Sorry Banksy

[league67]

Cotty said:

league67 said:

Are you an actual idiot? If there was a Banksy on your wall, you wouldn't be out of pocket. You would get people to carefully remove it and sell it, and the cost of rendering the above mentioned wall would be substantially less than the sale price, based on history. You, and I'd assume that you are UKIP supporter offended by the message, are either exceptionally stupid, or zealot who can't see the opportunity.

TLDR; You are an idiot if you think that having Banksy on the wall would make 'you' out of pocket. If you are not a kipper, you should be one.

So if someone stapled a £50 note to your head, you would be ok with that as you would be financially better off than before.

Oh and what if it is a fake Banksy and not worth the paint that was used?

Are you actually comparing someone painting something on the wall to someone stapling note to a head?

Oh and what if it was a real Banksy and worth much more than 'the paint that was used'?

[blueg33]

irocfan said:

the question then also is... was it really done by the great man himself (in which case worth loads) or just one of his acolytes (in which case worth dick-all and the council look like money grabbing numpties... ok more so than normal!)?

If its his idea, is it worth any less if done by an acolyte? Bit like Damien Hirst or Ai Weiwei (do you think he made all those sunflower seeds himself?

IMO art is as much about the idea as the execution. Thats why song writers often earn as much as the singer and why poetry is still valid even if printed in a book

[anonymous-user]

Martin4x4 said:

I suggest you actually read a dictionary definition of damage and stop making assumptions that you know damage when you see it. Lets look at one more closely.

"physical harm caused to something in such a way as to impair its value, usefulness, or normal function."

Impair the function of a wall. No it still keep the roof up and people out.
Impair the usefulness of a the wall. No, you can still stick things to it.
Impair the value of the wall. Perhaps if it was any old Graffiti but it isn't. It has actually enhanced the value considerably. So No!

Your interpretation of the dictionary definition may not amount to damage, but it's the statutory 'definition' within the Criminal Damage Act that'll see you in court. The fact the graffiti in his case is highly valuable doesn't prohibit this being criminal damage.

Personally, Banksy is more than welcome to come and graffiti all over my property. Although if he did this one, I'm not sure I could sell it:

[davepoth]

La Liga said:

our interpretation of the dictionary definition may not amount to damage, but it's the statutory 'definition' within the Criminal Damage Act that'll see you in court. The fact the graffiti in his case is highly valuable doesn't prohibit this being criminal damage.

The Criminal Damage Act 1971 said:

1 Destroying or damaging property.

(1)A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence.

(2)A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property, whether belonging to himself or another—

(a)intending to destroy or damage any property or being reckless as to whether any property would be destroyed or damaged; and

(b)intending by the destruction or damage to endanger the life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered;

shall be guilty of an offence.

The important word here is "intends". There has to be what's known in the law as Mens Rea, literally "guilty mind". There are levels of Mens Rea, from negligent (the least) up to direct intention (the most). The bar for criminal damage is set at reckless, which is one up from negligent.

That means there are two tests. One, whether what has been done constitutes damage, and two, whether the "perpetrator/vandal/artist" intended it to be damage, or didn't care if it was damage.

IMO the legal argument would be thus - It probably does constitute damage under the act following Hardman v Chief Constable of Avon:

http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Hardman-v-Chief-Co...

But the Mens Rea probably isn't there, given section 5.2 of the act.

The Act said:

(2)A person charged with an offence to which this section applies, shall, whether or not he would be treated for the purposes of this Act as having a lawful excuse apart from this subsection, be treated for those purposes as having a lawful excuse—

(a)if at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed that the person or persons whom he believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction of or damage to the property in question had so consented, or would have so consented to it if he or they had known of the destruction or damage and its circumstances;

(My emphasis)

I think Banksy will have a legitimate claim to say that that few people have been unhappy to have a Banksy painted on their building, so based on that experience of almost everyone being happy to have one previously it's reasonable to assume that the council would be too. In fact they have as good as admitted as much.

[Cotty]

league67 said:

Are you actually comparing someone painting something on the wall to someone stapling note to a head?

Oh and what if it was a real Banksy and worth much more than 'the paint that was used'?

You seemed to be disregarding everything but the money, so I didn't think you would be bothered by a little bit of pain if you were financially up on the deal.

and what if it isn't a real Banksy, I don't think anyone authenticated it, it just looks like his style.

Edited by Cotty on Friday 3rd October 17:31

[Vipers]

So ONE complaint......................

What is this country coming to.

[anonymous-user]

davepoth said:

But the Mens Rea probably isn't there, given section 5.2 of the act.

The Act said:

(2)A person charged with an offence to which this section applies, shall, whether or not he would be treated for the purposes of this Act as having a lawful excuse apart from this subsection, be treated for those purposes as having a lawful excuse—

(a)if at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed that the person or persons whom he believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction of or damage to the property in question had so consented, or would have so consented to it if he or they had known of the destruction or damage and its circumstances;

(My emphasis)

I think Banksy will have a legitimate claim to say that that few people have been unhappy to have a Banksy painted on their building, so based on that experience of almost everyone being happy to have one previously it's reasonable to assume that the council would be too. In fact they have as good as admitted as much.

A statutory defence (lawful excuse in this case) doesn't remove the mens rea or mean "it probably isn't there". The fact you have to rely on it shows both components to commit the offence are there and thus need the exceptions in the act to render your conduct lawful.

I may intend to cause you GBH with if you attack me with a knife. Just because it's later found to be self-defence / reasonable force doesn't remove my intention at the time.

He may have a chance with the belief he would have had permission as, IIRC, it's wholly subjective and merely needs to be honestly held.

That would be a matter for a court and why I merely said the circumstances don't prohibit an offence.

[Baryonyx]

I love the way the arselicking council want Banksy to come back and gift then another of his works. I expect he'd rather tell them to fk off.

[blueg33]

Cotty said:

league67 said:

Are you actually comparing someone painting something on the wall to someone stapling note to a head?

Oh and what if it was a real Banksy and worth much more than 'the paint that was used'?

You seemed to be disregarding everything but the money, so I didn't think you would be bothered by a little bit of pain if you were financially up on the deal.

and what if it isn't a real Banksy, I don't think anyone authenticated it, it just looks like his style.

Edited by Cotty on Friday 3rd October 17:31

You do know that Banksy posted it on his website as his latest piece?

[Cotty]

Baryonyx said:

I love the way the arselicking council want Banksy to come back and gift then another of his works. I expect he'd rather tell them to fk off.

But he can't though can he.

[blueg33]

Cotty said:

But he can't though can he.

Yes he can. He can do another piece just into an adjoining councils area having a dig a Tendering Council

[Cotty]

I ment he can't tell them to tell them to off.

[Martin4x4]

La Liga said:

our interpretation of the dictionary definition may not amount to damage, but it's the statutory 'definition' within the Criminal Damage Act that'll see you in court. The fact the graffiti in his case is highly valuable doesn't prohibit this being criminal damage.

Personally, Banksy is more than welcome to come and graffiti all over my property. Although if he did this one, I'm not sure I could sell it:

IANAL but AFAICS the Criminal Damage Act doesn't actually define 'damage', it requires it as a prerequisite. Therefore surely proving the burden is that this Graffiti is damage, it must first be established what constitutes damage. The intretation must therefore rely on some common ground definition.

Regarding "What constitutes damage is a matter of fact and degree and it is for the court, using its common sense, to decide whether what occurred is damage (Archbold 23-6)."

Using "common sense" suggests to me a dictionary is much better than "knowing damage" criteria that some (others) here are applying.

Also "The damage need not be visible or tangible if it affects the value or performance of the property."

Surely that effect needs to be a negative effect rather than a enhacement.

I also find the term "construed the term liberally" curiously (deliciously) ambiguous, but cannot work out if that is CPS wording or from an actual judgement.

It could be construed as pertaining to liberalism, ie. with tolerance or abudently/widely.


p.s. Yes, that is a great piece of social commentary.

p.p.s @Doubters Yes it certainly is (was) a http://banksy.co.uk

Edited by Martin4x4 on Saturday 4th October 16:21

[anonymous-user]

Martin4x4 said:

IANAL but AFAICS the Criminal Damage Act doesn't actually define 'damage', it requires it as a prerequisite. Therefore surely prove the burden that Graffiti is damage, it must first be established what constitutes damage. The intretation must therefore reply on some common ground.

Regarding "What constitutes damage is a matter of fact and degree and it is for the court, using its common sense, to decide whether what occurred is damage (Archbold 23-6)."

Using "common sense" suggest to me a dictionary.

Also "The damage need not be visible or tangible if it affects the value or performance of the property."

Surely that effect needs to be a negative effect rather than a enhacement.

I also find the term "construed the term liberally" curiously (deliciously) ambiguous, but cannot work out if that is CPS wording or from an actual judgement.

It could be construed as pertaining to liberalism, ie. with tolerance or abudently/widely.

You're over-complicating it. If the owner of the wall gave a statement of complaint to the police, including the time / costs of restoring the wall to how it was before, then the offence is made out. That expense and time is unambiguous and clear, and the 'negative' if you really need to tick that box. There's nothing I can see that makes the value of the wall pre-restoration relevant.

Now, how do I get him to damage my house?

[Mojooo]

Vipers said:

So ONE complaint......................

What is this country coming to.

When it comes to standard graffiti are you saying that the council should only bother cleaning it up when they receive a certain number of complaints?

The issue is whether a breach of the alw has been comitted and whetehr the council should spend resources on dealing with it.

Also not sure why some many people are so willing to make exceptions for Banksy.

[Randy Winkman]

Mojooo said:

Vipers said:

So ONE complaint......................

What is this country coming to.

When it comes to standard graffiti are you saying that the council should only bother cleaning it up when they receive a certain number of complaints?

The issue is whether a breach of the alw has been comitted and whetehr the council should spend resources on dealing with it.

Also not sure why some many people are so willing to make exceptions for Banksy.

And the whole point of graffiti is that it's just graffiti. Someone paints it one day, the next day a dog pees up it, the next day someone paints something else on it and then a couple of weeks later the council removes it. I have a funny feeling that the person that does it in the first place usually accepts that.

[MikeO996]

jshell said:

You'd hate where I live in Stavanger, Norway then.

Am I the only one thinking all of that is better than Banksy? I find his stuff banal, obvious and boring.

ETA - which is probably why he's achieved mass market appeal

Edited by MikeO996 on Saturday 4th October 18:19

[perdu]

MikeO996 said:

jshell said:

You'd hate where I live in Stavanger, Norway then.

Am I the only one thinking all of that is better than Banksy? I find his stuff banal, obvious and boring.

ETA - which is probably why he's achieved mass market appeal

Edited by MikeO996 on Saturday 4th October 18:19

This is Norway?

Am I alone in wondering why it seems to be mostly in English?

And Mike, I think the same about Banksy.

Gone beyond tedious now, he should paint on canvas so those that like it can opt in to owning it...

[anonymous-user]

irocfan said:

I'll agree a 'Banksy' may well be worth an insane amount of money (emphasis on insane) but IMO he's just a glorified vandal

Banksy would agree with you.

In his book 'Wall and Piece' he describes himself as 'just a sweaty vandal'.

I like his work. I don't care that it's all Lefty stuff, it's usually quite clever, thought provoking, and brightens the place up.

More please.

[Halb]

I walk past one in Manchester regularly. It certainly does brighten the place up.