28DL and UE in the News - Exposing Matthew Holmes - Part 1 | 28DL and Urban Exploring in the News... | 28DaysLater.co.uk
  • Welcome to 28DaysLater.co.uk - 28DL - The UK Urban Exploring / Urban Exploration / Urbex Forums.

    Asylums and Hospitals, High Stuff, Industrial, Leisure Sites, Residential Sites, Military Sites, Mines and Quarries, ROC Posts, Theatres and Cinemas, Draining, Underground Sites, European and International Sites, Leads, Rumours and News, Kit, Clothing, Equipment, Photography and Video sections, plus Private & Local Groups and a lot more.

    Please feel free to browse this website as a guest. However, creating an account allows you to search, post replies, start new threads, use bookmarking, live chat, messaging and notification systems. Also, it removes some ads.

    Create an account | Login | Request new password

28DL and UE in the News Exposing Matthew Holmes - Part 1

Bertie Bollockbrains

28DL Regular User
Regular User
In a radio interview that is published on his own Facebook page he almost confesses to his sins.

The interviewer asks what got him first into exploring. Matt's response is that he got the idea to explore a certain location from "coming across it somewhere online" :banghead

Last edited:


rebmeM LD82
Regular User
With articles like this, the recent injunction application from Lloyds and renewed calls for YouTube to do more to stop promoting illegal, dangerous and questionable activities on it's service, could it be that the days of the fame chasing, attention seeking morons is at an end? I sincerely hope so.


Exploring with Bob
Regular User
I'd like to see a proper and concise update on this !
I don't want to say too much publicly about what's going on with this, because there is still work to be done. However, I can give a bit of an update for everyone whose not necessarily in the loop.

In the wake of the article, Matt continued to deny that he had stolen any images. He did that by creating an argument no one was making. He said not all of his photos were stolen, but no one even remotely suggested that all of his photos were stolen.

It was bad enough that some of his photos were stolen and they were stolen from members of 28 Days. This was just a way of Matt trying to respond to the article without admitting what he had done. He quickly deleted his spurious comments, but he kept on using many of the photos that he had appropriated without permission.

By this time a number of people had traced several images that had been stolen, and four owners of the images agreed (because Matt's theft of copyright was so prolific and because he still refused to acknowledge what he had done / take down the images he was using) to submit claims for breach copyright. Importantly, this was not going to be about the money, it's was about stopping Matt's unabting use of images from the exploring community without permission. Four claims were submitted from different image owners to Matt. Several image owners had already managed to get Facebook or other publishers of the images (people Matt duped into believing he owned the copyright) to take their images down. Commensurately, we finally managed to get LAD Bible to take down the article containing Gronk's image (the one mentioned in the article above that they would not take down). That was the last national media outlet that was publishing other people's work, with Matt pretending they were his images.

Around this time a very clever program was developed by another member of the team to search the internet for images Matt was purporting were his to indicate possible copyright infringements. The results of running the program indicated with certainty that Matt's copyright infringement was much more extensive than anyone had previously thought, and he appropriation of copyright without permission was also directed at individuals, companies and organisations outside the exploring community. A handful were contacted to make them aware. However, many are still unaware Matt has used or is using their images. All this is cataloged though, so if necessary more copyright owners can be informed.

True to form Matt ignored the letters presenting the copyright claims, but he did respond by amending his Facebook page to acknowledge one image owner. That was shortly before he deleted some of the images from his Facebook page that he had been using without permission. Some, but not all. Since Matt failed to respond to any correspondence, one case was issued for breach of copyright, with the other three held in abeyance. There is no point increasing costs unnecessarily, but Matt needed to appreciate that he could no longer deny what he was doing and ignore the people whose images he had being using without permission.

Fast forward a month or two and Matthew Holmes has finally admitted that he has used one of the images without permission; the image in the litigated case. This is a substantial change in his position and the most recent development worth mentioning, but there is still work going on as far as copyright infringement goes, such is the extent of his use of people's images without them even knowing. Hopefully, however, Matthew will see his way to acknowledging the full extent of his unauthorised use of copyright, without needing much more encouragement. That remains to be seen...

There are of course other issues with Matt. Most notably his made up histories and pretending to his fans that he has accessed or broken into places like Aldwych Station, when in fact he was on a permission visit. These cannot be tackled through the courts, but at least one journalist is interested in a follow up to the earlier story and there is plenty of evidence to support these continuing issues with Matt's credibility. It's just better for the journalists to report on the story after all the litigation has been finalised.

The claims to his fans...

The truth to british transport police...

And that's where we are at the moment, as concise as I can make it. :thumb
Last edited: