Three killed after being hit by a train in London.
Discussion
fathomfive said:
I guess he'd feel the same if he had a 'tag' keyed into the bodywork of his car.
They're just misunderstood artists.
Slightly facetious. There seems to be a misconception that taggers are willing to damage privately owned cars, houses, grandmothers etc en masse. This is simply not true. There is no value / 'street cred' (hate the term) in claiming you painted / scratched / whatever'd your neighbours belongings because there is no challenge or reward. They're just misunderstood artists.
Regarding the photo earlier in this thread, it is commonplace to note taggers reaching over hoardings to spray their garb in high up and hard to access areas. These three, and many many others, aren't likely to go around damaging random peoples possessions - that's just a fallacy.
Resolutionary said:
Slightly facetious. There seems to be a misconception that taggers are willing to damage privately owned cars, houses, grandmothers etc en masse. This is simply not true. There is no value / 'street cred' (hate the term) in claiming you painted / scratched / whatever'd your neighbours belongings because there is no challenge or reward.
Does it matter - public property is paid for by us, just as private property is.If you damage private property or public property - it still ends up costing people one way or another.
Resolutionary said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
It's a public space. I don't necessarily want to see lycra clad cyclists arsing their way past my wing mirrors, but they choose their hobby / attire and I choose to live and let live.Digga said:
uk66fastback said:
Those trains must be either damn quiet, or go VERY close to the edge of that bridge though ... how come it got all three?
When I was young and foolish, me and my mates used to cross the West Coast mainline to get to some woods we'd built rope swings and stuff in. You would not believe how close a train can get to you without you hearing or seeing it (even though you are listening out for them) when it's running to even a modest breeze.Moonhawk said:
Does it matter - public property is paid for by us, just as private property is.
If you damage private property or public property - it still ends up costing people one way or another.
Well yeah it does a bit as if t's your wall you pay for all of it rather than just a penny in the hundred pounds if it's 'communal'.If you damage private property or public property - it still ends up costing people one way or another.
And not defending graffitos here, but because you make an interesting point; firstly what would you have to do to stop it, what resources would you allocate, how much do those resources cost and is that cheaper or more expensive than what we have today...?
Moonhawk said:
Does it matter - public property is paid for by us, just as private property is.
If you damage private property or public property - it still ends up costing people one way or another.
I think people here think I disagree with them - to be clear, I agree with you. It's just that there appears to be a lack of understanding of the motive which leads to misinformation and perhaps a rather lazy assessment of the perpetrators. If you damage private property or public property - it still ends up costing people one way or another.
Tagging / damaging property for namesake / etc is all narcissistic and generally in very poor taste. But it does happen, in fact some parts of London from my experience have remained a battleground of opposing graffiti factions since I was a small child.
It would be equally correct for me to rebut that while public property is paid for by us collectively, the 'us' in question will invariably include a fair few graffers with day jobs.
Resolutionary said:
I think people here think I disagree with them - to be clear, I agree with you. It's just that there appears to be a lack of understanding of the motive which leads to misinformation and perhaps a rather lazy assessment of the perpetrators.
Tagging / damaging property for namesake / etc is all narcissistic and generally in very poor taste. But it does happen, in fact some parts of London from my experience have remained a battleground of opposing graffiti factions since I was a small child.
It would be equally correct for me to rebut that while public property is paid for by us collectively, the 'us' in question will invariably include a fair few graffers with day jobs.
Railways are generally lined at regular points with "No trespassing" signs, which would suggest they are not public spaces. Tagging / damaging property for namesake / etc is all narcissistic and generally in very poor taste. But it does happen, in fact some parts of London from my experience have remained a battleground of opposing graffiti factions since I was a small child.
It would be equally correct for me to rebut that while public property is paid for by us collectively, the 'us' in question will invariably include a fair few graffers with day jobs.
Europa1 said:
Resolutionary said:
I think people here think I disagree with them - to be clear, I agree with you. It's just that there appears to be a lack of understanding of the motive which leads to misinformation and perhaps a rather lazy assessment of the perpetrators.
Tagging / damaging property for namesake / etc is all narcissistic and generally in very poor taste. But it does happen, in fact some parts of London from my experience have remained a battleground of opposing graffiti factions since I was a small child.
It would be equally correct for me to rebut that while public property is paid for by us collectively, the 'us' in question will invariably include a fair few graffers with day jobs.
Railways are generally lined at regular points with "No trespassing" signs, which would suggest they are not public spaces. Tagging / damaging property for namesake / etc is all narcissistic and generally in very poor taste. But it does happen, in fact some parts of London from my experience have remained a battleground of opposing graffiti factions since I was a small child.
It would be equally correct for me to rebut that while public property is paid for by us collectively, the 'us' in question will invariably include a fair few graffers with day jobs.
Europa1 said:
Resolutionary said:
I think people here think I disagree with them - to be clear, I agree with you. It's just that there appears to be a lack of understanding of the motive which leads to misinformation and perhaps a rather lazy assessment of the perpetrators.
Tagging / damaging property for namesake / etc is all narcissistic and generally in very poor taste. But it does happen, in fact some parts of London from my experience have remained a battleground of opposing graffiti factions since I was a small child.
It would be equally correct for me to rebut that while public property is paid for by us collectively, the 'us' in question will invariably include a fair few graffers with day jobs.
Railways are generally lined at regular points with "No trespassing" signs, which would suggest they are not public spaces. Tagging / damaging property for namesake / etc is all narcissistic and generally in very poor taste. But it does happen, in fact some parts of London from my experience have remained a battleground of opposing graffiti factions since I was a small child.
It would be equally correct for me to rebut that while public property is paid for by us collectively, the 'us' in question will invariably include a fair few graffers with day jobs.
Europa1 said:
Resolutionary said:
It's pretty obvious you can't trespass on a railway, no?
Apparently it's not obvious to graffiti sprayers.Fair play call me an idiot for relishing in the deaths of these little vandals.
However anyone with the metal ability to use a keyboard and try and justify the actions of these criminals on here is just wrong.
They were breaking the law, it looks terrible and good riddance.
There's more than enough opportunity to display your art, without tagging anything.
Even less of an excuse for what appeared to be smart young people.
Clearly they where smart enough to believe they can justify breaking the law, like many people believe on here, often about most things!!!
ciege said:
It's deeper than that though isn't it.
Fair play call me an idiot for relishing in the deaths of these little vandals.
However anyone with the metal ability to use a keyboard and try and justify the actions of these criminals on here is just wrong.
They were breaking the law, it looks terrible and good riddance.
There's more than enough opportunity to display your art, without tagging anything.
Even less of an excuse for what appeared to be smart young people.
Clearly they where smart enough to believe they can justify breaking the law, like many people believe on here, often about most things!!!
Lots of people break the law.Fair play call me an idiot for relishing in the deaths of these little vandals.
However anyone with the metal ability to use a keyboard and try and justify the actions of these criminals on here is just wrong.
They were breaking the law, it looks terrible and good riddance.
There's more than enough opportunity to display your art, without tagging anything.
Even less of an excuse for what appeared to be smart young people.
Clearly they where smart enough to believe they can justify breaking the law, like many people believe on here, often about most things!!!
It isn't mutually exclusive to think that they were daft and paid a heavy price whilst also thinking some of the comments on here are just in plain poor taste.
This is the kind of thing any one of your neighbours kids might have done, or your own kids.
I doubt "good riddance he was a criminal" would have been your response when Bill from next door next sees you and mentions what happened to his son.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Unfortunately it does register..... I was unlucky enough to be on a train going through a station at speed when some unfortunate person decided to jump in front of it. The noise it made was quite noticeable to the point where I initially thought that the diff on one of the front bogeys had exploded it was the only thing I could think of mechanically which could make such a sound! Let's just say it was something else exploding!Have to say the driver was exemplorary through the whole situation considering what happened. Incredibly calm and professional. I would have been a jibbering wreck.
If these trespassers had of been standing at the side and got dragged under, I could imagine the driver not hearing, and consdering the train would have been empty nobody else would have heard the noise either....
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:ciege said:
It's deeper than that though isn't it.
Fair play call me an idiot for relishing in the deaths of these little vandals.
However anyone with the metal ability to use a keyboard and try and justify the actions of these criminals on here is just wrong.
They were breaking the law, it looks terrible and good riddance.
There's more than enough opportunity to display your art, without tagging anything.
Even less of an excuse for what appeared to be smart young people.
Clearly they where smart enough to believe they can justify breaking the law, like many people believe on here, often about most things!!!
Lots of people break the law.Fair play call me an idiot for relishing in the deaths of these little vandals.
However anyone with the metal ability to use a keyboard and try and justify the actions of these criminals on here is just wrong.
They were breaking the law, it looks terrible and good riddance.
There's more than enough opportunity to display your art, without tagging anything.
Even less of an excuse for what appeared to be smart young people.
Clearly they where smart enough to believe they can justify breaking the law, like many people believe on here, often about most things!!!
It isn't mutually exclusive to think that they were daft and paid a heavy price whilst also thinking some of the comments on here are just in plain poor taste.
This is the kind of thing any one of your neighbours kids might have done, or your own kids.
I doubt "good riddance he was a criminal" would have been your response when Bill from next door next sees you and mentions what happened to his son.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:Timmy45 said:
Maybe not, but I'd still be thinking silly sod, what a daft thing to do. Especially at the age of 20!
I think "silly sod, what a daft thing to do", that's normal.Almost relishing in someone's death over something so trivial isn't normal.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff