Sorry Banksy

[Lotus Notes]

[Rovinghawk]

dandarez said:

It's a bloody Swallow! (Hirundo Rustica)

While they are widespread, West and South African Swallows are non-migratory

Which one carries coconuts?

[TTwiggy]

Impasse said:

So basically, he's like a very crap version of a teenage Ben Elton but with a tin of spray paint?

Have you never heard of him before? He's quite popular you know...

[Martin4x4]

NoNeed said:

It's criminal damage no more no less.

By what definition? Where is the loss in utility, function or value?

A Banksy actually enhances the value.

[RobGT81]

Martin4x4 said:

By what definition?

"Criminal Damage Act of 1971
gives us the following definition of criminal damage:

Section 1 (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.

• In respect to graffiti we're talking here about ‘without permission’

If someone is caught applying graffiti without the permission of the owner of the canvas they can be arrested and charged under the Criminal Damage Act and if found guilty they can be fined or imprisoned or both."

[Martin4x4]

RobGT81 said:

Martin4x4 said:

By what definition?

"Criminal Damage Act of 1971
gives us the following definition of criminal damage:

Section 1 (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.

• In respect to graffiti we're talking here about ‘without permission’

If someone is caught applying graffiti without the permission of the owner of the canvas they can be arrested and charged under the Criminal Damage Act and if found guilty they can be fined or imprisoned or both."

The same (rhetorical) question stands. Where is the damage? Where is the loss in utility, function or value? There is none. Therefore that definition fails at the first hurdle.

Edited by Martin4x4 on Thursday 2nd October 13:09

[Impasse]

Martin4x4 said:

The same questions stands. Where is the damage? Where is the loss in utility, function or value? There is none. Therefore that definition fails at the first hurdle.

The damage is to the wall's original paint, in the same way it would be if you took tin of black spray paint to a white car. If it wasn't invited it shouldn't be there and the person who defaced it should be held liable to clean it.

[FredClogs]

people will always try to destroy things they either don't understand or make them look a bit daft.

I'd say in this case it was a little bit of both.

[Tonsko]

I love any sort of (good) graffitti. It makes an otherwise boring area interesting. Tagging is pointless.

As for "We would obviously welcome an appropriate Banksy original on any of our seafronts and would be delighted if he returned in the future."

[irocfan]

Martin4x4 said:

RobGT81 said:

Martin4x4 said:

By what definition?

"Criminal Damage Act of 1971
gives us the following definition of criminal damage:

Section 1 (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.

• In respect to graffiti we're talking here about ‘without permission’

If someone is caught applying graffiti without the permission of the owner of the canvas they can be arrested and charged under the Criminal Damage Act and if found guilty they can be fined or imprisoned or both."

The same questions stands. Where is the damage? Where is the loss in utility, function or value? There is none. Therefore that definition fails at the first hurdle.

so this isn't criminal then?

[Martin4x4]

Perhaps the pigeons are worried about their jobs

[Tonsko]

See, I'd class that as tagging. ^^. Not cool.

is pretty spesh.

[Martin4x4]

Impasse said:

Martin4x4 said:

The same questions stands. Where is the damage? Where is the loss in utility, function or value? There is none. Therefore that definition fails at the first hurdle.

The damage is to the wall's original paint, in the same way it would be if you took tin of black spray paint to a white car. If it wasn't invited it shouldn't be there and the person who defaced it should be held liable to clean it.

No, you are ignorning the definition of the word _damage_. Were is the the loss of utility, function or value? That is what you have to prove first.

[aka_kerrly]

I find the vast majority of Banksy's work to be both entertaining and high quality for it's type and would happy to see more of his work around.

I'd go so far as saying I much prefer his approach to political messages than any of the current crop of UK politicians and their snakes in the PR departments.

[Impasse]

Martin4x4 said:

No, you are ignorning the definition of the word _damage_. Were is the the loss of utility, function or value? That is what you have to prove first.

But your white car can still be used even if it has a knob painted on the bonnet in black spray paint, yet I think most sane people would agree the car has been damaged. If it has marked the wall then it has damaged the wall.

I don't know why some think this form of vandalism is acceptable just because it was supposedly done by (or on behalf of) an individual(s) who has/have reached notoriety in the newspapers. I'd be out there with the jetwash or paint roller the very next morning to rid my property of such childish unfunny representations of someone else's political views.

[irocfan]

Martin4x4 said:

Impasse said:

Martin4x4 said:

The same questions stands. Where is the damage? Where is the loss in utility, function or value? There is none. Therefore that definition fails at the first hurdle.

The damage is to the wall's original paint, in the same way it would be if you took tin of black spray paint to a white car. If it wasn't invited it shouldn't be there and the person who defaced it should be held liable to clean it.

No, you are ignorning the definition of the word _damage_. Were is the the loss of utility, function or value? That is what you have to prove first.

and you haven't answered my question either...

[FredClogs]

Impasse said:

I'd be out there with the jetwash or paint roller the very next morning to rid my property of such childish unfunny representations of someone else's political views.

You wouldn't. Proper Bansky's can be worth a lot of money.

[Impasse]

FredClogs said:

You wouldn't. Proper Bansky's can be worth a lot of money.

Yes I would.

[petemurphy]

if it was a banksy worth 400k why hadnt the council sold it to raise cash? or why hadnt anyone nicked it?

[FredClogs]

petemurphy said:

if it was a banksy worth 400k why hadnt the council sold it to raise cash? or why hadnt anyone nicked it?

Because racism.

You can't put a price on shushing up the racist nature of UKIP supporters.