Damage

My thought too was that he perhaps would be happier in the Norwegian fjords, but I didn't like to say .
If you are not a troll, my apologies Andrew. Maybe you'd like to come back and defend your opinion?

Perhaps the original comment was inspired by articles such as this: http://www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/epsom/4881538.Abandoned_hospital_sites_are_tre...

The public may find it hard to distinguish the activities of the vandals and the photographers...

OP originally posted a duplicate question, now removed in this thread.

So we know what he is talking about - but do not understand
a) why he would ask such a question,
b) why he would ask such a question as his first (and second) posting and c)why he would feel the need to post the same question in an existing thread and in a new thread.

He has not come back since his initial posting to respond either.

There is a new building locally that is an eye sore. But I am quite willing to wait, and wait, and wait until it becomes derelict.

Also would it be acceptable to go into a derelict building and replaster, repair, and rewire it? (Pointless question..... just like the one that started this thread)

"we turned up to find some vandal had wallpapered our derelict building film set. Unthinking b@@?!@s."

You're right Doug, film companies love these derelict sites. Just like photographers do.

First - the reason I posted twice was I didn't know where the most appropriate place to post was - so I tried two. Second, I'm not advocating vandalism - I'm merely re-stating a difference of two opinions I've come across. Third, the reason I haven't responded before is that I don't have 'net facilities at home, so I have to use public facilities when I can.
On the other hand, it could be argued that even passive urbexing is illegal trespass and doing "light, unstructural" damage (smashing windows, etc.) is not hurting anyone and is actually part of the natural decay of a building, as it tends, almost inevitably, to occur in places which are left unguarded.

Are you really suggesting that it's OK to go around breaking windows? For what reason could any responsible person want to do this?

Simple answer, none, unless you work for the demolition company.

Responsible people just don't do this kind of thing, but there are plenty of irresponsible people that will, and do.

When discussing the issue with those two, I'd recommend mentioning that damaging other peoples property is not a whole lot different than damaging thier persons... Do I have the right to smak them upside the head, just because thier head appears vacant?
seriously, if you don't own it, leave it as you found it. If you got a problem with vacant properties, call your municipality and ask them to get it torn down, and maybe something out of there gets recycled. Trespassing is also wrong... if there is a sign, obey it. It should not have to be guarded if people out there had parents teaching them right from wrong.

In fact if one of my kids asked me that, I'd tell them this:
"the reason you asked is because you know it isn't right, but you're looking for somebody to tell you it is ok, so you can deny responsibility for your actions later."

I can't think of a worse job than demolition, especially seeing the architectural beauty of some buildings that actually are torn down.

There's also the world of difference between wandering through an open door/gate and breaking windows. From reading 28DL and other urbex sites if you're caught in most abandoned buildings you'll probably just be ejected rather than it turning into a trespass case. Criminal damage is a much more serious offense than simple curiosity about an open door.

I have no problem with wandering abandoned areas and taking photos. I have a major problem with people smashing things. This isn't "natural decay", it's wanton destruction.

Vandalism breeds vandalism. It's been shown in psychological studies that people are more inclined to cause damage to an area which is already run down. By smashing that window you're contributing to the miserable drawn-out death of the building, and giving developers an excuse to rip it down before replacing it with banal flats lacking in any architectural interest. They will be more inclined to convert it instead of demolishing if the building is respected by visitors, legitimate or otherwise.

Sue and I explored an abandoned house in one of Manchester's parks - it was especially poignant for her as we knew the last park keeper who lived there and she could look at the wreck of the rooms she'd visited and even slept in as a child.

Deserted and mouldering buildings hold so many memories of so many people. It's an environment to be respected, but sadly many would rather trash them.

Just look at what happened to Gwyrch Castle in North Wales. I've been in that building when it was in use and jousting was held in the grounds. Now it's a sad shell and the loacal police and council sat back and watched it happening.

We don't have huge abandoned industrial sites here, but we do have a fair number of remnants of farm cottages from something merely in need of a roof, doors and windows to single walls with a chimney. I always wonder who the last person to leave was and when they left. I would guess many of them were abandoned after the second world war, when many farms cut down on the number of labourers and invested in new machinery. Others were probably the original farmhouse, replaced by a new construction with indoor bathroom and running water.

There's one known as Moel Prysgau which has found a second use as a bothy for walkers, this would presumably have been an overnight stop for drovers using the track past it judging by the sheepfolds next to the house.

It must have been a cold, bleak existence up there on the moorland, several miles from the nearest village.

I can see your point about it adding to the deterioration of the property in the unlikely event that it can be renovated, but I cannot at all relate to the idea that vandalism is like hitting someone. When hitting someone, it hurts and/or injures; breaking the odd window is hardly comparable.