Hacker News Reader

Comment by junon | Hacker News Reader

Wow my first instincts based on the title and my first reaction to the comments here we're wrong.

I thought people were making fun of a non-native English speaking country's temple asking visitors not to take pictures.

Nope. It's public ground in the UK. Definitely warranted.

View on HN

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

That seems to be disputed. It's owned by a public organization, no?

I'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.

It's a Privately Owned Public Space, there's far too many of these.

https://thebristolcable.org/2023/04/temple-island-latest-cre... https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/jul/24/revealed-pseu...

It 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.

It'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.

No it is private in that it is owned by something not the Crown.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com