When Urban exploring goes wrong...
- Thread starter Neil79
- Start date
If this happened without camera's pointing at them, I can imagine this going a bit differently.
But trespassing is still trespassing, so it's expected that they'd get taken in for questioning. It's the risk you take with urban exploration. Police were doing their job, more flamboyantly because they're being filmed.
I can imagine why some people would find it odd that derelict buildings have an interest for photographers, even though I've been a fan of such things for years.
But trespassing is still trespassing, so it's expected that they'd get taken in for questioning. It's the risk you take with urban exploration. Police were doing their job, more flamboyantly because they're being filmed.
I can imagine why some people would find it odd that derelict buildings have an interest for photographers, even though I've been a fan of such things for years.
As a serving Police Officer and a Photographer, I can see it both ways, however how does one identify a Burglar?
They don't wear stripy jumpers, have black masks on and bags over their shoulders with the words "swag" written on them.
They're just people like you and me, often dressed in ordinary clothing. Sure these guys had Camera gear coming out of their ears, which should be a little bit of a give away, but it is difficult to indentify Burglars in the street.
These men are inside a building in the middle of the night in one of the more sensitive areas of the UK (City of London) - they could theoretically have been up to anything - Burglary or even sussing out locations for Terrorism - and before anyone thinks ah yeah that old chestnut - your going to have to believe me that the public don't even know 1% of what is going on out there in respect of Counter-terrorism.
The net result is these individuals will have been arrested on suspicion of Burglary.
Whilst everyone in the UK has certain powers of arrest, the Police are unique in that they can arrest people whom they suspect to be committing Offences or are about to commit offences.
The arrest powers of a Constable are as follows:-
A constable may arrest (without a warrant):
anyone who is about to commit an offence, or anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be about to commit an offence
anyone who is in the act of committing an offence, or anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an offence
anyone who is guilty of an offence or anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of an offence.
Additionally, if a constable suspects that an offence has been committed, then:
anyone whom he has reasonable grounds to suspect of being guilty of it.
As you can see the word suspect or suspecting features quite a bit within the Police powers of arrest.
It doesn't necessarily mean that someone is going to be charged with Burglary, it just means they can be removed from the Street and held whilst enquiries are ongoing. Once they're satisfied they were innocent of any wrongdoing, they will be released, they're not charged and although are record will be kept of their detention these men will not have a criminal record.
The problem most of the readers of this thread will have is their perception of what is and isn't a Burglary.
It might surprise a few of you to learn that you don't have to steal anything to commit a Burglary - it is a matter of what your intention is when you enter a building. You can also commit a Burglary when entering a building to commit a Rape, Criminal Damage or Assault.
There are two parts to the Theft Act of 1968 that define the Offence of Burglary,
Section 9(1)a
and
Section 9(1)b
The definitions are below....
Section 9(1)(a) Theft Act 1968
A person is guilty of burglary if he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to steal, inflict grievous bodily harm [or raping any person therein], or do unlawful damage to the building or anything in it.
Section 9(1)(b) Theft Act 1968
A person is guilty of burglary if, having entered a building or part of a building as a trespasser, he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building, or inflicts or attempts to inflict grievous bodily harm on any person in the building.
The 'Burglars' in this case have been arrested on suspicion of committing an offence under Section 9(1)(a) - they've entered a building or part of a building as a tresspasser. This part is easy to prove. The next part is more difficult, since thankfully we don't have thought Police, but the Officers suspect that they are there with an intention to steal or damage.
That is more than enough to arrest them. I'm sure a few will call the Police morons and idiots for actually doing their job, but hey that is water off a ducks back - we're here to prevent crime as well as detect it.
I must admit though I really do wish these TV Cop shows were banned - they're excrutiatingly awful and do seem to attract some complete, well I will be polite. I remember about 18 years ago my Boss came round and told us some TV company was thinking of doing a fly on the wall documentary at our Station (would have been one of the very first programs of its type) - we told him to get lost, we were there to Police rather than entertain.
They don't wear stripy jumpers, have black masks on and bags over their shoulders with the words "swag" written on them.
They're just people like you and me, often dressed in ordinary clothing. Sure these guys had Camera gear coming out of their ears, which should be a little bit of a give away, but it is difficult to indentify Burglars in the street.
These men are inside a building in the middle of the night in one of the more sensitive areas of the UK (City of London) - they could theoretically have been up to anything - Burglary or even sussing out locations for Terrorism - and before anyone thinks ah yeah that old chestnut - your going to have to believe me that the public don't even know 1% of what is going on out there in respect of Counter-terrorism.
The net result is these individuals will have been arrested on suspicion of Burglary.
Whilst everyone in the UK has certain powers of arrest, the Police are unique in that they can arrest people whom they suspect to be committing Offences or are about to commit offences.
The arrest powers of a Constable are as follows:-
A constable may arrest (without a warrant):
anyone who is about to commit an offence, or anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be about to commit an offence
anyone who is in the act of committing an offence, or anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an offence
anyone who is guilty of an offence or anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of an offence.
Additionally, if a constable suspects that an offence has been committed, then:
anyone whom he has reasonable grounds to suspect of being guilty of it.
As you can see the word suspect or suspecting features quite a bit within the Police powers of arrest.
It doesn't necessarily mean that someone is going to be charged with Burglary, it just means they can be removed from the Street and held whilst enquiries are ongoing. Once they're satisfied they were innocent of any wrongdoing, they will be released, they're not charged and although are record will be kept of their detention these men will not have a criminal record.
The problem most of the readers of this thread will have is their perception of what is and isn't a Burglary.
It might surprise a few of you to learn that you don't have to steal anything to commit a Burglary - it is a matter of what your intention is when you enter a building. You can also commit a Burglary when entering a building to commit a Rape, Criminal Damage or Assault.
There are two parts to the Theft Act of 1968 that define the Offence of Burglary,
Section 9(1)a
and
Section 9(1)b
The definitions are below....
Section 9(1)(a) Theft Act 1968
A person is guilty of burglary if he enters any building or part of a building as a trespasser with intent to steal, inflict grievous bodily harm [or raping any person therein], or do unlawful damage to the building or anything in it.
Section 9(1)(b) Theft Act 1968
A person is guilty of burglary if, having entered a building or part of a building as a trespasser, he steals or attempts to steal anything in the building, or inflicts or attempts to inflict grievous bodily harm on any person in the building.
The 'Burglars' in this case have been arrested on suspicion of committing an offence under Section 9(1)(a) - they've entered a building or part of a building as a tresspasser. This part is easy to prove. The next part is more difficult, since thankfully we don't have thought Police, but the Officers suspect that they are there with an intention to steal or damage.
That is more than enough to arrest them. I'm sure a few will call the Police morons and idiots for actually doing their job, but hey that is water off a ducks back - we're here to prevent crime as well as detect it.
I must admit though I really do wish these TV Cop shows were banned - they're excrutiatingly awful and do seem to attract some complete, well I will be polite. I remember about 18 years ago my Boss came round and told us some TV company was thinking of doing a fly on the wall documentary at our Station (would have been one of the very first programs of its type) - we told him to get lost, we were there to Police rather than entertain.
Last edited:
They're Clow... ohhhhh.
Why is it? What people committing a crime to take pictures of an empty building?...
Silly me, of course the police should just take someones word at the scene of a crime... Taking someone back to the station to confirm all details is standard procedure if they have any concerns. They were lucky not to be charged with breaking and entering/tresspassing.
they let them go without charge though.
WHat exactly did they find out down the police station that they couldn't have found out by speaking to the lads and listening to them and doing some proper police work instead of acting the hardman for the cameras.
The thing is though with technology these days organised gangs can go into some empty building and photograph some old victorian fireplace or whatever with a view to selling it. Urbexing could be a fitting ruse.
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
Yes. Taking photographs of an area you plan to abuse is cutting edge technology.
They filled their backpacks with cameras, tripods and climbing gear with a view to leaving it all behind so they could fit some steel in there.
When i steal stuff, i always take my most valuable posessions with me.
They filled their backpacks with cameras, tripods and climbing gear with a view to leaving it all behind so they could fit some steel in there.
When i steal stuff, i always take my most valuable posessions with me.
Well I'm just saying that they could upload a photo to a buyer ?
Just because your Camera gear are your most valuable posessions dosent mean it is so for somebody else.
I was just being Devils advocate anyway.
Why is it? What people committing a crime to take pictures of an empty building?...
Silly me, of course the police should just take someones word at the scene of a crime... Taking someone back to the station to confirm all details is standard procedure if they have any concerns. They were lucky not to be charged with breaking and entering/tresspassing.
Except...
They weren't comitting a crime... (although I see why they were spoken to)
They didn't break and enter (at least by the look of the video and the eventual release) and trespassing isn't a criminal offence so they can't be arrested for it (at last until they are asked to leave and refuse).
Urbexing is obviously the front line of exposed photography, tiptoe-ing the thin line that post terrorism Britain has drawn for Photographers. If you do it, you should expect heat.
But, on the other hand, a little common sense can go a long way. If they were casing a joint, they wouldnt have bags and bags of gear. They'd have one camera, in and out quick. If they were stealing anything likely to be found on a building site, again, they'd be lightweight, not bogged down.
The whole thing could have been wrapped up without arrests. I suspect without a TV crew, it would have been.
But, on the other hand, a little common sense can go a long way. If they were casing a joint, they wouldnt have bags and bags of gear. They'd have one camera, in and out quick. If they were stealing anything likely to be found on a building site, again, they'd be lightweight, not bogged down.
The whole thing could have been wrapped up without arrests. I suspect without a TV crew, it would have been.
I agree with what you were saying and I just put forward a possible scenario however unlikely that it was.
When your talking £15200.00 for a fire place I wouldnt be suprised if some enterprising Criminals posed as amature photographers as a ploy.
You clearly see them breaking and entering at the start of the cctv, or is kicking the crap out of security fencing now fine to gain access to private property now fine? Perhaps I should take up suburbanexp'ing where I gain access to all your properties whilst you're out, for a nice bit of garden photography
I refer you to my answer a few posts up - specifically the definition of Burglary here in the UK.
Contrary to popular belief, you don't have to force entry by damaging a door etc., to commit a Burglary - the definition is quite clear - all you have to do is enter a building or part of a building as a trespasser. You can walk through an open door. If your intention before entering is to steal, commit GBH, Rape or to damage the building or anything inside, then you've committed a Burglary.
You are right in your assertion that Trespassing isn't a criminal offence - it is a civil offence and you would not be arrested by the Police for an Offence of Trespass.
You're completely wrong about what you said about not being arrested for Trespass 'at least until they are asked to leave and refuse' - no you will not - it is down to the Owner of the building to instigate civil proceedings, the Police do not arrest or prosecute for that offence.
As a Police Officer there is a reason I don't tell Plumbers/Electricians/Brain Surgeons etc., how to do their job - thats because I haven't got a bloody clue about what they do - I just wish the public would exercise similar restraint when they make up things / pontificate about my job....
You clearly see them breaking and entering at the start of the cctv, or is kicking the crap out of security fencing now fine to gain access to private property now fine? Perhaps I should take up suburbanexp'ing where I gain access to all your properties whilst you're out, for a nice bit of garden photography
Sorry I didn't see that no, I saw them doing exactly what the dog handler did... Push the fence to the side... If they are breaking anything to gain entry then that is against the "urbex code" as it were. The fact they were let off without charge would backup my suggestion that they didn't break anything.
I read that and that part of my post does not contradict yours, I'm not suggesting them being stopped or arrested on suspicion of burglary was wrong, and already assumed the intent to burgle was enough (in fact I have to question the intelligence of those that didn't realise). It was in direct response to the post I quoted as there was no intent to steal, which is why they were released without charge.
That's interesting about the latter though as having read a few urbex sites there are many times where police have been called by security after catching urbexers in derelict areas (for trespassing), I guess as usual its security guards not knowing the rules either.
Lastly where have I told you to do your job? Knowing the basics of your rights is something that should taught more in schools, much like the basics of plumbing. It helps you not break the law and know what your rights are if you do end up in contact withthe police/a business/busybody (just in case you have heavy handed officers "who have heard everything" to copy the programme). Its one of the reasons so many photographers carry that rights card round.
First part - fair enough - I really should work out what some people are replying to - you're correct, the intention part is always the difficult part to prove, its a state of mind - normally the only way to prove it is when someone has some shiny objects that don't belong to them in their pockets.
The trespassing part, definately will not be arrested for the civil offence of trespass. Theoretically you could be arrested for the offence of 'being found on enclosed premises' but that is a different offence altogether.
The last part of my post wasn't directly aimed at you Amp34 and I apologise if it gave that impression. You are correct, knowledge of rights should be taught since it will rein in those that try to ride roughshod over the law. It just annoys me that there sometimes seems to be an automatic assumption by some on these forums (particularly in GD) that the Police are just a bunch of complete f'wits with no brains and do not know how to do their job. I would love to get a few of them to walk a mile in my footsteps as the old saying goes.
Hope I haven't upset you
You clearly just see what you wish to.