have said before its not a crminal offence in the UK.

Have a look on my flickr for some Urbex shots with the M4 http://www.flickr.com/photos/ajj_photography/

Great pictures!

No... sorry... wait, they can't be, because you are anarchist scum assaulting the very cornerstones of western society.

Seriously, I love the use of 'hyper-real' colour instead of the usual doom-and-gloom grainy mono, which is, I must confess, much of what I've shot in similar locations -- though I've been shooting a lot more colour lately.

Actually, come to think of it, the locations aren't all that similar in most cases: abandoned churches, schoolrooms, very little under 150-200 years old.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[bmattock]

Your attitude displays the absolutist streak so prevalent in this thread. Do you sincerely believe that going into an abandoned building to take pictures is a short-cut to anarchy? Because there are a lot worse things than that...

Speaking for myself (I realize you were not addressing me), I do not believe going into an abandoned building is a short-cut to anarchy, but I do believe that the breakdown of civil order can happen all at once, or in fractions of a degree, over a long period of time. Like erosion, it consumes all, given time. A good farmer takes small steps to combat erosion when it is a minor force, rather than waiting until their topsoil is gone.

Your attitude also displays, to me, given my citizenship, upbringing, travels, education, etc., an unhealthy willingness to bow before authority.

Perhaps a difference in culture again, Richard. I believe that our laws in the US are 'our' laws, meaning that they come from us, not from on high. When a police officer or judge or legislator speaks, they should be speaking with our voice. Bowing before authority is a non sequitor when we are the authority.

Challenges to laws, when one disagrees with them, are both common and encouraged in a healthy society. But even civil disobedience has certain attributes that recommend it.

The first is that it is done for the purpose of demonstrating that the law is wrong.

The second is that it is not done for one's own selfish purposes (photography, thrill of exploration, etc).

The third is that the person being civilly disobedient not only risks arrest, but courts it, as arrest and prosecution are their manner of publicizing and challenging whatever law they feel is intolerable.

Urbex explorers fail on all three counts. They do it strictly for their own benefit, they avoid capture, and part of the thrill they get (by the admission of some in this very thread) is the fear of being captured.

Urbex is not civil disobedience, and standing up for the rule of law regarding property rights is hardly 'bowing down before authority'. In my opinion.

 

[Roger Hicks]

(1)... One might also note that as the right to take street photographs of persons in public fades in both the USA and Europe, it is Europe that is leading that particular trend. . . .

. . . Without placing a value judgment on either culture, I must once again state how glad I am to have been born in the USA. I cherish my freedoms . . .

Dear Bill,

For the first extract 'Europe' is not monolithic. The UK is crazy, but the English in particular have a fine tradition of hysteria and ill-thought-out legislation: the Dangerous Dogs Act, various Firearms Acts, the most recent Sexual Offences Act, and so forth. The French are moving away from restrictions on photography in public: unfortunately I've mislaid the reference, but a recent court decision specifically reaffirmed that people who appeared in a book of street and metro pictures had no cause of action. In most of Europe -- and I travel extensively -- street photography is simply not something that anyone, except the occasional crazy, worries about.

Fot the second, substitute 'European Union' for 'USA' and I would say exactly the same thing, having lived in both. A freedom that seems to be more highly regarded in most of Europe than in most of the USA seems to be the freedom to question authority, to break unimportant laws in unimportant ways simply because they are unimportant, without an absolutist punishment being visited upon one: as far as I recall, I was in California when they introduced the 'three strikes' law.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

So I'm in the majority.

Have fun climbing through those holes in fences.🙂

Dear James,

Well, possibly (I've not counted the absolutists versus the relativists and gradualists). Actually, I think I may have misused the word 'prevalent', when I should have said, 'common'.

Then again, being in the majority is not in and of itself laudable. You are no doubt aware of the old hippie saying, "Eat ****. Ten million flies can't be wrong."

Have you never climbed thorough a hole in a fence in your life?

Cheers,

R.

 

[bmattock]

A freedom that seems to be more highly regarded in most of Europe than in most of the USA seems to be the freedom to question authority, to break unimportant laws in unimportant ways simply because they are unimportant, without an absolutist punishment being visited upon one: as far as I recall, I was in California when they introduced the 'three strikes' law.

I do understand this. I was speaking in general terms.

However, as a direct form of agreement with your last statement, I once worked for a French-owned company with a headquarters in the USA (HQ in Lisle, makes products for corn syrup). We had a few engineers come over to visit, and I went to lunch with one of them - he drove his rental car. We came upon a four-way stop sign, and he sped straight through it, didn't even slow down. I asked him why he did not stop at the stop sign and he replied that he didn't stop because there was no one else there.

I 'get it'. But I wasn't raised that way, it shocks the sensibilities. I stop at stop signs, without regard to how many cars are at the intersection. Which way is 'right'? Probably it just depends on circumstances, I guess. In the USA, if you run a stop sign and get caught, you get a ticket. And I have no problem with that. Bowing and scraping to the almighty Law? Perhaps. I'm OK with it.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Bill,

I understand your point about erosion but I see many more things which worry me a great deal more than urbexing. It is a fair comment that a greater evil does not negate a lesser evil, but I do not think that we are likely to agree even on whether urbexing is, in fact, an evil.

As for 'our' laws, it would be nice if this were truly so in any society, but I have long admired the old saw that those who love the law, or sausages, should never watch either being made. Laws fall into desuetude from many causes, which is as it should be, and their merely being ignored is (in my view) a legitimate cause.

Edit: I think this thread has probably run its course, and very illuminating much of that course has been; but in terms of how much more we can contribute to answering the OP's question, I think the answer is probably zero.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[James D]

Actually, I think I may have misused the word 'prevalent', when I should have said, 'common'.

That's me, a common man.

Then again, being in the majority is not in and of itself laudable.

I do believe that it's the majority who govern...and make the rules.

Have you never climbed thorough a hole in a fence in your life?

Honestly, not since I was about 7 or 8 years old, and I think that was to get out, not in.


I've given my opinion on this matter. I will leave it there.

 

[Merkin]

If the building has a security guard, why not just ask the security guard who you need to get in touch with to get permission to enter? If the owners decline, you could always just try bribing the security guard in to letting you go on rounds with him or her.

 

[Paul T.]

I do believe that it's the majority who govern...and make the rules.

really? You should read up on your own government, whether in the UK or Europe. Especially as regards the US senate, it's absolutely fascinating.

 

[bmattock]

While meeting with a very nice RFFer for the first time I recently found myself into the old train station in Detroit (Bill may know it).
in short:
1- The sight is impressive, but I wouldn't say that I love that kind of photography.
2- I was much more concerened about being killed by the ceiling falling apart or to fall into a trench in the dark than about anything else. I'm a coward with a family, and really, no picture is worthy of being wounded or killed. I have photographed in dangerous situations but I had to be there in the first place, (and would have loved to be somewhere else).
3- The sense of "trespassing" was low. No "private" property involved, no owner living there, etc.

I am familiar with the train station, and I am familiar with a number of Urbex people who love to crawl around in it.

It is indeed private property, not abandoned. It is owned by Manuel Moroun, who also owns the Ambassador Bridge. He has, in the past, fenced off the property, hired security guards, and made various attempts to keep people out of the property. Urbex explorers kept 'finding' holes in the fences (which they didn't cut, oh no, not them) and so on, and publicizing those entry points.

For those who say: "breaking the law is bad, don't do it", do you really think that you respect all the laws all the time? I am sure all of us, as willing to keep the law as we are (I am), have found ourselve is situations where a small infrigement of the law was required to do something that seemed important to us , and we did it. Should I drive 10 more miles in the middle of a desert just because I don't want to cut a line on a road? should I pass a truck only at the speed limit even if that's dangerous? etc. All these are laws aren't they?

I do my best to obey the law. I certainly do not disregard property rights because I like to take photos on property that belongs to someone else. That's really all I am concerned with in this case.

Now about the possibility of being arrested, even if I don't believe anyone would have sued, I must say that I would not like to go through the whole arrestation experience just to take pictures of a place.

In short, putting myself in your shoes I would ask myself for each and every building I enter: Do I really think the pictures from this place are worthy, and what are the chances to find myself in real trouble (arrested for a time or seriously wounded).
Of course if all you are after is the adrenalin...

I find the solution much more simple. If the sign says "No Trespassing," or "Keep Out," or "Private Property - Do Not Enter," I do not enter. Not hard to do. Not a weak-kneed bowing to authority. Just a simple recognition that property owners have rights, and I respect those rights. I would want my own property rights respected as well.

 

[wgerrard]

I'm not sure "justify" is the appropriate word. Concepts of what is or is not just vary. If you think trespassing is just and if you are prepared to face the worst-case scenario and the demands of people who disagree with you -- owners, police, courts -- go ahead. Don't count on wiggling your way out by converting the heathen.

 

[Wallo]

Every man's rights

Every man's rights

Trespassing is very much a relative concept in Norway. In general everybody is allowed to go pretty much where they like, at least on foot. As long as its not fenced off, and quite often where it is, as the fence itself may be illegal. It's called "allmansretten"

This Wikipedia article is pretty accurate at least for Finland. For anyone interested in every man's rights:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

Here's a true story about every man's rights:

I remember hanging with some friends at a summer cottage on an island. This was about a decade ago. We were having the sauna, drinking beer on the porch, and just enjoying some of the last days of the summer. A boat approached the shore, five men in bright red vests carrying rifles jumped off the boat. We watched as they walked by some 20 meters from the sauna. The hunting season had started the previous day and they simply practiced their every man's rights to gain access to the forests behind the summer cottage. We were naturally surprised this happened, but they were very careful not to bother us more than was necessary for their hunting trip. Perhaps this would have resulted in several bodies had it happened in some other country. We had no casualties, although I don't know whether any moose were later hurt.

Sadly, I have no pictures from that day.

 

[bmattock]

The hunting season had started the previous day and they simply practiced their every man's rights to gain access to the forests behind the summer cottage.

There are several similar, if not exactly the same, principles in the US. One may find themselves in ownership of property that they cannot exclude others from legally. For example, a public sidewalk that traverses their front yard. It may be their 'property', but the city maintains an easement that forbids the property owner from blocking access. Indeed, the property owner is required to maintain the sidewalk to the extent of keeping it clear to walk upon (shoveling snow and etc).

If a person owns property that surrounds or otherwise blocks access to the property owned by another, they may find that they are required to permit right of way for the other property owner to enter and leave their property.

If one owns property on the edge of a forest, however, I do not believe that there is an automatic easement permitted others to pass through their property in order to reach legal hunting grounds in the US. I could be wrong.

Of course, there is nothing stopping a private property owner from voluntarily granting an easement if they wish to.

 

[aniMal]

Back on the net - and what an amazing read...

I will try to summarize a little, and also try to bring the thread a bit back to what I want to debate. It certainly seems more clear to me now!

I have to say that the US attitude feels very alien to me, and frankly it is part of something that so far has prevented me in going to that part of the world... It seems that there is an obsession with security, both in terms of never taking any chances with the buildings themselves, and then in standing your ground against all evil intruders... Actually I think these two things are linked somehow, and that Europe is very different in this.

I have always admired the English when it comes to security, there used to be something left over after the war - the way no one flinched when the IRA dropped some bombs here and there... Sadly it seems to have changed somewhat after 2001, although I haven't lived in London since 2004. Security for me lies in being alert, using your judgment, and not being carried away by raw emotions. Whereas in the US it seems that there is a very violent standoff - where both perpetrator and potential victim quickly goes into action.

I hope that this can be seen as just an observation, although I am of the strong opinion that the European model is both the most effective and morally superior, I respect that other societies might be different. And of course there are deep, historical reasons for different societies developing in different ways.

When it comes to the subject itself, though, I feel there are some aspects to it that make all this the more interesting... This psychiatric hospital was a crime-scene in its own right, many informed citizens would say. This was probably an identical twin of the asylum in "One flew over the cuckoos nest". There were people incarcerated who were experimented on, and the rate of patients dying of lobotomy was horrible indeed. (not sure if this particular building was used for operations, but have seen electro-shock apparatuses in there...) One of the head psychiatrists offered his patients for involuntary and unannounced LSD experiments... That is, the patients got extreme dosages without knowing what hit them - according to some articles some of them were burnt beyond recognition...

So, coming to think of it, this particular place is not just any derelict building... It certainly should have some focus on it! Actually the first novel of one of the more well known authors in Norway is about his period working there as unskilled help, and it is a helluva read...

Philosophically speaking, the laws are here for regulating society. I have no problem with that, and the way I am brought up, it takes real effort for me to break rules other than speeding limits. For me to steal stuff, it would take a close family member needing an expensive operation to survive I think... Also I would always think it through in any derelict building, and I have to feel justified somehow to do it - nothing to do with adrenalin at all.

I will try to do some more research on this place, and perhaps put out some feelers to see if I can get permission. Will hopefully get to scout the outside soon, depends on getting the insurance on my car in order. And by the way driving uninsured is waaay more serious than these things, might end with economic tragedy and worse!

 

[Ezzie]

I had relatives now dead, that were subject to the same LSD experiment programme, though I think that was yet another psychiatric institution, though I may be wrong. Not a proud moment in our recent history. I myself would have liked to see what these wards looked like.

There is, no doubt about it, a quite distinct difference in European and American cultures. I don´t hesitate traveling to the States however, but I do make some research beforehand and go out of my way to be polite (never was that difficult, being brought up in England does help), and heed signs and warnings without question, they are usually there for a reason, and somehow always seem to be backed up in proper (no idle threats there). Apart from that, no issues, Americans are nice people, like any other folk.

 

[Wallo]

There are several similar, if not exactly the same, principles in the US. One may find themselves in ownership of property that they cannot exclude others from legally. For example, a public sidewalk that traverses their front yard. It may be their 'property', but the city maintains an easement that forbids the property owner from blocking access. Indeed, the property owner is required to maintain the sidewalk to the extent of keeping it clear to walk upon (shoveling snow and etc).

We have the same principle in place here as well. This is, however, an entirely different concept. The every man's rights are about legal rights of all people; the sidewalk thing and other such examples are about a legal obligation (for some people). It's a bit a like the difference between having the right to vote and having the obligation to pay taxes.

Anyway, I'm unsure whether my comment has much to do with the original discussion. The Wikipedia link is anyway good reading for anyone interested, or perhaps considering a trip to the Nordic countries.

 

[aniMal]

There is, no doubt about it, a quite distinct difference in European and American cultures. I don´t hesitate traveling to the States however, but I do make some research beforehand and go out of my way to be polite (never was that difficult, being brought up in England does help), and heed signs and warnings without question, they are usually there for a reason, and somehow always seem to be backed up in proper (no idle threats there). Apart from that, no issues, Americans are nice people, like any other folk.

You are right of course, if I end up going to the US some time I will do it exactly this way. Its really about adopting to whatever culture you happen to be in!

I do suspect there are some common denominators though. I remember being on an exercise in Lillehammer when I was in the army. Over the radio we heard that a particular area was out of bounds, because a farmer had threatened one of the squads with a shotgun! Apparently this was not the first time the army had a clash with this farmer, and they let him get away with it even though the army has a wider right of land during exercises than ordinary people. I remember the funniness of it, you had all these people running around with automatic rifles with no live rounds in them, and then this farmer scaring them off his land with a shotgun 😉

Guess it has to do with relationship to the land you own, and I have no problem understanding farmers protecting their crops etc. I have never, ever walked into a field with grain or such - and learnt from when I was very small to thoroughly close all gates!

Come to think of it, this particular place is not the one with the LSD-experiments, I think that was Gaustad? Anyway, I have no doubts that the same kind of regime existed in Lier - it was all part of a very oppressive system that lasted up into the eighties... And mind you, all of these treatments were imposed on the patients. Not all of them very dangerous in any way, in that period it could be enough to be annoying and quarrelsome. Some were locked in for "treatment" on very spurious charges...

 

[Sparrow]

Dear Stewart,

For that matter, as far as I recall, under English law it is quite common (in fact, I believe, it may even be the norm) for the owner of property fronting upon the road to own the mining and other subsoil rights under the road.

Frances, whom you may know is American, finds it hard to believe the exaggerated respect paid to private property in the United States. There's respect, which is perfectly right and proper, and there's a paranoid belief that every trespasser is out to do something terrible -- even when they might not even be aware that they are trespassing.

And as Frances has just reminded me, all land in the UK is held of the Queen -- nulle terre sans seigneur -- but she's pretty relaxed about it. The Queen, that is not Frances, though come to think of it, Frances is pretty relaxed about it too. The foreshore (the area swept by the tide) is always public, except on some (not all) military bases.

Cheers,

R.

Hi Roger

it’s all a bit of a minefield really, forgive the pun, in England the monarch has title to the lot, but in a series of charters starting in the 7th century gave land rights to first the church and later the “Barons” mainly written in Latin with some in the vernacular, then the Norman French came along and added a layer of statute in French, then the barons got the big charter from John, and us plebs got the Little one, they went through a few re-releases up to the Bill of Rights, then a series of Parliamentary bills, ending up with the Land Registry. Oh I forgot Richard III had all the law translated into English so there are two versions of everything pre 1480ish. so there can be the odd anomaly,

if your interested the Rights of Way are granted in the Little Charter

A friend of mine considers it arguable, and makes a good living out of doing so.

the foreshore is as you say part of the Crown Estate, as is the little stream at the back of my house, so belongs to ER

regards

P.S. and; Liz owns everything wrecked or washed-up on the foreshore, there is no right of salvage in the UK

 

[M4cr0s]

aniMal: I believe parts of old Lier Hospital that I think you are refering to in Norway is still in use so you might want to look out for people 😉 The buildings that are closed are obviously old and subject to many years of decay. If they do not fall down on top of you, you surely risk breathing some nasty stuff, be it fungus or dust from toxic building materials. I'd suggest you keep that in mind before entering. If you get apprehended, remain calm and civil, the cops are mostly nice here and they should speak English.

Ps. I live in Oslo and actually work a few km's from the old hospital. Never been there though.

/Mac

 

[Chris101]

...

Come to think of it, this particular place is not the one with the LSD-experiments, I think that was Gaustad? ...

Somewhat off track, but this came up a few times so I'll go with it. In the early 70's the CIA wanted in on our LSD experiments, but we would have none of it. So we did them without them.

It was more fun that way.