Slashdot Mirror


4 UK Urban Explorers Face Orders Not To Talk With Each Other For 10 Years

First time accepted submitter Trapezium Artist writes "Four friends apprehended exploring the disused Aldwych station in London's Underground are faced with an 'anti-social behaviour order' (ASBO) which would forbid them from talking to each other for a full 10 years. The so-called 'Aldwych four,' experienced urban explorers, were discovered in the tunnels under the UK's capital city a few days before last year's royal wedding and the greatly increased security measures in place led to their being interviewed by senior members of the British Transport Police. Nevertheless, once their benign intentions had been established, they were let off with a caution. However, following an accident caused by another, unrelated group of urban explorers in the tunnels a few months later, Transport for London applied to have ASBOs issued to the Aldwych four. These would forbid them from any further expeditions, from blogging or otherwise publicly discussing any exploits, and even from talking with each other for the 10 year duration of the order. One could argue about the ethics of urban exploration, but this nevertheless seems like an astonishingly heavy-handed over-reaction by TfL."

25 of 387 comments (clear)

  1. So it's like a restraining order for friends? by mykos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't think anyone has been told who they can and can't be friends with since they were about 10. Now the government gets to decide? Alan Moore is a prophet.

    1. Re:So it's like a restraining order for friends? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not married I take it ;p

    2. Re:So it's like a restraining order for friends? by jimicus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The point of an ASBO is that magistrates can basically make up a law on the spot and announce that it applies to just a few people.

      In theory, it's meant to deal with small numbers - maybe as few as one - of people that are known to cause trouble by making it illegal for them to do things that would normally be perfectly OK because most people would be able to apply some common sense - but in their case aren't. Essentially it gives some flexibility when you've got someone who's discovered a way of persistently annoying people but can usually stay on the right side of the law. The BBC picked up some good examples a few years ago.

      Critics have pointed out that it's absolutely ripe for abuse.

    3. Re:So it's like a restraining order for friends? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They now appear to be using asbos on repeat offenders of actual crime to strengthen the punishments available. There is a repeat offender from London who travels to Scotland to steal the eggs of protected birds, he now has an asbo preventing him from travelling to Scotland during hatching season.

      IIRC the asbo increase the maximum sentence for egg theft (6 months) to 5 years.

    4. Re:So it's like a restraining order for friends? by karlandtanya · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sounds more like a bill of attainder.

      This kind of thing is a serious hazard to liberty (remember when that word didn't mark the speaker as a crackpot? wasn't so long ago). The law only applies to a few of us. So there is no outcry. Nibble, nibble, nible, oops--all your freedoms are gone! We didn't wait for amendments to prohibit this one. It's in Article I, sec IX. It took almost 90 years and a civil war for us to figure out that freedom applies to everyone or no-one. Even those members of society we don't like.

      Good to know thing that sort of thing can never happen here.
      Again.

      --
      "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
    5. Re:So it's like a restraining order for friends? by JoeMerchant · · Score: 5, Insightful
  2. No. by Jmanamj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I swear to God. This is the premise for a fiction/science fiction novel. If two of the 4 were developing romantic feelings for each other the UK could be sued for copyright infringement by several publishers. I dont...I dont think I'm OK with the world right now. I need a hug. Before that's banned too.

  3. Re:They can't discuss at all, or just in the UK? by alienzed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, like, another country.

    --
    Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
  4. ASBOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Seriously folks, you have to Google them.
    One basic summary of them is that you can issue an ASBO to stop someone from doing something *that isn't a crime*, if they then break the order, then *that is a crime* and you can arrest and jail them.

    1. Re:ASBOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So do you let it go on, or do the authorities have something to do?

      Something that isn't illegal? You let it go on, obviously! Until there is a law that makes these things illegal, free people doing legal things should tell the police to fuck off, and not apologize. If they want to step it up, they should press charges against the police who is trying to interfere with legal activities for arbitrary acts by the authorities. WTF is wrong with people that this even needs explaining?

  5. Re:Are they serious? by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's almost as if Transport for London were engaged in.... anti-social behaviour.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  6. Re:Unenforceable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You incarcerate them when you catch them breaking the ruling. ASBOs are a huge end-run around due process, being civil orders that are written with the intention that they'll be broken so that criminal penalties can be applied.

    I remember this government admitting that ASBOs didn't work and promising to do something about them, but nothing seems to have changed.

  7. Re:This is not how ASBOs are meant to be used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You confuse two things here

    a. The publicly stated reason for the introduction of the ASBO, "antisocial control"
    b. The true intended function - a device for making the legal, illegal, and therefore actionable...

    It was never about anything other than giving them a legal device to criminalise non-criminal behaviour, to be used as and when they required. Having it on the statute books for so long unchallenged also gives them a precedent.

  8. Re:Unenforceable? by Nursie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is why the ASBO is and has always been a foul addition to British law.

    Someon is doing something not illegal, but deemed anti-social, they can be issued with an anti-social-behaviour-order to constrain their activities. Even if the order tries to stop them doing something completely legal, they can be fined or imprisoned fro breaking it. It's a horrific abuse of the law, I just hope that sooner or later someone takes this through to the ECHR and gets the whole ASBO scheme shut down.

    Someone asked me the other day about why I hated the labour party in the UK. That ASBOs were introduced on their watch is something I forgot at the time, it'll be in there next time someone asks me.

  9. Re:Unenforceable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's still breaking and entering. Call it urban exploring or whatever, but tresspassing is still illegal.

    And the punishment should fit the crime.
    They could have tried them, they chose to only issue a warning. Attempting to upgrade the penalties without filing additional charges is not justice.

  10. check out their site by dr_blurb · · Score: 5, Informative

    Check out their site: silentuk, very cool pictures there.

    Here are the Aldwych station pictures

  11. Re:Unenforceable? by blackest_k · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's still breaking and entering. Call it urban exploring or whatever, but tresspassing is still illegal.

    If there was any breaking involved then it might be, but if they didn't break in then it generally isn't.

    In London there are a large numbers of squatters occupying various empty buildings. While it is illegal to break in. it isn't illegal to enter and live there if the building isn't secure. They can even install their own locks. Yes an owner can apply to the court to remove squatters but until the court issues an order they can stay. I believe that if someone occupies a place for five years then they can even get ownership (take that with a pinch of salt).

    Asbo's on the other hand do not need a law to be broken to be applied for and granted. Currently there are Asbo's being served on homeless people in order to be able to remove them from central london in time for the olympic games later this year, (this I know from a lawyer trying to represent one of said homeless people).

  12. Their only crime was curiosity (psych!) by billcopc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a kid, what is now called "urban exploration" was a treasured hobby. Living in a big, boring government city, we'd ride our bikes far and wide in search of interesting areas and abandoned buildings. And by "we", I mean about half the kids my age. We'd venture out in groups, anywhere from two to ten of us, exploring all sorts of out-of-view places like unmanned water supply hubs, underground walkways, decommissioned train stations and the abandoned warehouses. The worst thing we ever encountered were a pair of crackheads who threatened to steal our bikes. So they got their asses beat by a pack of little kids with rocks and sticks :)

    At no point in any of this did we feel like we were harming persons or property. We didn't even tag stuff, we just wanted to admire cool spots and all the kitschy 60's and 70's crap that has been left behind. To criminalize such acts of natural curiosity seems patently ridiculous to me. That said, it's not kosher to sneak around an active subway system past security lines, but I'd like to suggest an alternative solution: official tours of the abandoned subway stations! People like to see those out-of-the-way areas, so why not charge them a couple bucks and have guide safely lead would-be explorers in a perfectly legal manner. Sure, for some it takes away the thrill of sneaking around, but at least for myself, the goal was never to break laws, it was merely satisfying my curiosity.

    As an aside, my high school was situated in a 150 year old castle, erected by one of the region's pioneers and eventually donated to the church, who repurposed it as an agricultural college in the early 20th century. Like many buildings of the era, it had vast underground catacombs and passageways connecting the various buildings, as well as upper levels that formerly housed residents, staff, and clergymen. They even had their own barber shop up there! We had an underground tunnel lined with lockers, something many of us considered a privilege as it conferred some peace and privacy. Most of these areas were not used during my time, but we were invited to explore, with guided tours arranged at least a few times a year. If you knew the routes, you could get to any building without stepping outside, a welcome luxury on rainy days or in -40'C winter storms. And if the indoors weren't your thing, there was a 30 acre forest island with beaches, rapids, a large rock formation, abandoned booths and small cabins from sporting events dating back 50-60 years, and all sorts of places to climb. Snooping around is what we did for fun, and it was encouraged!

    It sure beats what today's kids do: sit around, baked out of their minds as they escape the mindlessness of our scared society.

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
  13. Re:Unenforceable? by Lunar_Lamp · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is not a ruling. A court hasn't applied this ASBO, it's just TFL requesting it.

  14. Re:He was released long ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm curious what an "appropriate" force would have been then. Throwing the TV remote at them? Turning around and walking away while saying "shucks, I do hope they really are leaving and aren't just trying to find a way to attack me by surprise"?

    If people broke into my home and I saw them, I would feel threatened until the police captured them. Since the people obviously had no problem breaking into my home once, I would have no reason to believe they wouldn't come back to prevent me from potentially identifying them. Historical precedent had proven that Tony Martin could not count on the police to do anything, so he did the only thing he could do to protect himself.

    Call me a crazy, freedom-loving, right-wing nutjob if you want to, but I just can't feel sorry for someone who's purposefully destroying and stealing other people's property and threatening their safety.

  15. Re:Unenforceable? by amck · · Score: 5, Informative

    Bylaws are local council ( or in this case transport authority) laws.
    Fines can be levied, etc. but they cannot be criminally prosecuted : the local authority can bring you to court, but not criminal court; for that a case has to be prepared by the police for the Director of Public Prosecutions (an independent prosecutor).

    --
    Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist
  16. Re:Unenforceable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Adverse Possesson. At least ten years (often twelve), openly and continuously occupied. The reason to have this rule is, suppose you mistakenly build something in very slightly the wrong place. Well, if someone notices while they're still building it, or shortly after, you have a big argument with various builders, architects, map makers, etc. and then you end up claiming on insurance to either buy the extra little bit of land or have your wall re-built in the right place. But suppose they only notice 20 years later, by which time probably the company of builders don't exist any more, the architect has retired... it can't be that important or they'd have noticed sooner, and making you tear down a wall (or even a whole house) is disproportionate, so instead the land transfers to you if the problem comes before a court.

    But yes, if you go onto a piece of private land, build a permanent structure like a house on it, and nobody stops you from building and occupying the strucure for twelve years, then you own the land it was built on outright.

  17. Wheel clamper committed a crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You quoted the BBC's examples. e.g. the wheel clamper:

    "Not only was he clamping cars parked on land where he had no licence to operate, but he once impounded a police car. "

    The crime he committed was extracting money with menace. However that's a pain for the police to prosecute, you know they'd have to record his actions and take witness evidence etc. Far easier to get a magistrate (magistrates are not legally trained, they are not lawyers they are laypeople), to issue an ASBO.

    I don't think ASBO has a real use, its used because it's so easy to use. It's exactly because it's easy to get that it's used instead of a real prosecution.
    But it ends up with this and many more ridiculous nonsense. The idea that freedom of speech is so low, that trespass (which is not a crime BTW) trumps it? Who decided this? Parliament? No, one layperson. All it takes for rights to disappear is one layperson in the UK it seems.

  18. Re:Reall, Britain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    What have **you ever done**, what civil disobedience (what a term!) have you participated in ?

    I still seed until my ratio reaches 2.0

  19. the law isnt like that now by waterbear · · Score: 5, Informative

    you need a guilty mind and a guilty act to constitute a crime.

    The law might have been like that once, but it isn't now (strict criminal liability) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability_(criminal).

    Strict liability is one of those things that seems to creep in when it seems to lawmakers like a good idea at the time. But once it's in place, the lawmakers find it rather easy to overextend it, and make it cover more and more matters that many people would say ought to be judged under the old standard of intent.

    -wb-