Sorry Banksy

[FredClogs]

irocfan said:

FredClogs said:

irocfan said:

Martin4x4 said:

FredClogs said:

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.

Actually we can, the racist UKIP supporters have cost the council rate payers around £400k. Ouch, hope that goes down well.

and quite how do you figure that one out?

He's saying the knee jerk response of those UKIP stool pigeons to censor, distract or remove the conversation away from what it really is cost the council the £400k that the painting was possibly worth.

so you're saying that UKIP requested that the vandalism be removed? Where did you get that information?

I said UKIP stool pigeon.

[steveT350C]

FredClogs said:

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.

Give it up mattnunn,

You are a bigot

[FredClogs]

steveT350C said:

FredClogs said:

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.

Give it up mattnunn,

You are a bigot

You are, and your mamma

[Rotaree]

Martin4x4 said:

Impasse said:

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.

I don't own a white car but if I did and Banksy choose to Graffiti it I would be very pleased thank you very much.

However that is irreleval to the question. What is relevant is that you have not established the Banksy _is_ 'Criminal Damage'. You have failed at the first hurdle to establish a loss of utility, function or value.

We do however seem to have reached the core of you objection, which is entirely political, you object to the message and are therefore quiet prepared to ignore the facts.

I think you'll find it's nothing to do with your oft and incorrectly repeated 'loss of utility, function or value'; according to CPS Legal Guidance 'Damage is not defined by the Act [The Criminal Damage Act 1971]. The courts have construed the term liberally. Damage is not limited to permanent damage, so smearing mud on the walls of a police cell may be criminal damage. 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).' It could therefore be construed that Banksy's efforts may well be criminal damage.

[irocfan]

FredClogs said:

irocfan said:

FredClogs said:

irocfan said:

Martin4x4 said:

FredClogs said:

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.

Actually we can, the racist UKIP supporters have cost the council rate payers around £400k. Ouch, hope that goes down well.

and quite how do you figure that one out?

He's saying the knee jerk response of those UKIP stool pigeons to censor, distract or remove the conversation away from what it really is cost the council the £400k that the painting was possibly worth.

so you're saying that UKIP requested that the vandalism be removed? Where did you get that information?

I said UKIP stool pigeon.

same difference - you're like a dog with a bone only without the intilliegance [sic]

[Rotaree]

Martin4x4 said:

Impasse said:

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.

I don't own a white car but if I did and Banksy choose to Graffiti it I would be very pleased thank you very much.

However that is irreleval to the question. What is relevant is that you have not established the Banksy _is_ 'Criminal Damage'. You have failed at the first hurdle to establish a loss of utility, function or value.

We do however seem to have reached the core of you objection, which is entirely political, you object to the message and are therefore quiet prepared to ignore the facts.

I think you'll find it's nothing to do with your oft and incorrectly repeated 'loss of utility, function or value'; according to CPS Legal Guidance 'Damage is not defined by the Act [The Criminal Damage Act 1971]. The courts have construed the term liberally. Damage is not limited to permanent damage, so smearing mud on the walls of a police cell may be criminal damage. 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).' It could therefore be construed that Banksy's efforts may well be criminal damage.

[FredClogs]

Rotaree said:

It could therefore be construed that Banksy's efforts may well be criminal damage.

Or not.

But it's now irrelevant as the law was taken into the hands of single people. Something you'll see a lot more of as more pseudo neo facist UKIP supporters find their way onto council seats and into positions of supposed "power".

[Some Gump]

Interesting debate.

So, according to some - grafitti is not a crime when it is art. Who defines this art, and where is the boundry set?

If a banksy is OK, then what about if him out of The Sun who does st cartoons did it. Is it still art?

If that is OK, what about a Viz ste joke?

If that's OK, what about a "wot, no cock?" scrawl by a bloke in the bogs? He clearly thought the drawing made the place look better.


I'm not wanting to come across all schoolteacher, but if the law says you can't spraypaint stuff on council bog walls, then that's what the law says. Arguing that it's art and valuable edgey social commentary is all well and good, but I'm sure the kids that stencilled famous rebels (Che guevara etc) at random all over the cut behind my local shops thought they were edgey too. Now that path looks st.

[irocfan]

FredClogs said:

Rotaree said:

It could therefore be construed that Banksy's efforts may well be criminal damage.

Or not.

But it's now irrelevant as the law was taken into the hands of single people. Something you'll see a lot more of as more pseudo neo facist UKIP supporters find their way onto council seats and into positions of supposed "power".

for fks sake PLEASE GIVE IT A REST! Every fking time the same retarded st

[steveT350C]

FredClogs said:

Rotaree said:

It could therefore be construed that Banksy's efforts may well be criminal damage.

Or not.

But it's now irrelevant as the law was taken into the hands of single people. Something you'll see a lot more of as more pseudo neo facist UKIP supporters find their way onto council seats and into positions of supposed "power".

you are out of order mate and about to get banned again.

grow up

[FredClogs]

steveT350C said:

FredClogs said:

Rotaree said:

It could therefore be construed that Banksy's efforts may well be criminal damage.

Or not.

But it's now irrelevant as the law was taken into the hands of single people. Something you'll see a lot more of as more pseudo neo facist UKIP supporters find their way onto council seats and into positions of supposed "power".

you are out of order mate and about to get banned again.

grow up

Ha ha.

The libertarian free speech straight talking face of UKIP.

Don't like it, jet wash it off or shut it up.

[steveT350C]

FredClogs said:

steveT350C said:

FredClogs said:

Rotaree said:

It could therefore be construed that Banksy's efforts may well be criminal damage.

Or not.

But it's now irrelevant as the law was taken into the hands of single people. Something you'll see a lot more of as more pseudo neo facist UKIP supporters find their way onto council seats and into positions of supposed "power".

you are out of order mate and about to get banned again.

grow up

Ha ha.

The libertarian free speech straight talking face of UKIP.

Don't like it, jet wash it off or shut it up.

not my rules mattnum!

let's see how long before you have to change your profile name again...

[Martin4x4]

Rotaree said:

I think you'll find it's nothing to do with your oft and incorrectly repeated 'loss of utility, function or value'; according to CPS Legal Guidance 'Damage is not defined by the Act [The Criminal Damage Act 1971]. The courts have construed the term liberally. Damage is not limited to permanent damage, so smearing mud on the walls of a police cell may be criminal damage. 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).' It could therefore be construed that Banksy's efforts may well be criminal damage.

Thank you, a response based on reason.

However, I think even a widely construed interpretation must still rely of the semantics of the word and can not stretch to cover this example.

If we apply common sense then any reasonble man must consider the up lift in value negates any loss.

[Martin4x4]

FredClogs said:

He's saying the knee jerk response of those UKIP stool pigeons to censor, distract or remove the conversation away from what it really is cost the council the £400k that the painting was possibly worth.

Yes and also catapulted their SNAFU into the national media.

[Martin4x4]

irocfan said:

it's totally relevant, [b]you were arguing that graffiti wasn't criminal[b/] - I was asking your opinion on the graffiti shown

No I did not. I refutted the claim that this incident of graffiti was 'criminal damage' because nobody has establish what the damage is. I have no opinion on your picture and it IS irrelevant to the topic.

What is so difficult to grasp about the idea that to be damage it must pass the definition of damage. My 8 year old neice just grasped this, her response "Bansky is worth money".

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!

Really what is difficult to grasp? I've explained this in the simplest way I possible could. If you still don't get it then you might as well keep it to yourself because I won't be wasting any more time tying to explain this.

[Impasse]

Martin4x4 said:

Thank you, a response based on reason.

However, I think even a widely construed interpretation must still rely of the semantics of the word and can not stretch to cover this example.

If we apply common sense then any reasonble man must consider the up lift in value negates any loss.

The costs incurred in removing the unwanted and uninvited graffiti and restoring the wall to its previous whitewashed/plain brick state still have to be borne by the wall owner. If my wall were to receive this attention why should I be out of pocket just because some art student couldn't be bothered to use a piece of hardboard?

[Walford]

Thought ASBO,s were going to stop all this

[Halb]

FredClogs said:

Because racism.

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

I voted UKiPs, and I am not racist by most impressions of the term. Certainly not compared to some of the mental comments on here in some threads.

[Some Gump]

Martin4x4 said:

No I did not. I refutted the claim that this incident of graffiti was 'criminal damage' because nobody has establish what the damage is. I have no opinion on your picture and it IS irrelevant to the topic.

What is so difficult to grasp about the idea that to be damage it must pass the definition of damage. My 8 year old neice just grasped this, her response "Bansky is worth money".

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!

Really what is difficult to grasp? I've explained this in the simplest way I possible could. If you still don't get it then you might as well keep it to yourself because I won't be wasting any more time tying to explain this.

So would you be happy if i came and painted a big cock on your gable end? I value the cock at a tenner, so it'd add value...

[davepoth]

Impasse said:

Martin4x4 said:

Thank you, a response based on reason.

However, I think even a widely construed interpretation must still rely of the semantics of the word and can not stretch to cover this example.

If we apply common sense then any reasonble man must consider the up lift in value negates any loss.

The costs incurred in removing the unwanted and uninvited graffiti and restoring the wall to its previous whitewashed/plain brick state still have to be borne by the wall owner. If my wall were to receive this attention why should I be out of pocket just because some art student couldn't be bothered to use a piece of hardboard?

By spraying the wall, Banksy increased the value of the wall by at least £100k. That would be enough to cover the cost of replacing the bricks removed. As pointed out above, it's only damage if the utility or value of the item is reduced, and neither occurred.

Incidentally, that is really what Banksy's "art" is these days; not the paintings themselves, but society's reaction to it.