# London Standard with it's low level of journalism



## PaulPowers (Nov 10, 2011)

Looks like the london standard has an issuewith urban exploration.

I don't know anyone involved with exploration that would break in somewhere.

thisislondon.co.uk

this type of article really gets under my skin


----------



## Dextersdad (Nov 10, 2011)

Dont let them get under your skin I am a member of the air gun community and that articals nowt compaired to what we get.


----------



## Priority 7 (Nov 10, 2011)

While I agree it could be tainted with sensationalist journalism. The UEer interviewed openly admitted breaking in:



> "Where we need to pick a lock or disable security systems, we always put it back the way it was."



Whats worse is they have a special constable in the group...sorry this article tainted or not is not helping us with their open admission of "breaking in". Just my opinion.


----------



## Els (Nov 10, 2011)

No one is breaking and entering except the pikes, who more often than not forge a path for us.

The article is just a typical piece of sensationalistic rubbish best ignored. It's full of misinformation and misquotes.


----------



## godzilla73 (Nov 10, 2011)

I can't believe that the ES is that short of news! Whatever next? "Berlusconi: My life on the run from the West Park secca" or "James Murdoch denies claims that NOTW hacked Corsham yonks ago" perhaps.......


----------



## PaulPowers (Nov 10, 2011)

the sad part is climbing out of a manhole or culvert I often get stopped by interested members of the public, now if someone reads this type of trash I'm going to get pulled out by the long arm of the law


----------



## Pincheck (Nov 10, 2011)

Yes well sorry but you have to be dumb to speak to the press regardless And the article just proves it !


----------



## highcannons (Nov 10, 2011)

As a motorcyclist of long standing an an old git I can remember when bikers were given this treatment, and there were always 'bikers' ready to be interviewed and confirm the publics worse fears! A bit of make believe by the journalist or a wannabe biker doesn't make any difference.

You will drive yourself nuts worrying about this stuff, ignore it best you can and sooner or later they will pick on someone else to bully.

If you can do something about it don't bitch - do it. If not don't worry


----------



## cogito (Nov 10, 2011)

Bit of a tangent but I welcome the day where we live in a British society that adopts similar attitudes towards UE that the Aussies seem to have. Cave Clan being widely known about helped massively on that front, with members of the public being more intrigued and friendly towards explorers rather than baffled and instantly dismissive of activities they don't understand like we have in the UK.

The article could be a lot, lot worse; but it doesn't help that there are several inaccuracies (Mr Garret was in the USA at the time they say he was arrested in London! for example) and the obvious, and I presume deliberate on the reporters part, misquote regarding breaking and entering. That part has caused the most controversy.


----------



## UrbanX (Nov 11, 2011)

Pincheck said:


> Yes well sorry but you have to be dumb to speak to the press regardless And the article just proves it !



I REALLY want to disagree with you as I've done it. BUT... I get so sick of this sensationalism about "Breaking in" it mentions it god knows how many times in a short article, makes me sick. I'm not saying they're squeeky clean, but :I wonder if the subjects of the article are upset at how it's worded? 

Oh, and Hats off to Paul Powers and Urbex-SW for actually commenting on the article with some actual sense.


----------



## UEP-Wales (Nov 11, 2011)

I have to be honest, I wouldn't mind speaking to the press and taking them out for a day. Would probably scare the hell out of most of them.

My personal view on Urbexers breaking in to places is that they are just thieves with cameras. These people have probably seen stuff on the website and thought it would make a good cover story if they were ever stopped.
I have found it hard at some sites that I have not posted because of my age. They look at me and think I am just another kid causing trouble but that's not why I go to these places.
I go because my kids will probably never see the places that I have gone to, I go because it's better than sitting at home doing nothing, it's great to see the places that people once stood, worked, lived in. The amount of history that is in these places is mental and if it wasn't for us going in and taking photo's off it all, nobody would ever know.

Anyway's, Im actually off out now to do a little Urbex work


----------



## mookster (Nov 11, 2011)

Els said:


> No one is breaking and entering except the pikes, who more often than not forge a path for us.
> 
> The article is just a typical piece of sensationalistic rubbish best ignored. It's full of misinformation and misquotes.



Lol.

Ignoring the fact the 'crew' in question is heading to court today?


----------



## krela (Nov 11, 2011)

It is basically true that the biggest "crew" in urbex does exactly what they've reported.

Yes the article has been sensationalised but that's what the press do, don't shoot the messenger...


----------



## Pincheck (Nov 11, 2011)

UrbanX said:


> I REALLY want to disagree with you as I've done it. BUT... I get so sick of this sensationalism about "Breaking in" it mentions it god knows how many times in a short article, makes me sick. I'm not saying they're squeeky clean, but :I wonder if the subjects of the article are upset at how it's worded?
> 
> Oh, and Hats off to Paul Powers and Urbex-SW for actually commenting on the article with some actual sense.



I too have had a personal dealing with reporters and would want nothing to do with them. My view is to get in and leave places with no fuss or Drama. I would have nothing to do with this type of self proclaiming "*look At me*" Type of explore


----------



## PaulPowers (Nov 11, 2011)

I have been contacted by the press in the past where they tried to use the line that we should be glad of the exposure, I really don't want any exposure and would be happy heading down drains and mines without the press making everyone look like the minority that does break the law


----------



## UrbanX (Nov 11, 2011)

This is always going to be a lively debate in our community.

If they want to do an article on it they will. To play Devils Advocate: if Paul, or any other sensible, intelligent explorer had spoken to them, maybe they wouldn't have interviewed someone who wants to tell the world that Urbex is all about lock picking or b******g in?


----------



## smiler (Nov 11, 2011)

I personal didn’t like to read that folk who as I do get a buzz out of exploring places where we have no legal right to be saying that they use lock-picks and are capable of disabling security systems and then reset them when they leave. I don’t personally know any of this crew but I feel there is a fair bit of egotism in their press briefing giving the reporters and sub-editors free rain to sensationalise the story.

Rant Over.


----------



## Foxylady (Nov 12, 2011)

I must admit that I did an interview with my local paper about 4 years ago, after contacting them about some info on Seaton Heights Hotel that they'd written about. It was okay, nothing controversial...just an item about a local personal's hobby. I really liked UrbanX's interview on radio, but I think it pays to be wary. For instance, in my interview the reporter got a few things wrong...again, nothing horrendous...but they do have an agenda and will write from their point of view and not always just the facts.


----------



## GE066 (Nov 15, 2011)

Are people really getting upset by a paper owned by the Daily Fail? It's sensationalist tabloid cobblers. Brad gets his kicks winding up the press and authorities. The Fail get their get kicks by making out that anyone who isn't married with 2.4 kids and attends church (but defo not a mosque) on sundays is some kind of freak outlaw.

A lot of places wouldn't be accessible without someone doing a bit of b&e or losing a padlock. Whether thieves (pikies is a racist term used to demonise gypsies), local kids chucking stones through windows, or explorers. I'm sure half the people on this site have been and enjoyed say West Park for example. All those buildings were originally secure, so who do you think opened them? Security? The owners? We only explore Derps mostly, not cash & carry warehouses or mobile phone factories.

The article mentions 'breaking into drains'. I've done a fair bit of London drains and never had to break in, nor has anyone else I know of. Most of the places i've done haven't involved any breaking in, and thankfully others did it for me where needed. I think people are getting upset and overly worrying about an article in a very biased tabloid. 

TBH, what I find offensive is the explorers who've decided to squabble on the comments section. Embarrassing all of us that indulge in this hobby.

Chill!

p.s. The Daily Fail HQ is currently covered in scaff, it's a nice little explore


----------



## UEP-Wales (Nov 15, 2011)

GE066 said:


> TBH, what I find offensive is the explorers who've decided to squabble on the comments section. Embarrassing all of us that indulge in this hobby.



Wasn't aware that I was squabbling but good to know. At the end of the day, there is a fine line between trespassing and breaking in to somewhere. 

If you are breaking into buildings, your just part of the reason that they are in the state that they are in now. There are loads of places I would love to go and see and although I am very capable of putting a window through, picking a lock, hacking into CCTV in some circumstances - why bother? To take a photograph? Well worth the risk of getting arrested and charged isn't it!

I love going into derelict sites, love taking the photographs but would never take such a stupid risk when lets face it, somebody will do it for you eventually!


----------



## PaulPowers (Nov 15, 2011)

same thing was covered and argued over at 28DL, but I'm pretty sure you know that.


----------



## GE066 (Nov 15, 2011)

Urbex-SW said:


> If you are breaking into buildings, your just part of the reason that they are in the state that they are in now.





Urbex-SW said:


> I love going into derelict sites



You appear to be contradicting yourself


----------



## UEP-Wales (Nov 15, 2011)

GE066 said:


> You appear to be contradicting yourself



Hmm don't see how?

I love going into them but not once have I needed to break into them or pick a lock


----------



## GE066 (Nov 15, 2011)

PaulPowers said:


> same thing was covered and argued over at 28DL, but I'm pretty sure you know that.



Nope, I've just got back from an exploring road trip in the South East Balkans on Monday (see future post on this site). I also don't have any interest in 28DL going's on. I just post/visit here.

If you're so against crime in the urbex world, it's seems strange you openly associate yourself with 28DL. Because it's well known that the reason that site was set up was so noobs would show off places on there, and the Admin team would go and have a 'yoinkfest' of anywhere interesting and chuck it on ebay before anyone else saw it. Talk about double standards.


----------



## GE066 (Nov 16, 2011)

Urbex-SW said:


> Hmm don't see how?
> 
> I love going into them but not once have I needed to break into them or pick a lock



But you'll happily let others do it for you though? Or did security open a door for you to get into the welsh hospital you did, just as an example. Because it looks like the owners boarded the place up and secured it to prevent people getting in going by your photos.


----------



## PaulPowers (Nov 16, 2011)

Strange your website says you also visit UER


----------



## UEP-Wales (Nov 16, 2011)

GE066 said:


> But you'll happily let others do it for you though? Or did security open a door for you to get into the welsh hospital you did, just as an example. Because it looks like the owners boarded the place up and secured it to prevent people getting in going by your photos.



Where have I ever said I have got into a building at talgarth? The pictures say "Inside Talgarth Hospital" which they are by putting the camera on timer, on the tripod through a broken window - a window that was already broken.

I would love it if you could explain how I am letting others break in for me. What the hell am I supposed to do....stand at every derelict site in the world and stop people from going in? Personally I think your taking this a little too far and making it a little more personal than anything now. 

Your picking on stuff that myself and Paul have said direct to the press via their comments board and now questioning the method of my photos. 

Would you also like me to explain how I entered 99% of the flats at Billy Banks? 

Also, just incase you throw the same question at me regarding the tax payers paying to get me out of a site if needed. It's my choice to enter the site, it will be my job to get myself out. Should it not be possible, ah well, life insurance goes to my family anyway to set them up for life. 

This thread is just going to go around and around and you obviously feel that breaking into places is a good thing and that is your choice. Each to their own and all that but as I said earlier, I do not break in and nor do I allow people to break in. I will use the entrances that they make and if possible, I will conceal the entrance too in the attempt to make it harder for others to gain entrance that are just their to cause trouble.

No wonder why security and land owners give honest UEs a bloody hard time


----------



## GE066 (Nov 16, 2011)

I'm pointing out the non-nonsensicalness of your comments and the way the press report things. If you have internal shots of a hospital, the press (like I have) can imply you broke in. That's how the press work, especially tabloids. That would make you no better than the so called LCC people in the eyes of Joe Public. I'm playing devil's advocate with you and Paul. I'm merely pointing out that no one is whiter than white in the UE game and that the tabloids can twist things to their agenda. 

Equally, because one person is hellbent on pushing things as far as possible before doing porridge, and another is looking to wind up the authorities/public until a point where if they get caught they'll likely be deported. That's their lookout. Not all black people are drug dealers, not all gypsies are thieves, not all single mums sit on the couch all day with 20 Bensons. If you think the actions of a couple of people represent everyone in a scene/racial group/social group etc. I imagine you believe everything you read in the gutter press. I'd like to think you and the majority of the public were a bit smarter than that.




Urbex-SW said:


> No wonder why security and land owners give honest UEs a bloody hard time



They give you a hard time because you're trespassing on their land when you shouldn't be! That's why they give you a hard time. If you want to avoid getting a hard time, ask for permission from the land owner. Equally If you go shopping in Tesco in the nude, you can also expect to get a hard time, because you shouldn't be doing it.

Also, the Mods may disagree, but this site isn't about UE, it's about documenting decay (which may involve UE). This is why I don't put up more pure UE stuff on here (or even GE). I could put up skyscrapers, metro stuff or bridges etc, but I don't feel they fit here.

p.s. PP, uer.ca is a Canadian website with no more than a handful of UK members.


----------



## krela (Nov 16, 2011)

GE066 said:


> Also, the Mods may disagree, but this site isn't about UE, it's about documenting decay (which may involve UE).



Oh I agree, you're quite right. I also agree with everything else you've said.


----------



## UEP-Wales (Nov 16, 2011)

GE066 said:


> I'm pointing out the non-nonsensicalness of your comments and the way the press report things. If you have internal shots of a hospital, the press (like I have) can imply you broke in. That's how the press work, especially tabloids. That would make you no better than the so called LCC people in the eyes of Joe Public. I'm playing devil's advocate with you and Paul. I'm merely pointing out that no one is whiter than white in the UE game and that the tabloids can twist things to their agenda.
> 
> Equally, because one person is hellbent on pushing things as far as possible before doing porridge, and another is looking to wind up the authorities/public until a point where if they get caught they'll likely be deported. That's their lookout. Not all black people are drug dealers, not all gypsies are thieves, not all single mums sit on the couch all day with 20 Bensons. If you think the actions of a couple of people represent everyone in a scene/racial group/social group etc. I imagine you believe everything you read in the gutter press. I'd like to think you and the majority of the public were a bit smarter than that.
> 
> ...



I agree that the press are a pain at the best of times and they do twist things to fit the story line that they want to run and I don't believe half of the stuff that they print. I also agree that they are quite capable of saying that I broke into the hospital to take a photo but that is something that I can easily deal with should that happen.

What I'm getting at is that people do pay attention to the press. Would you walk onto a gypsy site and feel safe? Probably not and thats because the press normally report them as dangerous people. 99% of the time, they are nice people.

When I have asked permission before, Land owners still refuse in most cases because they know that it is just attracting more and more people to the site. I wouldn't report somewhere that was untouched - not on a public website. 

As I said this is just going to go around and around and we are entitled to our own views and opinions on the matter of photographers breaking into buildings to get that shot.


----------



## GE066 (Nov 16, 2011)

Urbex-SW said:


> As I said this is just going to go around and around and we are entitled to our own views and opinions on the matter of photographers breaking into buildings to get that shot.



Indeed, this is what a forum is for. Sharing views and opinions, otherwise it'd be a bit dull.

You and others shared your opinions on a site read by cerebrally challenged people, sorry, Daily Fail/Chelsea Times readers criticising others partaking UE activities. I'm merely highlighting that the press could say the same about you. Although sensibly you haven't gone around saying you break into places. The Press could still imply you have, and you have no defence to prove you didn't smash the window to get your picture. 

It would be better if people that care about UE didn't comment on trashy tabloid crap imho. They're always going to sex this stuff up to fill column space on a slow news day. Whether it's 'Urbex thieves smash up Welsh Hospital' or 'Urbex idiot climbs tall tower' etc etc. You merely give them and their readers more ammunition and make out your holier than thou, which is dangerous territory.


----------



## highcannons (Nov 16, 2011)

JEEEEEZZZ! We don't need some naff newspaper to upset us ....we seem to be griping amongst ourselves quite well without them. Give it a break chaps!


----------



## Derelict-UK (Nov 16, 2011)

Everyone needs to take a chillax pill when it comes to the press. Unless the Daily Mail starts some kind of campaign to change the trespass law, it will never effect the day to day exploring life.


----------



## UrbanX (Nov 16, 2011)

Does anyone know the guy in the article, or more importantly his thoughts on how the article was written?


----------



## krela (Nov 16, 2011)

Steady on folks.

It's the Daily Mail, their opinions are only vaguely more valid than the Sport. If it were the Guardian or Telegraph I'd be more concerned, but the Daily Mail make their living from generating moral outrage in pensioners.

It's really not important, and I agree that the comments on that article are worse than the article itself. It doesn't do anyone any favours.


----------



## sYnc_below (Nov 16, 2011)

UrbanX said:


> Does anyone know the guy in the article, or more importantly his thoughts on how the article was written?



He's a media whore, his name is in the press (again) so I suspect his ego is suitably massaged for the short term.


----------



## krela (Nov 16, 2011)

Enough of the politics and name calling now. That's not what this forum is about.

Lead by example, not petty argument.


----------

