3 ms·
Not quite. The important point here is it is NOT public ground. It is private that allows most people in but the oweners have the right to do things
by pasc1878 3y ago
Not quite. The important point here is it is NOT public ground.
It is private that allows most people in but the oweners have the right to do things
- junon 3y agoThat seems to be disputed. It's owned by a public organization, no?
- cesaref 3y agoI'm going to guess that management of the site has been contracted out to the private sector, and somebody at this management company has put the signs up without really understanding that this may not be technically right. However, it'll probably take some sort of arrest/court case to get some clarity on this, so chances are it'll just be like this for years without ever being properly challenged.
- tobylane 3y agoIt's a Privately Owned Public Space, there's far too many of these. https://thebristolcable.org/2023/04/temple-island-latest-creep-pseudo-public-space-across-bristol/ https://thebristolcable.org/2023/04/temple-island-latest-cre... https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jul/24/revealed-pseudo-public-space-pops-london-investigation-map https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jul/24/revealed-pseu...
- jwestbury 3y agoIt seems to be a bit complicated in this location -- because the "private" owner is actually a public body. I do also wonder about existing public rights of way in the area, as I don't believe property owners can restrict photography on public rights of way, unless it's violating their privacy.
- arp242 3y agoIt's important to realize that this is "public ground" by pretty much any common definition. As in: it's a street, with footpaths and cycle-paths and whatnot, a Wetherspoons and other shops, etc. In particular, it's NOT some sort of semi-enclosed space that also happens to be accessible by the public. That would be quite a different scenario.
- pasc1878 3y agoNo it is private in that it is owned by something not the Crown.