Trespassing And Photography

RADDERS76

RADDERS76

Suspended / Banned
Messages
70
Name
PAUL
Edit My Images
Yes
There is some land by where I live, just off a busy main road with what looks like a couple of derelict buildings on and with no fencing or gates. The buildings look quite interesting from passing in the car. I have no idea who owns the land.

I'm tempted to park up tomorrow and take a few pics. Would you do the same?

Paul
 
Yes.......................but look for signs ect, if it is unfenced you should be fine. And what's the worse that could happen, a bit of a telling off.:)
 
Craig20264 said:
Where on earth did you get that snippet from. Not many farmers fields are fenced these days. It's still someones land!
Click to expand...

And quite clearly a farmers field will easily be identifiable from a piece of land with derelict buildings on.
 
If its all open and you can walk in, you are only trespassing at worst.
Be careful, take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints.
Be prepared to 'Get off my land' and to do so if requested to with charm.
 
Why not ask?
 
viv1969 said:
I think his point is, ask whom?
Click to expand...

Doh!

Have a look around for the nearest building/farm and ask who the owner is.

That was a hard one. :)
 
So good it had to be said twice...

:)
 
Depends on where you are: in England, trespass is a civil offence and the only action the owner can take (apart from politely asking you to leave) is to sue for damages if there are any. Some other places might involve either police or guns.
 
It's not as if you're breaking and entering. Just do it.

If worst comes to worst some shouty bloke might shout at you.
 
Be careful, if its derelict it may be in a dangerous state structurally, it may contain other hazards dependent on the previous use of the building, discarded syringes and needles etc. Assess the risks.
 
There is a house next to the field but I'm not sure it's the same land. I don't think it's a farm either. Looks like some land with a couple of run down buildings. Think I'll go and have a look tomorrow.

Could be a load of crap!

Paul
 
I was thinking about going up the shop earlier but I thought I better do a full health and safety assessment first.

Well, as you can imagine, the risk was completely unacceptable.

I'm starving, but I'm alive. I think.
 
The risks involved in travelling to the shop, is the price you pay to feed yourself. In much the same way as the risk of death in a motor vehicle incident is the price you pay for mobility, it's difficult to avoid risk, but it can be calculated and managed. In the early 90's I recall investigating an accident, a surveyor had entered a building alone to undertake a survey, Breaking a rule in place to prevent such actions. They were found dead the following day.
 
Definately go and have a look but dont move anything or cause any damage getting there, and be respectful if challenged and asked to leave, I would say do not bother the next door neighbour because they probably wont appreciate the bloke stood at the door with a bag full of camera gear asking questions and you probably will not have been the first to knock anyway.
 
I'd call to the house near the field and ask who owns the land, then visit the land owner once you've found out who it is. If the folks in the house don't know who the owner is, at least they won't be too concerned when they see you walking over the land with your gear.

What about 'right to roam', you may be fine just going.
 
john.margetts said:
Depends on where you are: in England, trespass is a civil offence and the only action the owner can take (apart from politely asking you to leave) is to sue for damages if there are any. Some other places might involve either police or guns.
Click to expand...

Unless it happens to be MOD land, or Crown.
Different kettle of fish then.
 
AS Nike says, "Just do it" (y):)
 
phildoug said:
The risks involved in travelling to the shop, is the price you pay to feed yourself. In much the same way as the risk of death in a motor vehicle incident is the price you pay for mobility, it's difficult to avoid risk, but it can be calculated and managed. In the early 90's I recall investigating an accident, a surveyor had entered a building alone to undertake a survey, Breaking a rule in place to prevent such actions. They were found dead the following day.
Click to expand...

So are you saying two surveyors should have entered the building? Surely that's twice the risk.

You also said they were found dead, so did one, two or more enter?
 
Last edited:
It's usual in such occupations not to enter derelict buildings or buildings in states of renovation disrepair alone etc. It's a lone worker situation which creates and additional element of risk. It's a typo with they, it was one person. I have known accidents including fatalities in lone worker situations like this. I recall an incident with an architect alone in a building obtaining last minute measurements fell through a floor to her death.

As the original post mentioned a building they clearly didn't know much about, It would be appropriate to conclude that entering without thought of hazards within could be a risk.

Peoples perception of risk differ greatly, for too many reasons to explain here. One example; I have just returned from the shops, while driving there I spotted a guy in his articulated lorry going round a bend using his mobile phone, he looked like he was texting someone. Not something I would do. But think on this; the driver of the lorry may be in the shop this afternoon picking up fruit and veg and healthy foods to reduce his chances of getting heart disease or some other form of ill health. But what is more likely to kill him? and why is he more interested in chronic risk than the acute, and statistically higher risk of being killed in a road traffic incident?

We all take our choices, but you can with knowledge make more informed choices on potential risk exposure. In contrast you could take every risk known to man and live to 100!

One other point to consider, and I only thought of this as I am currently renewing my photographic equipment insurance. With my cover (and I assume most policies) they exclude cover for shooting in what are hazardous locations (this is not defined exactly) Which could potentially apply in the original posters situation. Say you enter the roof falls in, you end up with a broken leg and that expensive camera and lens is smashed to pieces. It's doubtful the insurance company would pay out.
 
phildoug said:
It's usual in such occupations not to enter derelict buildings or buildings in states of renovation disrepair alone etc. It's a lone worker situation which creates and additional element of risk. It's a typo with they, it was one person. I have known accidents including fatalities in lone worker situations like this. I recall an incident with an architect alone in a building obtaining last minute measurements fell through a floor to her death.

As the original post mentioned a building they clearly didn't know much about, It would be appropriate to conclude that entering without thought of hazards within could be a risk.

Peoples perception of risk differ greatly, for too many reasons to explain here. One example; I have just returned from the shops, while driving there I spotted a guy in his articulated lorry going round a bend using his mobile phone, he looked like he was texting someone. Not something I would do. But think on this; the driver of the lorry may be in the shop this afternoon picking up fruit and veg and healthy foods to reduce his chances of getting heart disease or some other form of ill health. But what is more likely to kill him? and why is he more interested in chronic risk than the acute, and statistically higher risk of being killed in a road traffic incident?

We all take our choices, but you can with knowledge make more informed choices on potential risk exposure. In contrast you could take every risk known to man and live to 100!

One other point to consider, and I only thought of this as I am currently renewing my photographic equipment insurance. With my cover (and I assume most policies) they exclude cover for shooting in what are hazardous locations (this is not defined exactly) Which could potentially apply in the original posters situation. Say you enter the roof falls in, you end up with a broken leg and that expensive camera and lens is smashed to pieces. It's doubtful the insurance company would pay out.
Click to expand...
Excellent post. Or put another way. If it's not your land, or you dont have permission to be on it, keep off it!
 
Last edited:
There is a risk, whether the risk will be realised is anyone's guess, based on a range of factors unbeknown to us.

I am often alone taking photos of birds in the wild. It's up and out early, sometimes at least a mile or more from anyone else, I could be in the middle of a dense wood.

I have considered my personal health, i.e. If I have a known condition such as heart disease or history of seizures. Also alerting the wife (who is usually still in bed) as to my location, she also tracks me on GPS (problem in the woods!)

I consider what I do, climbing, being near water etc. Also the time I am out, e.g, it's not sensible to be out as the night draws in etc.

It also concerns me that I am likely carrying £1000's in kit, so I avoid people as much as possible. I would also avoid certain locations due to physical hazards or people.

So being out with the camera is not risk free.

If I were completely risk averse, It's doubtful bird photography would be a suitable hobby!

So no problem with risk, if you think it through first and apply sensible precautions.
 
phildoug said:
There is a risk, whether the risk will be realised is anyone's guess, based on a range of factors unbeknown to us.

I am often alone taking photos of birds in the wild. It's up and out early, sometimes at least a mile or more from anyone else, I could be in the middle of a dense wood.

I have considered my personal health, i.e. If I have a known condition such as heart disease or history of seizures. Also alerting the wife (who is usually still in bed) as to my location, she also tracks me on GPS (problem in the woods!)

I consider what I do, climbing, being near water etc. Also the time I am out, e.g, it's not sensible to be out as the night draws in etc.

It also concerns me that I am likely carrying £1000's in kit, so I avoid people as much as possible. I would also avoid certain locations due to physical hazards or people.

So being out with the camera is not risk free.

If I were completely risk averse, It's doubtful bird photography would be a suitable hobby!

So no problem with risk, if you think it through first and apply sensible precautions.
Click to expand...

You're right bundle of laughs. :LOL:
 
I am actually, but a bit of pertinent advice leads to informed decisions. Better to think; what if, not, if only.

Photography isn't risk free!

Believe me, in my job doom and gloom comes as standard! But with risk you need to tell it like it is.
 
Most of us do this assessment automatically it's part of our perceptual set (a tendency to perceive or notice some aspects of available sensory data and ignore others) so it's automatic.

You're less likely to get hit by a bus, as you indicate you don't do overly stupid things. That doesn't happen by chance. Conversely some people don't see the risk, for many different reasons. Just take a trip to the Middle East, China, India etc these location causal factors are (among other things) cultural.

Do remember that people get used to risk (driving a car!) say when the see the same risk everyday, and take the risk and there is no negative outcome or no obvious short term effect e.g. Smoking, drugs and alcohol.

If you ever get over familiar with the risks you face, then the risks to you personally increase.

Risk is a massive (and important) subject! You guys got me started......
 
john.margetts said:
Depends on where you are: in England, trespass is a civil offence and the only action the owner can take (apart from politely asking you to leave) is to sue for damages if there are any. Some other places might involve either police or guns.
Click to expand...
Some places in England would also involve guns too, especially farmers fields! And they could do more than "ask you politely to leave" - a landowner can use reasonable force in defence of his property, so depending on the circumstances, bear that in mind :)

I'd certainly be accompanied by one of my rifles if I saw someone skulking around my fields late at night :), and I'm not even a farmer!

It's worth asking permission and trying to find out who's land it is as you don't know what you might be walking into.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top