Web
Analytics
Report - - East Weare Batteries and DISTEX Site, Portland, Dorset (aka The Forbidden City) - February 2017 | Military Sites | Page 2 | 28DaysLater.co.uk

Report - East Weare Batteries and DISTEX Site, Portland, Dorset (aka The Forbidden City) - February 2017



Dan1701

28DL Full Member
28DL Full Member
The most effective way to get onto the site now would appear to be the old standard dressing up trick.

So, suit, hard hat, fluorescent waistcoat and clipboard together with a large form marked up as a security response checklist. Walk onto site, photograph everything including wildlife, and record where you were on the form together with times. When the copper turns up, record this as well and try to get him to counter-sign the form, just for the record!

At this point terminal confusion will set in, since police officers are just not mentally prepared for someone else's bureaucracy to be thrown at them. Trying for an arrest under the Vagrancy Act would also be rather difficult, given that the person they just tried it on obviously isn't a vagrant. Most likely, you would just get escorted off the site; bonus points for recording when you leave the site and getting the officer to initial that as well!
 

Bertie Bollockbrains

There is no pain
Regular User
The new Portland Port Authority Bylaws which I refered to in this report, making it criminal to be this area, really are now being used to prosecute. Here's a local rag report of 11 people being convicted. Seems a fine of about £140 and costs of £85 is the going rate. Note that there is no suggestion of breaking in, causing criminal damage or being a nuisance. Just being there was enough to get the fine.
 

Thumper

28DL Full Member
28DL Full Member
A pretty interesting response in the comments section though by 'hughc';

They should have clubbed together to hire a decent lawyer. The port added to its byelaws in 2018 (the original ones are here, in Sch.1 to the order: https://bit.ly/2Lpxfgs , the supplementary ones here: https://bit.ly/2Y8D5bQ ) to criminalise entry into the premises 'other than through a designated entrance or exit'. But of course, since such entry is refused to those without business at the port, anyone trespassing on the premises must be in breach of new byelaw 4.
But art.15(2)(c) of the order confers a power to make byelaws only for 'regulating the conduct of all persons in the harbour or the harbour premises' - that's *regulating* conduct (such as not having a dog off a lead, or boarding moored craft), not prohibiting entry. Worth mounting a defence next time around
 

Similar threads



Top