Beach closed by QinetiQ (original title - Is this true)

[naturists2002]

Hi, had had notice from the skinbook Eastney beach forum that there are new signs up stating that we have to keep off the beach,is this true?.

[Michael H]

There are signs of a particularly amateurish nature - most likely as an attempt by Q to pressure PCC over negotiations about Q' promise to keep the beach open.  A few more details (& pictures of the signs) on the Eastney Naturists home page - http://www.eastneybeach.org.uk 

[Michael H]

Notices have been put up on Eastney Beach, Southsea stating "KEEP OUT - No access without the express prior permission of QinetiQ".  The signs look like rather amateurish printouts that have been laminated and cable-tied to the posts there - as you can see from this image - http://yfrog.com/83qsign2j  

Is this an official sign?  If so, why has the beach been closed?

All previous statements from QinetiQ (including its supporting statement to Portsmouth City Council's planning committee) have promised to keep the beach open.   Has QinetiQ's policy now changed?

Also, how would one go about obtaining the "express prior permission"?  Could you give me a contact for that?

I've sent the above to QinetiQ - I'd encourage everyone to send something similar

[Michael H]

I've also sent emails to Cllr Vernon-Jackson (Leader of the Council), the 3 ward councillors (Cllrs Hall, Buggy & Subbs) & to Mike Hancock (Cllr & MP for Portsmouth South)

[NEW-NATURIST]

C'mon guys.

Think people need to use a bit of common sense here, if these signs were made by Qinetiq wouldnt they have made it look professional i.e. include their logo and conatct details. And of course - the justification for restricting access. Pls cast your minds back (well some of us~) to 2005 when Qinetiq put up some sings regarding the Fraser Open Day - they were professional in appearance!!!!

These signs are obviously fake. 

(PS - Qinetiq does have the power to close the beach as Freeholder if there is crime suspected of taking place or for "security reasons").

[Bare4fun]

C'mon guys.

Think people need to use a bit of common sense here, if these signs were made by Qinetiq wouldnt they have made it look professional i.e. include their logo and conatct details. And of course - the justification for restricting access. Pls cast your minds back (well some of us~) to 2005 when Qinetiq put up some sings regarding the Fraser Open Day - they were professional in appearance!!!!

These signs are obviously fake. 

Not necessarily, I used to work for the fifth largest civil engineering company in the UK, and some of my colleagues used to turn out amateurish tripe like that. Many places I've worked have network terminals in every department, so it is feasible that the odd job man knocked those signs together and was dispatched to erect them.

The one thing that shamed me was the instruction manuals, with pages scanned in from suppliers manuals, some even had our document control departments rubber stamp on the front. I contacted suppliers for electronic copies, or downloaded them from their website, anything better than the atty scanned copies our guys were using.

All this sign has proved is that a dozen monkeys are one step closer to reproducing the entire works of Shakespeare!

Pete

[Michael H]

C'mon guys.

Think people need to use a bit of common sense here, if these signs were made by Qinetiq wouldnt they have made it look professional i.e. include their logo and conatct details. And of course - the justification for restricting access. Pls cast your minds back (well some of us~) to 2005 when Qinetiq put up some sings regarding the Fraser Open Day - they were professional in appearance!!!!

These signs are obviously fake.  

(PS - Qinetiq does have the power to close the beach as Freeholder if there is crime suspected of taking place or for "security reasons").

The signs are genuine & confirmed by QinetiQ to the council and to the local press - even though the signs are amateurish in the extreme, they are QinetiQ signs.

[Michael H]

Article published by the Portsmouth News - you can comment online:

http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Anger-as-beach-is-closed.6147302.jp

[NEW-NATURIST]

Well i take that back then, its true!!  

Cant believe how this shoddy outift is treating the nudists (and everyone else who use this beach). I went down yesterday to see if the signs were still up and they had been ripped off.

It will be impossible for Qinetiq to enforce this action - as there were members of the public - dog walkers and one fishermen using the beach at the time.

Well I can only speak for myself but I will still use the beach until someone in authority tells me to leave the beach, simple as that.

Perhaps admin can change the title of the topic to beach closed or something along those lines so that people are aware of what’s going on and so to have a dedicated thread for this???

[Michael H]

I went down yesterday to see if the signs were still up and they had been ripped off.

Perhaps QinetiQ have come to their senses and re-opened the beach - lol!  This inept closure will have angered a lot of people, not just the naturists.

Well I can only speak for myself but I will still use the beach until someone in authority tells me to leave the beach, simple as that.

Someone I know was there when the signs went up - the workman was questioned about the validity of the signs and responded that there would be security guards with dogs patrolling the beach - you couldn't make this stuff up!

[NEW-NATURIST]

Well Qinetiq have turned into a really nasty vindictive company then, thats all I can say. I do however accept Qinetiq's point about vandalism to the Fraser site though. But this should be dealt with in other ways (derlict sites become vandalsied all over the country) - and are Qinetiq REALLY saying they will reinstate the site for employment??? after saying that this was intially sought when it became surplus to Qinetiq a few years ago??? Just doesnt make sense.

We will have to wait and see what happens over the coming months, but suspect we will still be using the beach this summer.

[nagumbe]

I think that QinetiQ's point on vandalism is a bit disingenuous. A vandal would have to work quite hard to get in there and stay undetected by the CCTV cameras. In the event that they did get in there wouldn't be much financial loss due to damage as the site is to be demolished anyway. It's nothing more than an excuse and a poor one at that.

[uknudist]

I just wrote this to the News website regarding the 'signs':

=============
Let's not forget that QinetiQ only own the part of the beach above Mean High Water Mark (MHWM tends to be approximately where the highest line of seaweed on the beach is). They have no say whatsoever in who gets to use the rest of the beach below that line, nor in what they choose to do or wear while they are there, since the rest of the beach is public land. On that basis, most of the time there will be space enough for we the public to enjoy the beach that is rightfully ours, regardless of what QinetiQ do.

I will certainly be making good use of the beach in front of the Fraser Range in any warm weather we're lucky enough to get this summer, despite QinetiQ's petty, childish and antisocial behaviour on the matter. The company *will* have nudists in front of their property and there is *absolutely nothing* they can do about it since nudism is entirely legal on the beach, as the Police told the Eastney Neighbourhood Forum a few years ago. QinetiQ might as well just accept it and give in gracefully, before they make themselves even more unpopular.

The best thing they can do is tear down the chain link fences, clear the whole Fraser Range site and allow it to return to nature, returning a much-needed open space to the City, to the benefit of both wildlife and people.
=============

I've also written to Mike Hancock and a couple of councillors, saying this:

=============
I was very concerned to read the article in The News recently, regarding
signs which purport to be from QinetiQ, telling the public to 'keep off' the
beach in front of the Fraser Range site.  It's not right for the people of
Portsmouth to be told that we can't use one of our beaches - and in point of
fact it's misleading since QinetiQ only own the beach down to Mean High
Water Mark, not below.

I well recall how much emphasis their planning application for the site put
on opening the area up for greater public access - it was one of their main
'selling points', repeated numerous times.  Trying to close off the beach
would certainly put the lie to those claims and show in how little regard
the company hold the interests of the City and the public.  If the company
really are responsible for these signs, then I urge you to do whatever you
can to combat QinetiQ's disgraceful behaviour.

Many thanks.
============

[uknudist]

Earlier I wrote this to QinetiQ (FWIW):

===========
Regarding the Fraser Range site in Portsmouth, UK, I understand from The News that signs have been put up on the beach in front of the site, claiming to be from your company, and asserting that access to the beach is restricted.  Could you please tell me if anyone in your company is responsible for this?  Needless to say, attempting to deny access to the beach would not go down well with the people of Portsmouth - especially as QinetiQ have long touted 'improved public access' as one of the intended benefits of redeveloping the site.    Please assure me that your company is not intending to pursue such a foolish and antisocial course of action.
===========

[NEW-NATURIST]

Can we really say the beach is closed? even when Qinetiq put back the signs and had employees walking along the beach yesterday, if it was closed why werent they telling people to leave?

This is a very odd decision by Qinetiq. BTW, has anyone had a reply from them?