(Il)legalities

[Airaux1]

There's been a growing disagreement between Urbexers and anti-urbexers as to the (il)legalities of Urbexing. The former point out the harmlessness of the activity and the latter call them nuisances, trespassers and problem-causers.
Then there's the case of buildings which are in a severe state of ruin - possibly even going to be demolished - and people doing damaging to them.
In both these cases, I'd say no significant harm is being done, even if both are technically illegal.

 

[Shaun]

There's been a growing disagreement between Urbexers and anti-urbexers as to the (il)legalities of Urbexing. The former point out the harmlessness of the activity and the latter call them nuisances, trespassers and problem-causers.
Then there's the case of buildings which are in a severe state of ruin - possibly even going to be demolished - and people doing damaging to them.
In both these cases, I'd say no significant harm is being done, even if both are technically illegal.

Not again... Criminal damage is criminal damage, civil trespass is civil trespass unless its breach of the peace or agrivated trespass its not entirely illegal (you can get the police detaining you using the enclosed premises act) but that's not often
No matter what state a building is in criminal damage is still illegal and wrong.
Pleast fact correct me if I've said anything wrong!

 

[mookster]

Oh god here we go again.

Didn't you get the message the first time, or are you just a troll?

 

[Bugsuperstar]

There's been a growing disagreement between Urbexers and anti-urbexers as to the (il)legalities of Urbexing. The former point out the harmlessness of the activity and the latter call them nuisances, trespassers and problem-causers.
Then there's the case of buildings which are in a severe state of ruin - possibly even going to be demolished - and people doing damaging to them.
In both these cases, I'd say no significant harm is being done, even if both are technically illegal.

Can you please back up your statements with facts or examples?

- where is this “growing disagreement” exhibited?
- who is calling who? When and why?

Surely damaging any property in any state of decay/dereliction is unacceptable?

Some context would be interesting. The reason I ask is if you give no context or reason for starting another thread on this topic then surely it’s a completely pointless thread and conversation?

 

[Lord Oort]

There's been a growing disagreement between Urbexers and anti-urbexers as to the (il)legalities of Urbexing. The former point out the harmlessness of the activity and the latter call them nuisances, trespassers and problem-causers.
Then there's the case of buildings which are in a severe state of ruin - possibly even going to be demolished - and people doing damaging to them.
In both these cases, I'd say no significant harm is being done, even if both are technically illegal.

Congrats you hold the same view as nearly every serious explorer on this forum.

Do you feel all warm and fuzzy now?