So, if you’re not happy doing an interview, the politely decline. There’s no need for the aggressive responses as seen from 28dayslater, which only aggravates the whole situation.

But is there still a downside? What of the inaccurate reporting, the unwanted publicity, site closures and nothing to gain for the explorer? These are often used as arguments against any involvement with the press, but don’t stand up under closer inspection.

Inaccurate reporting: Deal with this by talking to the journalist. Put your point of view across. Give them the sound-bites and killer quotes. Otherwise they'll only talk to your opponents or simply look up something inaccurate elsewhere. Problems I've experienced were a bad picture caption (which revealed the location) and the use of the phrase breaking and entering (although nothing came of it).

Unwanted publicity: The more people who know what an urban explorer is the better in my book. And anyone with a website who moans about publicity is perhaps somewhat confused: what's your website for?

Closure of sites: I’ve always kept the sites mentioned in interviews anonymous (although watch out for picture captions which are written by a third party). But, and most often, it’s the influx and sheer volume of urban explorers getting repeatedly caught at sites which closes them.

No tangible gain for the explorer: Rubbish. I was given sole access to Paddock and Rauceby for interviews. One lead to an interesting tour and write-up, whilst the other lead to the completion of the virtual asylum. Further coverage has brought many people to this website who wouldn’t have known about it and who've tipped me off about others locations, added to the write-ups and generally made this website more detailed and richer in detail.

In summary, urban exploration has few rules and many guidelines and I've added a few more here. The bottom line is dealing with the media has its pros and cons, and I believe it's a personal decision whether to participate or not. But it's no coincidence the most vehemently opposed to dealing with the media are the worst represented. Unless you open your mouths, and put your side of the argument forward, then it'll be written for you. At least load the dice in your favour. And this is where the attitudes of the few who run 28dayslater got it so very wrong, and condemned the entire forum, and perhaps the entire movement, to such an avalanche of poor and hostile press.