Talk:Urban exploration/Archive 2

message: In the UK Urbex has been recieving ALOT of media attention, Especially www.28dayslater.co.uk - In fact they have a forum dedicated to news articles regarding Urbex. It should also be noted, Most of the media attention is sensationalist and incorrect.
Also, There is a craze in "Crane Exploration", Once again highlighted by www.28dayslater.co.uk - I feel this should be noted in the wiki article. 86.18.1.196 16:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree : 'Craning' is now a recognised sub-category of UE and should be featured within this page BenFairless (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs updating regarding Media Attention, And Crane Exploration 

message: You should initiate discussion before making drastic and controversial edits, that were accepted by other editors through a consensus.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that you were adding in your own link indicates you have an agenda. Good try.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Please explain why you removed the majority of the links and added your personal site? Abandoned clearly works, but a change only a day ago over a dispute with a former host forced the redirect from the .com to the .net address to fail. I'm sorry I don't spend more time on Wikipedia; that's what other editors are for :)  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link edit controversy 

message: As some urbexers may be aware, legality of our hobby is a bit .. how's it going.  Further, two people died in Lurline Bay ('The Fortress') the other day and one almost died.  First on the subject of legality, after extensive communication with Sydney Water and the New South Wales Police on the matter, I've found that the majority of charges in relation to urban exploration have been 'malicious damage to public property'.  If something is deemed public property in caselaw then the ability to charge with 'trespass to private property' is negated.  Which, in strictly legal terms, means that you are not trespassing.
Secondly, in relation to the Lurline Bay incident.  I brought it to the attention of Randwick Council and the Police that their answer to 'look into ways to secure the drain' was inappropriate and given that the majority of manholes and gutterboxes to that network have been tacked shut with a welder, it could easily be said that Sydney Waters attempt to 'secure' the drain is the reason that two people died, and urban explorers attempt to break into the drain by bending the bar at the end many aeons ago which the third (lucky) person was ejected through in the flash flood is the only reason it's not three fatalaties we're dealing with.
I have been in contact with a group called The Tunnel Rats who will be assisting me in making representations to the state coroner on the issue.  Given the eggshell skull principle and the fact it is reasonably foreseeable that people WILL access the drain, sealing all potential emergency exits amounts to negligence which in this instance occasioned death.  The idiocy, culpability, assumed risk, et cetera, of the people who went in there is clearly not negated by any court within the Westminster legal system by the fact that all the exits were welded shut.
One equivilent that could be put forth is, if you are the owner of a .. derelict movie theatre on a block of land, and decided to reverse the firedoors push-to-exit system (let's face it, a claw hammer breaks a weld to get in, but from underground getting out nothing would break those welds) and people get trapped within your property and it burns down, you are entirely culpable with a non-delegable duty of care to provide an exit to those people even if they are breaking the law.  This is the grounds that many people bitch about 'a burgler fell on my property and sued me', however it is NOT that simple, there has to be negligent action on behalf of the owner, so if the burgler fell, but only fell because the owner had a pit trap full of punji spikes, then yes, the owner WILL be found negligent.
Just thought I'd give you guys a bit of an update on these two pressing issues.  Jachin (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Legality in Australia and the Lurline Bay incident.

message: I was thinking about slowly editing the article to see if we could add more references into the article and also to better describe each section.  I had been reading each section and a couple just seem too vague and leave themselves up to the reader's interpretation of what it is.  I've also been thinking that it has been this point that has caused some of the troubles over the idea of illegality.  I want to differentiate various points to leave the reader no doubt that this hobby is not all about illegal activities, but leave the reader with the knowledge that this hobby is world wide and thus cannot be pigeonholed into one thing or another.  
I would like to hear your thoughts about making the article better.  Maybe even making it a FA status article?  What are your thoughts?  Brothejr (talk) 12:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Then again, this might just have to be put on hold until the admin's stop fighting!  This cannot go forward until we are able to access the article.  Brothejr (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

text: You also need a plan to address the fact that the main reference is not verifiable and anything from it will have to be removed whne protection is lifted. pschemp | talk 12:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Standing back a bit, it should also be noted that you seem to have a personal thing about this too, and the same things you leveled against Seicer can be leveled against you.  Instead of telling us that it is us that should be primarily doing the work/fixing the article.  Maybe you and PLW can actually come up with some fixes.  First off, the ref's he provided were great for the Trespassing article, but mentioned nothing about Urban Exploring or Draining (That PLW is so passionate about!).  Also, he has yet to provide ref's to back up his statement that Urban Exploring is a drain on tax payers.  Instead he has told us that it is the other editors who have to back up our statements and also do the editing of the article.  His statements have shown, he is not interested in making the article better as much as pointing out things he disagrees with and expecting others to do the work.  He has primarily been the one to edit war and you seem to be backing him up and keeping others from working on the article until they see your point.  If this protection issue/war is not resolved then another third party admin might need to step in.  Brothejr (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never edited the article, nor edit warred over it, therefore I am not an involved party. My personal concern is that you settle the dispute. Instead, you and Seicer have ignored references given, not provided any of your own and not even tried to come up with a solution. Neither has Papa Lime Whiskey written a proposal either. That's why the page is still protected, because you have made no progress whatsoever. No consensus on this page was reached to lift protection, and no promises not to edit war were given either. Talk to whomever you want, but I am following the policy and they will confirm that. Instead of complaining about the protection, (or in the case of Seicer quite underhandedly and without even asking me lifting the protection when he was in the edit war to begin with) you should be proposing a solution. Please try it. pschemp | talk 15:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, you are an involved party for the simple fact you protected the article and continue to push your point.  The reason the the protection was removed was because the people who put up the POV tag argument never could prove their point.  They have been given more then a week to prove their argument with ref's that say urban exploration is illegal and that this hobby is a drain on tax payers.  They could not prove their statements.  Thus there is no argument or need of a consensus.  Now if they/you come up with ref's that directly say UE is illegal and also ref's that prove that it is a drain on the tax payers, then we would be more then happy to add it into the article.  As of right now PLW and you are making a POV argument.  Brothejr (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Ignored the references given? Did you even bother to read the discussion above? The above sources make no mention of urban exploration being a financial burden on the owners. Or that urban exploration is an illicit activity. Trespassing is illegal, so is breaking and entering, but urban exploration != trespassing != breaking and entering. You seemed to have missed the connections. seicer | talk | contribs 16:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slowly Editing 

message: Per this article --
I've done some news article searches (no access to NewsBank here at the moment) and came across numerous articles mentioning Inflitration and Access All Areas. Should this be considered a first-rate source, given its publisher, Jeff Chapman? seicer | talk | contribs 19:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With that... note the addition. I'm sure more can be added on, but feel free to work with that. seicer | talk | contribs 19:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't know if it would be good to single out one death (individual) in this case, but it should be noted there are risk (I think this is covered?). seicer | talk | contribs 16:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I removed the two UER ref's as they have been causing credibility issues for the article.  I think we can find more reliable ref's to put there instead of forums!  Brothejr (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Referencing Inflitration 

message: Within the UK many owners or caretakers of abandoned or under used property are obliged to provide "reasonable" security to ensure that no-one can easily enter the property. The reason is not because entry is necessarily illegal but because an insurer has identified some degree of risk. The provision of guards, dog, CCTV cameras etc. is a cheaper option in many cases than paying the insurance claims of someone who easily enters a property and injures themselves. The law in the UK looks at whether a defendant in such a case has made "reasonable" preparations to prevent entry and injury; if not the owner or the insurer is held liable to pay compensation to the person injured.
The provision of security (in the UK) does not therefore indicate illegality as such; only a defense against claims of this nature. My previous job for the UK government brought me into contact with this environment and I can say that the only area where the legalities were fairly clear was in the area of drinking water provision. If anyone was found trespassing at a service (last stage before the tap) reservoir they could be arrested under citizen's arrest by employees or under Prevention of Terrorism legislation by the police.
I can't really see that anything still remaining in this article to date (24 June 2008) really encourages strictly "illegal" activity any more than other activities such as BASE jumping, Free Running (Le Parkour)or even skateboarding in a private or public owned area. All of these have the potential to become issues of trespass or illegality but it isn't their raison d'etre.
Spike (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can get a ref or two that could back that up, then we could also add that to the article as another view point/angle on the legality/illegality of UE.  Brothejr (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

text: That's what I've been mentioning above, and what others, like Brothejr, have come to a consensus towards. Urban exploration is not per se trespassing or breaking and entering, and there is nothing that alludes to this activity being strictly illegal. That said, it's good to hear some feedback from the UK on this -- especially in regards to the obligation towards providing basic security at the property. It's much different here in the states, where the liability often lies with the trespasser (although there are exceptions). Echoing the comment above, if we can get a citation for this, it would be fantastic. seicer | talk | contribs 23:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for security measures, guard dogs etc.