Three killed after being hit by a train in London.

[Resolutionary]

Cotty said:

The only residential homes I see targeted by graffiti back onto rail tracks. However I am sure they would prefer if they did not have graffiti on their home.

All things considered they might prefer not to live next to a train track.

[Resolutionary]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

How charmingly cryptic.

[98elise]

Resolutionary said:

Rovinghawk said:

The argument is that you like it but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't if it was done to you.

I don't live on a train track, in a freight wagon, or in an underpass. Seriously are you telling me that you see lots of residential homes and the like sprayed with graffiti? I have a feeling this straw man is about to blow away.

I see graffiti on houses every day on my rail journey home (Cannon Street heading into Kent). Any building accessible from the railway seems to be fair game.

Hope the link works

https://earth.app.goo.gl/?apn=com.google.earth&amp...

Thereis graffiti on the trains, and all over the rail infrastructure including signs and safety stuff. 99% of it is crap and devoid of talent. 100% of it is vandalism.

I feel sorry for the people that had to deal with the aftermath of the accident, including the parents. I don't give a st about the selfish tts that died, nor their fans who felt it appropriate to vandalise local businesses in their honor.

Edited by 98elise on Friday 22 June 15:04

[TriumphStag3.0V8]

Resolutionary said:

One of the trio attended Hampstead Fine Arts College. Why is this so discussion binary for so many?!

Errr, because it is illegal and anti social. That's pretty binary.

Why is what they have been doing acceptable and admires by some?

I'm hoping that Hampstead Fine Arts college doesn't treat spray painting your name on railway bridges as coursework.

[Cotty]

Resolutionary said:

Cotty said:

The only residential homes I see targeted by graffiti back onto rail tracks. However I am sure they would prefer if they did not have graffiti on their home.

All things considered they might prefer not to live next to a train track.

So they are already on the back foot as they are living next to a railway, they don't need a metaphorical kick in the teeth by having their property damaged/devalued by graffiti.

What's the expression don't kick a man when he is down.

[Resolutionary]

98elise said:

I see graffiti on houses every day on my rail journey home (Cannon Street heading into Kent). Any building accessible from the railway seems to be fair game.

Hope the link works

https://earth.app.goo.gl/?apn=com.google.earth&amp...

Thereis graffiti on the trains, and all over the rail infrastructure including signs and safety stuff. 99% of it is crap and devoid of talent. 100% of it is vandalism.

I feel sorry for the people that had to deal with the aftermath of the accident, including the parents. I don't give a st about the selfish tts that died, nor their fans who felt it appropriate to vandalise local businesses in their honor.

Edited by 98elise on Friday 22 June 15:04

I know the route well. It is one of hundreds lined by graffiti. No one is debating whether it is all vandalism. No one is debating that those who died were undertaking illegal activities including trespassing and criminal damage. But none of this should surprise anyone - graffiti has adorned the hoardings, walls and bridges of many a town and city for like forty years plus now. Its as much an aspect of the metropolis as scaggy footless pigeons and street buskers.

TriumphStag3.0V8 said:

Errr, because it is illegal and anti social. That's pretty binary.

Why is what they have been doing acceptable and admires by some?

I'm hoping that Hampstead Fine Arts college doesn't treat spray painting your name on railway bridges as coursework.

Err, you literally said these types ought to go to art school - one of them was. Ergo, not as binary as 'don't graff, go to college'. Another prominent binary argument here is 'OMG taggers aren't talented artists' - when quite evidently, they are often one and the same (see the example posted a page or two ago with the cat and mouse).

Why is it admired and accepted by some? Because there are billions of us on planet earth and there is bound to be some variation in attitude and action. It's also extremely lucrative; you only need to visit a gallery or two in the Shoreditch area to see evidence of that.

Cotty said:

So they are already on the back foot as they are living next to a railway, they don't need a metaphorical kick in the teeth by having their property damaged/devalued by graffiti.

What's the expression don't kick a man when he is down.

What's the expression, beggars can't be choosers? As mentioned above, this isn't a new phenomenon. Anyone in and around towns and cities in the last 40 years will have seen graffiti as part of the urban landscape, especially near train lines. Harsh? Maybe. Factual? Absolutely.

[98elise]

TriumphStag3.0V8 said:

Resolutionary said:

One of the trio attended Hampstead Fine Arts College. Why is this so discussion binary for so many?!

Errr, because it is illegal and anti social. That's pretty binary.

Why is what they have been doing acceptable and admires by some?

I'm hoping that Hampstead Fine Arts college doesn't treat spray painting your name on railway bridges as coursework.

Agreed. I'm surprised some people condone criminal activity because they perceive it as being well executed.

[ciege]

When posting on pistonheads the following normally happens...

1 someone posts

2 I rant and swear a reply

3 someone more literate post a well thought out rebuff and I feel terrible

However on this one, Nah still fk them, good fking riddance

[Resolutionary]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Let's say the trio that died had a past of creating what would widely be credited as humorous / witty / artistically talented pieces. Would your view that they are trespassing and vandalising, but got caught out, be impacted by their aforementioned skill? Would they be worthy of mourn?

[98elise]

Resolutionary said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Let's say the trio that died had a past of creating what would widely be credited as humorous / witty / artistically talented pieces. Would your view that they are trespassing and vandalising, but got caught out, be impacted by their aforementioned skill? Would they be worthy of mourn?

For me no. When my car was keyed I didn't care how well it was done. A witty one liner keyed into the door wouldn't make me less angry about it.

[Resolutionary]

98elise said:

For me no. When my car was keyed I didn't care how well it was done. A witty one liner keyed into the door wouldn't make me less angry about it.

Bit of a leap (not trying to be sharp, I hope you understand where I'm coming from). If we stick to the example, rather than the undoubtedly stty thing that happened to your car, would the more stern posters here feel differently about those that died, and the actions of graffiti writers, if they were talented / witty / otherwise more artistically contributory?

I ask this as its become a sticking point over the last few pages and its a really interesting point.

[The Selfish Gene]

Resolutionary said:

Bit of a leap (not trying to be sharp, I hope you understand where I'm coming from). If we stick to the example, rather than the undoubtedly stty thing that happened to your car, would the more stern posters here feel differently about those that died, and the actions of graffiti writers, if they were talented / witty / otherwise more artistically contributory?

I ask this as its become a sticking point over the last few pages and its a really interesting point.

I don't think so no. If a burglar falls down the stairs and dies, nobody cares, people should celebrate.

I think what this comes down to is, how serious we feel the crime is. that's why one of the posters mentioned speeding I think. As most of us don't really seeing speeding as a particularly bad crime (or in my case, don't recognise it as a crime at all)

It seems to boil down to they were doing something illegal, they got dead, nobody gives a fk.

I tend to be in that camp.

Burglar getting stabbed - everyone a winner etc

I think burglars are worse than graffiti types...........I think it's a crime that has a more personal victim.

Then I don't own a railway.

[Resolutionary]

The Selfish Gene said:

I don't think so no. If a burglar falls down the stairs and dies, nobody cares, people should celebrate.

I think what this comes down to is, how serious we feel the crime is. that's why one of the posters mentioned speeding I think. As most of us don't really seeing speeding as a particularly bad crime (or in my case, don't recognise it as a crime at all)

It seems to boil down to they were doing something illegal, they got dead, nobody gives a fk.

I tend to be in that camp.

Burglar getting stabbed - everyone a winner etc

I think burglars are worse than graffiti types...........I think it's a crime that has a more personal victim.

Then I don't own a railway.

Reasonable arguments, well put. Thank you.

[Cold]

Resolutionary said:

Bit of a leap (not trying to be sharp, I hope you understand where I'm coming from). If we stick to the example, rather than the undoubtedly stty thing that happened to your car, would the more stern posters here feel differently about those that died, and the actions of graffiti writers, if they were talented / witty / otherwise more artistically contributory?

I ask this as its become a sticking point over the last few pages and its a really interesting point.

If you're roundabout asking if popular derivative "artist" Banksy can still be thought of as a vandal, then yes he and his team can be considered to be acting illegally when they deface someone's property without permission.

[saaby93]

Resolutionary said:

Bit of a leap (not trying to be sharp, I hope you understand where I'm coming from). If we stick to the example, rather than the undoubtedly stty thing that happened to your car, would the more stern posters here feel differently about those that died, and the actions of graffiti writers, if they were talented / witty / otherwise more artistically contributory?

If they were for one moment talented / witty / otherwise more artistically contributory wouldnt they be able to find another way to demonstrate it?
There are some pretty impressive graphics on vans and motorbikes.

However that doesnt mean we should relish the death of people that havent found those opportunities

Edited by saaby93 on Friday 22 June 16:49

[WestyCarl]

The Selfish Gene said:

It seems to boil down to they were doing something illegal, they got dead, nobody gives a fk.

I tend to be in that camp.

so speeding and dying because of it (you may not recognize it as illegal, but it still is)

or singing in the street after the pub (drunk and disorderly) then getting run over

I don't think it's a simple as "you were doing something illegal, nobody give a fk"

[Resolutionary]

Cold said:

If you're roundabout asking if popular derivative "artist" Banksy can still be thought of as a vandal, then yes he and his team can be considered to be acting illegally when they deface someone's property without permission.

Not to be pedantic, but I didn't in any way ask if Banksy was anything. I have tried to be pretty specific about the incident in question, but flipped the tagging which appears to be the main hang up for lots of folks here.

saaby93 said:

If they were for one moment talented / witty / otherwise more artistically contributory wouldnt they be able to find another way to demonstrate it?
There are some pretty impressive graphics on vans and motorbikes.

However that doesnt mean we should relish the death of people that havent found those opportunities

Edited by saaby93 on Friday 22 June 16:49

There are some pretty impressive pieces of graffiti on mainline tracks too - objectively so. It seems quite hard for people to grasp that illegal activities are not solely the jurisdiction of asshats. To use the earlier analogy of speeding - I can bet a great many PHers routinely do so, which by your logic means they're moronic, and that is probably not true across the board.

[saaby93]

Resolutionary said:

which by your logic means they're moronic

not my logic, your logic

[The Selfish Gene]

WestyCarl said:

The Selfish Gene said:

It seems to boil down to they were doing something illegal, they got dead, nobody gives a fk.

I tend to be in that camp.

so speeding and dying because of it (you may not recognize it as illegal, but it still is)

or singing in the street after the pub (drunk and disorderly) then getting run over

I don't think it's a simple as "you were doing something illegal, nobody give a fk"

I didn't say speeding and dying because of it wasn't a crime. If you kill someone speeding the crime is killing someone, not the speeding, it's the lack of your ability to do that speed. Crime against driving standards the same as if you kill someone at 30mph in a 40mph. Speeding is irrelevant as the crime - the killing is the crime.

If you're singing in the street after the pub, and get run over, that's not a crime either? That's just being a bit daft and not looking before you cross the road? If you're drunk and disorderly - and get hit by a car I wouldn't give a fk no.

[Resolutionary]

saaby93 said:

Resolutionary said:

which by your logic means they're moronic

not my logic, your logic

Is it though? I'm saying that talent and wit don't exclude people from undertaking illegal activities such as vandalism. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear, at least from what I glean, to be saying it should.