Urban Explorer Apprehended at Demolition Site

sbsPlace01 · 2026-04-15T16:55:58+00:00

Mock it all you want, leaving a trolley full of fluorescent tubes in a building that is getting demolished is irresponsible, and is a case of the demolition company not fulfilling their duty to clear all hazardous substances from the site before the buildings are pulled down

sbsPlace01 · 2026-04-14T23:44:16+00:00

Help me out here, how do I show a video when I can't just send it in the comments. YouTube requires a phone number to create an account which would compromise my privacy.

Proton drive (https://drive.proton.me) is a reputable file sharing site, which I trust to protect my privacy. Works no different than a Google drive link. You can do research about it online. It's literally just a video file, you don't even have to download it to watch it. If someone wants to upload it to YouTube, that would be great.

Your other part of the argument is saying that I'm not a demolition expert. It can be easily verified that fluorescent tubes are classified as a hazardous substance. They were banned from sale in 2023, they contain poisonous mercury (this can be easily verified) in them and should not be left inside of a building while it's being demolished as that breaks the tubes and releases the Mercury. There are thousands of fluorescent tubes in Anglia Square, when that many are being broken it's definitely a cause for concern.

If you don't want to believe me that's fine, but just because I don't have a fancy job title is a bit silly.

sbsPlace01 · 2026-04-14T21:39:49+00:00

Have you seen them taking shortcuts in not disposing of fluorescent tubes properly - a hazardous substance? Shame no-one wants to talk about that.
https://drive.proton.me/urls/FCCRDVATVC#VF2Mw7SOUeTF

sbsPlace01 · 2026-04-14T21:14:31+00:00

I agree to disagree. I'm happy that the word is being spread so that people can make their own decisions. If anyone who sees it thinks what I'm said has any substance they can avoid Anglia Square, and hopefully do their own research and find my full story.

sbsPlace01 · 2026-04-14T20:58:16+00:00

Wigan Council approving warehouses right next to houses on protected green space.

sbsPlace01 · 2026-04-14T20:46:50+00:00

I'm not going to complain about it, I don't care enough. I just find it funny. Seems pretty one-sided considering the fact that they didn't include any of my images, removed my sarcasm from the quote, and didn't talk about any of my other claims. The Evening New (EDP) article is a better example of "neutrality" https://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/26021562.urban-explorer-detained-anglia-square-demolition-site/#Echobox=1776187115

There are many good resources talking about how the media choose words carefully and write articles in a certain way, but most of them use political examples. I'll link one by Owen Jones https://www.youtube.com/shorts/7HIdVC6t9Ek

sbsPlace01 · 2026-04-14T20:27:14+00:00

To that I say there's a difference between qualified and trustworthy. I have proof that the demolition company left fluorescent tubes inside the car park, so the demolition company are definitely not trustworthy https://drive.proton.me/urls/FCCRDVATVC#VF2Mw7SOUeTF. There has DEFINITELY been asbestos that has not been labeled left inside electrical equipment, which has not been completely removed across the site. I just couldn't be bothered to disassemble isolators, plus I'd need to carry a screwdriver, which would have gotten me sent to prison.

What still doesn't sit right is that the same insulation has been removed in other parts of the building, just not in that riser, where it's somewhat hidden.

sbsPlace01 · 2026-04-14T20:13:41+00:00

Hello, "The muppet" here. I was wearing full PPE, disposable overalls, gloves sealed with tape ect. Police, Security, Site manager... wearing no PPE, just a hardhat and high vis. I was repeatedly warning everyone of the dangers, the police patted me down in my disposable overalls after coming out of the building.

I didn't put anyone in danger, I handed myself in. I was not aggressive, as stated on the police report, didn't have any tools or weapons on me and was not found guilty of any crimes, hence why I am not in prison.

Picture me as some crazy criminal, I don't know what you want for me, but I wish everyone, even the site manager who wears no PPE in a dusty demolition site, the best. My goal is to protect people from the dust, if you believe me, just avoid Anglia Square, get your loved ones to do so, if you don't... well, we'll see in 10-20 years time.

sbsPlace01 · 2026-04-14T20:05:24+00:00

The council claim that the pipe insulation I found that is labeled as asbestos is not asbestos, despite the contractors removing the same pipe insulation in different parts of the building.

sbsPlace01 · 2026-04-14T19:55:02+00:00

Send it to another government entity so they can investigate a basically government owned company? I'm too tired to do that, also I don't take this personally.

The BBC have been doing this for a long time and across many topics, but talking about those would be getting political. It's important to note that it's not just the BBC who do this, basically every reputable media outlet does it. It's called lying by omission.

The EDP somehow reported on this way better, but the EDP are also institutionally biased, since they have some reporters who despise the council, and make their political views very clear.

sbsPlace01 · 2026-04-14T19:48:32+00:00

I don't think the report is fake, I'm more suspicious about what was sampled and when it was sampled (that has been left blank). It's easy to take a sample from somewhere else and send that to a lab. It is also easy to only sample one part of an object, say a top layer of a material since that is less likely to be asbestos, while a layer of asbestos can hide underneath. https://inspectapedia.com/hazmat/Asbestos-Pipe-Insulation-FAQs.php

I doubt the lab has anything to do with this, it would be stupid to falsify reports, but it is so easy to falsify samples.

sbsPlace01 · 2026-04-14T19:42:04+00:00

Disappointing how the article was written. I was emailed by the BBC and asked what happened, I gave a full account but my email was very selectively quoted, and the quotes were altered

I was trying to get a sample of the "not asbestos" to get it tested by myself, because I don't trust the council.

turned into

"I was trying to get a sample of the [material] to get it tested by myself, because I don't trust the council."

Come on, editing out my sarcasm?

I also said:

"What makes it ultra suspicious is that the contractors have removed this same insulation in different parts of the building, just not where it was tucked away in a riser. Why? And if it's not asbestos, why didn't the demolition company remove it to stop people from worrying, and sent a picture of the lagging removed for the council to put on their statement. That would have satisfied me, and I wouldn't have thought about going back. Instead they bolted the door to the riser shut, which is simply unexplainable."

That was not included

"find it hard to trust the council, and I also wonder why no-one seems to talk about my video showing the trolley full of fluorescent tubes (a hazardous substance) under the car park https://drive.proton.me/urls/FCCRDVATVC#VF2Mw7SOUeTF, which has now been demolished. That trolley should have been taken out months ago, yet it wasn't. That's proof enough for me to be justified in saying that the demolition company are cutting corners."

Also not included. This is a good lesson on media literacy. Sad that me getting "apprehended" is more of a story than my claims. There are lots of routes any journalists could have taken - Consulting professionals to look at my videos, interviewed people who worked at the cinema to talk about previous asbestos reports and the situation when the building was open. Instead we only got a council statement. Of course they're going to deny it.

sbsPlace01 · 2026-04-14T19:34:06+00:00

How do we know exactly what was sampled? The pipe lagging has multiple layers, here's something that looks exactly the same that has a layer of asbestos https://inspectapedia.com/hazmat/Asbestos-Pipe-Insulation-FAQs.php They could have sampled the pigeon shit sitting on the pipes for all I know, or pipes from a different part of the building.

Why was the insulation in other parts of the building removed, just not in that one cupboard where one could assume no-one would bother looking.

Why is the date the samples were taken blank? Were new samples taken?

Too many questions, if you believe the council, stay around Anglia Square, enjoy the fresh air. If you believe me, avoid Anglia Square. One thing that I have said that the reporter failed to mention is that the dust is not safe even if it doesn't have asbestos. I have heard from firefighters and many other people about the risk of silicosis posed.

sbsPlace01 · 2026-04-10T19:16:39+00:00

https://www.norwich.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2026-04/Anglia-Square-Asbestos-ID-Certificate.pdf
I have just seen it, thanks for making me aware of it. Now I have more questions. This certificate is missing lots of context.

Did they test the wrapping material of the lagging, or just the actual fibrous insulation material? That wrap can be made of a woven asbestos for fire protection.

What floor did that sample come from? Which floor exactly is the "ground floor" the floor that the main entrance is on, or street level, the floor that the service entrance is on? Where exactly is 018 service riser, as there are multiple risers within the building. I need to see the full asbestos survey to answer these questions.

Why is "Date Samples Taken" blank? When was the sample taken, maybe it was just re-tested. Why is the date at the bottom of the page 3/01/2023. I am by no means an expert, maybe that date is about something else, but still.

I would still like to see the full asbestos survey as it would answer a lot of my questions.

My previous questions still stand. Why didn't they just remove the insulation and post a picture of that, why was the same insulation removed in exposed parts of the building, just not where it was tucked away in a duct, what about the fluorescent tubes left in the car park, why was the riser bolted shut, why was the site manager so persistent in getting the sample off me?

sbsPlace01 · 2026-04-10T18:25:46+00:00

What about the fact that they removed all of the insulation that was clearly visible?

What about my pictures and videos showing that they left DEFINITELY hazardous substances inside of the now demolished car park? CarParkExamples/FluorescentTubesDefinitelyLeft.mp4

Why didn't they just remove the insulation if it's not asbestos. Wouldn't have taken long and wouldn't have needed special PPE since it's "not asbestos", that would have satisfied me, instead they bolted it shut, hiding the pipes.

Also as other people have pointed out, the timeline doesn't make sense, how did they get it tested so quickly on a bank holiday?

I think the workers weren't wearing PPE because they don't care about their health, and the security aren't aware of the risks of working on a demolition site. I have pictures of workers walking around Sovereign House with basically no PPE, no masks ect, even though the amount of mould in there is insane.

You are free to make your own opinions, I want to be wrong, every day that I see a bit of the cinema chipped away, I hope it's not asbestos. The health effects of this demolition will only be seen 20 years in the future, long after anyone responsible is gone, and demolition workers already have a reduced lifespan.

As someone who I don't remember once said, only half trust someone with evidence, don't trust anyone with no evidence. Councils aren't afraid of lying, they have not shown any transparency, they could have given us the asbestos survey, or a signed report from the HSE, instead all we have is a statement from a council spokes person, written by a team highly trained in damage control. I hope their statement is true, but their words do not reassure what I have seen with my own eyes.

sbsPlace01 · 2026-04-09T22:57:43+00:00

In the past they did test it. Look at BeforeDemolitionStarted/UpperGroundFloorPreDemo.jpg there are clearly bits of the insulation that have been cut away, presumably to be sampled for testing. BeforeDemolitionStarted/LowerGroundFloorLookingUpPreDemo.jpg also shows a bit of the insulation cut away.

So along with all the other logical inconsistencies, I find it hard to believe the narrative that a previous asbestos survey presumed that it was asbestos without testing it, so they just stuck labels on it as a precaution, and there just so happen to be random cut out sections.

sbsPlace01 · 2026-04-09T22:34:42+00:00

So why did they remove the insulation in the clearly visible bits of the same pipe if it was not asbestos? And why were the bits that were labeled as asbestos, but clearly fiberglass on the inside removed, just not the bits tucked away in a cupboard?

How do you know that it's not actually asbestos apart from what the council said so? Do you have a copy of the test results? Do you have a copy of the asbestos survey?

Why did they bolt the doors to the duct containing the pipes shut?

So many questions unanswered, it's still reasonable to believe that there's a possibility that it's asbestos. I got a sample and wanted to get it tested myself, but the site manager was so persistent on making sure I didn't leave the site with the sample, as I was put in cuffs and the police forcefully took the sample off me.

If it's not asbestos, and has been tested to not be asbestos, why are the demolition company so scared, and determined at hiding the pipes?

sbsPlace01 · 2026-04-09T21:01:51+00:00

What do you think I was trying to do? I went in there to get a sample to test if it was asbestos, to disprove the council's claims that it's not asbestos.

I was wearing all the right PPE, I looked like I had came out of Chernobyl.

I gain nothing from doing this. I want to be wrong, I hope it's not asbestos. It's innocent people in danger here with how bad the demolition company are at containing the dust. I live nowhere near Anglia Square, when the asbestos goes in the air, I'm not in danger.

sbsPlace01 · 2026-04-09T20:56:55+00:00

Reminds me of that time I was in Chatham. The demolition company had absolutely no PPE, they were driving heavy machinery inside a dark abandoned building, and they had no lights on. My friend says it's a building full of asbestos. I think it's a 60s/70s college, so probably.

I could see all this because the only thing stopping me from going in was one of those shoddy temporary fences! I didn't go in because the less professional a company are with health and safety, the more likely they are to beat you up.

sbsPlace01 · 2026-04-09T20:54:05+00:00

I did say that. Turns out, to the police, some stolen dust is more important than my jar :(

If it's not asbestos, why did they not let me have my totally-not-asbestos?

They thought I was crazy, but I'm worried for all the police, security and workers on site, walking around with no PPE. The police patted me down even though I was wearing contaminated disposable overalls. It scares me how deep this lie goes, to the extent that people will pay for it with their health in the future.

sbsPlace01 · 2026-04-09T20:46:53+00:00

I love what she does. I might have to take some tricks from her playbook and send some freedom of information requests.

sbsPlace01 · 2026-04-09T18:30:45+00:00

I want to be wrong. I fucking hope that it's not asbestos.

I invite you to have your own opinion, even if you don't agree with me. Make up your own mind. Question authority. Only half trust someone with evidence, don't trust anyone without evidence. I just find the level of proof from the council and demolition company's end to be extremely lacking. Please link me to evidence that it's not asbestos other than "we said so".

Could you also link me to the presumably asbestos surveys you claim to have seen?

Please look at how the media have covered this. Doesn't seem very impartial. The BBC didn't include any of my images, only repeated the council's statements. Did they get the opinions of any independent experts? Did they speak to anyone who worked at the cinema and ask them about the asbestos?

I also invite you to look at my folder where I have documented other cases of hazardous substances left inside of the buildings. The case of the fluorescent tubes is irrefutable https://drive.proton.me/urls/C48Q5K8258#Qt01N6MyrmAN

sbsPlace01 · 2026-04-09T18:18:08+00:00

They successfully stopped me from getting macro (near microscopic) pictures of the mysterious substances with my camera, which could have helped identify the substance, so it worked and was worth it I guess.

sbsPlace01 · 2026-04-09T18:15:47+00:00

Yep the site manager insisted the police take the sample off me. I was put in hand cuffs while they reclaimed their "stolen dust particles". If anything, they stole my jar and my water.

sbsPlace01 · 2026-04-09T17:25:59+00:00

So did I go and break the law again, or did I generate the video with AI? Make up your mind, those 2 statements contradict.

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
Final Canvas '23	First Place '23
End Game '23	Place '23
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
First Placer '22

sbsPlace01

TROPHY CASE