|
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
Two young boys have been hit and killed by a London Underground (LU)
train in Barking in east London. British Transport Police (BTP) said they were part of a group of four boys who had been writing graffiti in a depot late on Friday night. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6258337.stm |
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
wrote: Two young boys have been hit and killed by a London Underground (LU) train in Barking in east London. Good. They weren't young boys , they were in their twenties and were vandalising a train. I'd call that a result. B2003 |
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
"Boltar" wrote in message ups.com... wrote: Two young boys have been hit and killed by a London Underground (LU) train in Barking in east London. Good. They weren't young boys , they were in their twenties and were vandalising a train. I'd call that a result. B2003 Two more scumbags dead. Glad to hear it. |
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
Boltar wrote:
Good. They weren't young boys , they were in their twenties and were vandalising a train. I'd call that a result. You know you're going to get the do-gooders coming on saying "But these poor kids have a family.. they didn't deserve to die.. would you suggest killing someone for stealing a chocolate bar in a corner shop" etc, don't you? It's clear that these people knew what they were doing. I was in America last week and there was an accident where two 17 year olds were killed on motorcycles, having been drinking and street racing. I was quite surprised to see that the media and even friends blamed them for their stupidity. Rather than saying 'Poor lads' or 'it was a tragic accident' or blamed someone else (the bike manufacturers or something), they were quite clear - a stupid 'accident' that wouldn't have happened if they hadn't been idiots. Perhaps it's time we started to think the same way about these things (it doesn't mean you don't have sympathy for the family, especially if they didn't know what their kids were doing). You just know that over here, there will be an inquiry and a family will possibly end up suing, and winning, compensation from LUL, the driver or maybe the security guard/s for scaring them and making them panic... All in all, it seems like rather effective crime prevention. Two people who won't be out tonight damaging property. Jonathan |
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
Jonathan Morris wrote:
All in all, it seems like rather effective crime prevention. Two people who won't be out tonight damaging property. I am going to add that I feel for the driver, and possibly the security staff if they witnessed the collision. These are the people we SHOULD be feeling sympathy for. Jonathan |
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
Jonathan Morris wrote:
Perhaps it's time we started to think the same way about these things (it doesn't mean you don't have sympathy for the family, especially if they didn't know what their kids were doing). You just know that over here, there will be an inquiry and a family will possibly end up suing, and winning, compensation from LUL, the driver or maybe the security guard/s for scaring them and making them panic... You think that the UK is *more* nannyish and litigious than the US? That's an impressive disconnect from reality. In real life, there will not be an enquiry, nobody will sue anyone and no compensation will be awarded - I'd happily bet £500 on that, if anyone's up for it. Despite occasional Political Correctness Gone Mad rants in the Daily Wail, it is simply not the case in the UK that criminals are awarded compensation for the injuries they acquire during their crimes. The only exception is if they are injured by a criminal or criminally negligent act committed by someone else - and, because you're always allowed to use reasonable force to stop people from committing crimes, this rarely happens. You'd need to (e.g., props to Mr Martin, etc.) shoot a fleeing child in the back for it to be treated as anything other than reasonable self defence. Sorry for the rant - it just bothers me that so many people have such a factually incorrect view of the way in which our legal system operates... -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
Jonathan Morris wrote:
It's clear that these people knew what they were doing. I was in America last week and there was an accident where two 17 year olds were killed on motorcycles, having been drinking and street racing. I was quite surprised to see that the media and even friends blamed them for their stupidity. Rather than saying 'Poor lads' or 'it was a tragic accident' or blamed someone else (the bike manufacturers or something), they were quite clear - a stupid 'accident' that wouldn't have happened if they hadn't been idiots. That is quite different: by drinking and street racing, they were risking others, whereas the graffiti artists weren't endangering anyone's life. Perhaps it's time we started to think the same way about these things (it doesn't mean you don't have sympathy for the family, especially if they didn't know what their kids were doing). You just know that over here, there will be an inquiry and a family will possibly end up suing, and winning, compensation from LUL, the driver or maybe the security guard/s for scaring them and making them panic... I suspect that drivers who hit graffitijits feels fine, unlike drivers who hit suicides or fallers. |
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
"John B" wrote in message ups.com... Jonathan Morris wrote: Perhaps it's time we started to think the same way about these things (it doesn't mean you don't have sympathy for the family, especially if they didn't know what their kids were doing). You just know that over here, there will be an inquiry and a family will possibly end up suing, and winning, compensation from LUL, the driver or maybe the security guard/s for scaring them and making them panic... You think that the UK is *more* nannyish and litigious than the US? That's an impressive disconnect from reality. In real life, there will not be an enquiry, nobody will sue anyone and no compensation will be awarded - I'd happily bet £500 on that, if anyone's up for it. Despite occasional Political Correctness Gone Mad rants in the Daily Wail, it is simply not the case in the UK that criminals are awarded compensation for the injuries they acquire during their crimes. The only exception is if they are injured by a criminal or criminally negligent act committed by someone else - and, because you're always allowed to use reasonable force to stop people from committing crimes, this rarely happens. You'd need to (e.g., props to Mr Martin, etc.) shoot a fleeing child in the back for it to be treated as anything other than reasonable self defence. Sorry for the rant - it just bothers me that so many people have such a factually incorrect view of the way in which our legal system operates... -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org What child ? Tony Martin is a hero who killed a pikey scumbag in the dark and who shouldn't have been on his property. These two also got exactly what they deserved. Good riddance to them I hope some more of these vandals get chopped up by trains. |
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
John Rowland wrote: I suspect that drivers who hit graffitijits feels fine, unlike drivers who hit suicides or fallers. Don't talk like a c**t. I wouldn't "feel fine" if I saw somebody's brains all over the coupler, half of them in the four foot and half in the cess, their lungs and guts draped over the shoe beam, still less if i had to bag said items up. Having said that, it was their own fault. Trespassing on LUL has to be a fairly good way of getting a Darwin award - twice as many juice rails as the Southern, where I grew up. |
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
wrote in message ups.com... Two young boys have been hit and killed by a London Underground (LU) train in Barking in east London. British Transport Police (BTP) said they were part of a group of four boys who had been writing graffiti in a depot late on Friday night. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6258337.stm What kind of people, in their early twenties, spend a Friday night spraying paint on Underground trains in sidings and whilst services are still running? If it were teenagers you could put it down to youthful recklessness, but people aged 21 and 23? They can vote, work and pay taxes and (theoretically) have completed a university education. It is sad that there are people like these that have clearly been left behind by society. |
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
That is quite different: by drinking and street racing, they were risking others, whereas the graffiti artists weren't endangering anyone's life. Graffiti artists (sic) have proven track records (no pun) of covering speed restriction signs, signals, OPO CCTV or mirrors and train head/tail-lights, cut holes in depot fencing which could allow access for small children, all of which could impact on safety. And if we really need contrasting door and body colours on UK trains under DiPTAC (which I do doubt) then are even causing difficulties for the partially sighted too. These two are no loss to society and it's just a pity so many passengers are staff were inconvenienced last night and today. Good riddance though I expect they're already being hailed as martyrs on taggers' message boards. |
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
Trixie wrote:
[quoting fixed - JB] The only exception is if they are injured by a criminal or criminally negligent act committed by someone else - and, because you're always allowed to use reasonable force to stop people from committing crimes, this rarely happens. You'd need to (e.g., props to Mr Martin, etc.) shoot a fleeing child in the back for it to be treated as anything other than reasonable self defence. What child ? In law, a 16-year-old is a child. If you don't like that, why not stand for Parliament and try and get it changed? Tony Martin is a hero who killed a pikey scumbag in the dark and who shouldn't have been on his property. Tony Martin is a sad, deluded, slighly mad person. A court of law found that, beyond reasonable doubt, he knowingly shot a fleeing child in the back. He was eventually acquitted of murder on the grounds of diminished responsibility. And who cares about the ethnic origin of the child he killed? (well, racists might, I suppose). If you believe that the civil offence of trespassing justifies the murder of the trespasser, then why not stand for Parliament and try and get that enshrined in law? Or perhaps you could move to one of the states in the US where this is already the case; don't let the door hit you on your way out. These two also got exactly what they deserved. Good riddance to them I hope some more of these vandals get chopped up by trains. Death *deserved* for minor vandalism? Why not put that in your manifesto for Parliament too? "I support lowering the age of majority to 16, and imposing the death penalty for tresspassing and vandalism". I reckon you'd get loads of votes. I'm also glad that you want more train drivers to go through the horrible ordeal of killing someone (what proportion of drivers never return to work after a one-under incident? It's non-trivial, ISTR.) Overall, poor trolling, could do better, but you did get me to rise to the bait. I'll give you a C+. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
Trixie wrote:
"Boltar" wrote in message ups.com... wrote: Two young boys have been hit and killed by a London Underground (LU) train in Barking in east London. Good. They weren't young boys , they were in their twenties and were vandalising a train. I'd call that a result. B2003 Two more scumbags dead. Glad to hear it. Agreed. I'm increasingly seeing SWT's Desiro trains running around here covered in graffiti and it just looks disgusting. How would these people like it if we came round to their house and covered the front of it in paint, and then scratched our names into their living room windows? These "artists" are not contributing anything to our society. Train 2 Scum 0. (And no, I'm not a middle-aged fuddy duddy. I'm 28 and was brought up to respect the property of other people). Cheers Steve M |
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
John B wrote:
Trixie wrote: Tony Martin is a hero who killed a pikey scumbag in the dark and who shouldn't have been on his property. And who cares about the ethnic origin of the child he killed? (well, racists might, I suppose). Is pikey a race? I thought it was a behaviour pattern. |
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
John Rowland wrote:
Tony Martin is a hero who killed a pikey scumbag in the dark and who shouldn't have been on his property. And who cares about the ethnic origin of the child he killed? (well, racists might, I suppose). Is pikey a race? I thought it was a behaviour pattern. The primary meaning of "pikey" is "Irish traveller", although it is also used to mean "general scumbag". Since Fred Barras was from an Irish traveller family, I rather assumed that the OP was using the term in that sense... -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
|
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
John B wrote:
You think that the UK is *more* nannyish and litigious than the US? That's an impressive disconnect from reality. Well, that's what I thought too. Maybe they're gaining a sense of reality? In real life, there will not be an enquiry, nobody will sue anyone and no compensation will be awarded - I'd happily bet £500 on that, if anyone's up for it. An interview on Sky News had a police officer saying they were convinced there was no chase going on, suggesting people are already beginning to question whether the security guards might have 'caused' the incident. My comments were of course not just about this once incident. Jonathan |
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
John B wrote: Despite occasional Political Correctness Gone Mad rants in the Daily Wail, it is simply not the case in the UK that criminals are awarded compensation for the injuries they acquire during their crimes. No , the scumbags get the money afterwards once they're in the nick: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6142416.stm B2003 |
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
|
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
John B wrote: In law, a 16-year-old is a child. If you don't like that, why not stand for Parliament and try and get it changed? Tell that the residents who have to put up with 16 year old "children" dealing drugs and threatening people on various estates. Tony Martin is a sad, deluded, slighly mad person. A court of law found So would you be if you lived on your own at a farm and were constantly bothered by criminals. Perhaps you think he should have invited them in and had a cup of tea with them and discussed their childhood issues? Or maybe you do have buried somewhere in your thick head a grain of common sense and accept that if someone breaks into a house at 3am then their "human rights" get left at the door. diminished responsibility. And who cares about the ethnic origin of the child he killed? (well, racists might, I suppose). Thats right, if you have nothing else left in your armoury invoke an "ism". Standard PC discussion rule #1. If you believe that the civil offence of trespassing justifies the Since when was burglary a civil offense? Oh but they didn't take anything did they? I'm sure they were poor innocents who just got lost on the way to the pub and had no intention of ransacking the place if it was empty. Death *deserved* for minor vandalism? Why not put that in your As you well know , no one would meet out that kind of punishment on someone for that sort of offense but if it happens by accident while they're commiting the crime then I doubt anyone except their familes will shed any tears. You really are a muppet arn't you. I bet you're a typical pseudo intellectual lefty bull****ter who probably has a nice well paid job and a comfy lifestyle. You don't have to live in remote farmhouses or run down estates and have to worry about what the noise outside at 4am every night is. No doubt you impress your friends at champagne dinner parties with your magnanimous approach to justice and respect for the individual. So caring , so on-the-money, tut tutting at people who would like to get even with the scum who make their life a misery as unreformed knuckle draggers who don't really know any better and don't understand the complexities of the issues involved that you have such a fine grasp of. You're and people like you really do need a quick sharp dose of reality before you take us all down with you. B2003 |
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
Some graffiti is breathtakingly beautiful, some is gloriously witty (think:
Banksy). Some of it can really brighten up a boring journey, or make a disused train a work of art. Admittedly, some of it - such as the stupid tags (think: TOX) are utterly a waste of time and yes, certainly vandalism. But I don't think we should tar all grafitti artists with the same brush here. I don't know which kind these were - and the loss of life is tragic whether they were the witty ones or the wasteful ones - but please don't diss all grafitti artists as being vandals or degenerates. Some of it is really quite beautiful. |
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
Now the media investigation is hinging on whether they were being "chased" by LU or security staff. And if they were no doubt the do-gooders will claim the so-called "tragedy" was all the authorities' fault since they had a "human right" to deface other people's property. |
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
John Rowland wrote:
Jonathan Morris wrote: It's clear that these people knew what they were doing. I was in America last week and there was an accident where two 17 year olds were killed on motorcycles, having been drinking and street racing. I was quite surprised to see that the media and even friends blamed them for their stupidity. Rather than saying 'Poor lads' or 'it was a tragic accident' or blamed someone else (the bike manufacturers or something), they were quite clear - a stupid 'accident' that wouldn't have happened if they hadn't been idiots. That is quite different: by drinking and street racing, they were risking others, whereas the graffiti artists weren't endangering anyone's life. You mean graffiti vandals. I've just complained to the BBC for their use of "artists" on their website. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
Tristán White wrote: but please don't diss all grafitti artists as being vandals or degenerates. Some of it is really quite beautiful. It is to some people. Not to others. Banksy is an overrated **** IMHO. I live in Bristol, and I've seen a load of hs stuff. |
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
Tristán White wrote: they were the witty ones or the wasteful ones - but please don't diss all grafitti artists as being vandals or degenerates. Some of it is really quite beautiful. So if I came and painted all over your car/house/furniture which would cost you thousands to fix , then so long as it some sort of vague artistic merit that would be ok would it? Shall I get my brushes? B2003 |
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
Tristán White wrote:
Some graffiti is breathtakingly beautiful, some is gloriously witty (think: Banksy). Some of it can really brighten up a boring journey, or make a disused train a work of art. Admittedly, some of it - such as the stupid tags (think: TOX) are utterly a waste of time and yes, certainly vandalism. But I don't think we should tar all grafitti artists with the same brush here. I'm not tarring any artists, quite the reverse. I'm objecting to the word "artist" being used to describe someone who illegally defaces other people's property. I don't know which kind these were You must be the only one who doesn't. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
Richard J. wrote:
Admittedly, some of it - such as the stupid tags (think: TOX) are utterly a waste of time and yes, certainly vandalism. But I don't think we should tar all grafitti artists with the same brush here. I'm not tarring any artists, quite the reverse. I'm objecting to the word "artist" being used to describe someone who illegally defaces other people's property. So if the Mona Lisa had been painted on a stolen canvas, it wouldn't be an artwork and Leonardo wouldn't be an artist? Under any sensible definition, that BNP ballerina is still an artist. Even Hitler was an artist, although not a very good one. Similarly, graffiti-ers who go beyond scrawled tags are artists. They are also vandals, but an immoral life - or even a crime being committed in the course of making the artwork - does not stop it from being art. -- John Band john at johnband dot org www.johnband.org |
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
John B wrote: the use of sanctions such as ASBOs. *sigh* ASBOs don't work very well and they're just a way of the government appearing to do something without actually doing anything: http://www.bbc.co.uk/leicester/conte..._feature.shtml http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/arti...954804,00.html There are plenty of other examples if you google. thuggery seems broadly right - which makes it unsurprising that crime continues to fall on any sensible measure. Street crime and murders, general thuggery etc? Or ALL crime including white collar , computer crimes which may well bias the figures? It matters. B2003 |
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
Tristán White wrote: Some graffiti is breathtakingly beautiful, That's a matter of opinion, and don't be such an idiot as to begin to justify acts of criminality by "ends justify the means" arguments. some is gloriously witty (think: Banksy). When I think "Banksy" I think of space-wasting moron without whom society would not have been one iota worse off. Some of it can really brighten up a boring journey, You must have a really sad life if you rely on graffiti (i.e. others' acts of criminal vandalism) to brighten up a "boring" journey. Have you never read a book on a train, for example? What about tunnels - should we provide luminous paint sprays so that your tunnel journeys can be "brightened up too", so should we contribute to climate change by installing lights in tunnels so that you can see the "artwork" on which you seem so keen? or make a disused train a work of art. That really is the most outrageous and pathetic comment I have read on this thread! How would you like some hoody-weaing thug to make a "work of art" of the outside of your can or inside of your house? Admittedly, some of it - such as the stupid tags (think: TOX) are utterly a waste of time and yes, certainly vandalism. And the "artwork" isn't vandalism?? But I don't think we should tar all grafitti artists with the same brush here. Tarring and brushing, now you're talking! I don't know which kind these were - and the loss of life is tragic whether they were the witty ones or the wasteful ones I beg to differ. - but please don't diss all grafitti artists as being vandals or degenerates. Why not, pray? Isn't that JUST what they are. Or are they poor misunderstood, victims of a nasty horrid bigited capitalist state? Some of it is really quite beautiful. Get a life. Marc. |
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
John B wrote:
Richard J. wrote: Admittedly, some of it - such as the stupid tags (think: TOX) are utterly a waste of time and yes, certainly vandalism. But I don't think we should tar all grafitti artists with the same brush here. I'm not tarring any artists, quite the reverse. I'm objecting to the word "artist" being used to describe someone who illegally defaces other people's property. So if the Mona Lisa had been painted on a stolen canvas, it wouldn't be an artwork and Leonardo wouldn't be an artist? I would hardly call painting the Mona Lisa "defacing" the canvas. Under any sensible definition, that BNP ballerina is still an artist. Even Hitler was an artist, although not a very good one. Similarly, graffiti-ers who go beyond scrawled tags are artists. Yes, there *are* graffiti artists who create real works of art on surfaces which previously had no visual value. For example, a café-front shutter in Paris (see http://images.fotopic.net/y74ltp.jpg ) where the painting was sprayed on to a previously blank shutter, doesn't interfere with the café business (because it's out of sight when the café is open), and was attractive or at least interesting to look at. Unfortunately it's since been obliterated by graffiti *vandals* with no apparent artistic ability or respect for what they sprayed over. They are also vandals, but an immoral life - or even a crime being committed in the course of making the artwork - does not stop it from being art. I'm not sure where you would draw the line between vandalism and art. If I managed to spray a black splodge over the Mona Lisa's face, I hope you would agree that that was pure vandalism. As for LU graffiti attacks, the fact is that LU have decided, like all train operators, to paint their rolling stock in a particular livery which is recognised by the public, and anyone defacing that livery on LU premises is committing criminal damage and criminal trespass. They may also be committing other criminal offences such as endangering safety or obstructing trains, both of which carry a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Coupled with the generally low or non-existant artistic content of their work (as distinct from mere scribblings and daubing), I have no hesitation in placing them firmly on the side of vandalism rather than art. -- Richard J. (to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address) |
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
" wrote in
ps.com: BIG SNIP Get a life. As those here who know me on a social level can testament, I certainly do have a life. And one I live to the full (too much, some may say). I appreciate modern conceptual art for what it is and some of that includes graffiti art. Yes, I do have "Wall and Piece" by Banksy and I have even been to a Banksy event. I also read on the tube, occasionally watch films on my PSP too, but I can also appreciate some great art in the form of graffiti on a disused siding. And to answer another reply on this thread, if Banksy came and stencilled one of his artworks on my front wall, no I would not be ****ed off in the slightest. You may find that hard to believe. I don't care, to be honest. |
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
Tristán White wrote: " wrote in ps.com: BIG SNIP Get a life. As those here who know me on a social level can testament, I certainly do have a life. And one I live to the full (too much, some may say). I appreciate modern conceptual art for what it is and some of that includes graffiti art. Yes, I do have "Wall and Piece" by Banksy and I have even been to a Banksy event. I also read on the tube, occasionally watch films on my PSP too, but I can also appreciate some great art in the form of graffiti on a disused siding. And to answer another reply on this thread, if Banksy came and stencilled one of his artworks on my front wall, no I would not be ****ed off in the slightest. You may find that hard to believe. I don't care, to be honest. Tristan, whilst I am the first to defend someone's personal expression and enjoyment of freedom (whether that is to paint in an asinine way or for others to enjoy such visual concoctions) that really isn't the point is it? The real point is that it is uncivilised (to say nothing of criminality) to take a paint brush or spray can and use it on property that does not belong to one, or over which one has no perimission to paint. To that extent, I refuse to accept that the product of such activity is "art". Once one goes down the path of allowing the end (though I would disagree that the "end" in this instance is anything but visually unappealing, but that's just my opinion) to justify the means, you end up with some very dangerous results. You may not like plain brick walls - to wit your reference to "boring" journeys. Well, actually, I do. I am far more impressed by the engineering skills and hard work of Victorian navvies who built our railways and whose work has stood the test of time, and to marvel at their brickwork, than the graffitii vandals who despoil the brickwork. So, whose preference should prevail? Well if those "artists" are so popular and have a following, of which you seem to be one, then let them have their work exhibited, have prints made, books published etc. If they have a large enouhg following, they will do well financially and good luck to them. Then, your thirst for such "art" can be quenched, and leave those of us who enjoy plain, unadulterated brickwork to do so. But, for Heaven's sake don't attempt to justify their criminality - trespass, criminal damage and, presumably, unlawfully purchasing (or stealing) spray paints if underage. And, just suppose you had a treasured and unique piece of "Banksy's" work on your wall at home. Are you really saying that you would not mind some lesser-known graffiti vandal using his spray can over "Banksy's" masterpiece? That seems to me to be the logical conclusion of the strange attitude you express. Marc. |
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 11:25:14 -0600, Tristán White wrote:
Some graffiti is breathtakingly beautiful, some is gloriously witty (think: Banksy). Some of it can really brighten up a boring journey, or make a disused train a work of art. I have never, ever, seen any graffiti on any part of any transport system that was in any way aesthetically pleasing. Quite the opposite, in fact. |
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
On 13 Jan 2007 10:07:47 -0800, John B wrote:
While the current government have a lot of ideas related to justice that I disagree with (I'm not a fan of hate speech laws or internment without trial, for example), You disagree with some aspect of the law? Then I take it you will be standing for Parliament in the next election. |
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
asdf wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 11:25:14 -0600, Tristán White wrote: Some graffiti is breathtakingly beautiful, some is gloriously witty (think: Banksy). Some of it can really brighten up a boring journey, or make a disused train a work of art. I have never, ever, seen any graffiti on any part of any transport system that was in any way aesthetically pleasing. Quite the opposite, in fact. It's terrorism. Its purpose is to let us know that we have entered a place where the forces of disorder are winning, and law and order can't protect us. The authorities couldn't protect the train from being vandalised, and they can't protect us from being robbed, raped or murdered. Its aim is to make us afraid. Graffiti doesn't have the potential or even the aim of making the lives of the downtrodden materially better, and so is not a defensible political act. |
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
"John Rowland" wrote in
: It's terrorism. Its purpose is to let us know that we have entered a place where the forces of disorder are winning, and law and order can't protect us. The authorities couldn't protect the train from being vandalised, and they can't protect us from being robbed, raped or murdered. Its aim is to make us afraid. Graffiti doesn't have the potential or even the aim of making the lives of the downtrodden materially better, and so is not a defensible political act. Why don't you emigrate to Singapore - I'm sure you'll feel a whole lot better there. E. |
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
John Rowland wrote: asdf wrote: On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 11:25:14 -0600, Tristán White wrote: Some graffiti is breathtakingly beautiful, some is gloriously witty (think: Banksy). Some of it can really brighten up a boring journey, or make a disused train a work of art. I have never, ever, seen any graffiti on any part of any transport system that was in any way aesthetically pleasing. Quite the opposite, in fact. It's terrorism. Its purpose is to let us know that we have entered a place where the forces of disorder are winning, and law and order can't protect us. The authorities couldn't protect the train from being vandalised, and they can't protect us from being robbed, raped or murdered. Its aim is to make us afraid. Graffiti doesn't have the potential or even the aim of making the lives of the downtrodden materially better, and so is not a defensible political act. John, I couldn't have put it better myself. Well said! Marc. |
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
eastender wrote: "John Rowland" wrote in : It's terrorism. Its purpose is to let us know that we have entered a place where the forces of disorder are winning, and law and order can't protect us. The authorities couldn't protect the train from being vandalised, and they can't protect us from being robbed, raped or murdered. Its aim is to make us afraid. Graffiti doesn't have the potential or even the aim of making the lives of the downtrodden materially better, and so is not a defensible political act. Why don't you emigrate to Singapore - I'm sure you'll feel a whole lot better there. E. Yes, and safe from not only the thugs who make all of our lives a misery, but also the bleeding-heart liberal apologists too. Does the cap fit? Marc. |
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
Richard J. wrote: I would hardly call painting the Mona Lisa "defacing" the canvas. The canvas was there to be painted on. Someones wall isn't. Perhaps this is too complex a concept for you to understand? Yes, there *are* graffiti artists who create real works of art on surfaces which previously had no visual value. For example, a café-front shutter in Paris (see http://images.fotopic.net/y74ltp.jpg ) Is that supposed to be the best example you can find? It looks no better than a million pictures in childrens books. Its hardly on par with Da Vinci. where the painting was sprayed on to a previously blank shutter, doesn't interfere with the café business (because it's out of sight when the café is open), and was attractive or at least interesting to look at. What if the owner didn't want it on his shutter? Does that not matter to you? Perhaps he ran a nice sophisticated little cafe and doesn't like a bloody kids cartoon character all over the front of it , not to mention the fact that ANY graffitti is generallty a turn off to anyone old enough to vote. You seem to be under a standard juvenile impression that just because YOU like someone and don't think it does any harm then everyone else should be of the same opinion. You're soon might learn that the world doesn't work like that. I'm not sure where you would draw the line between vandalism and art. Vandalism is any kind of change to an object or surface that is unwanted by the owner. Is that simple enough for your lonely braincell to comprehend? B2003 |
Boys killed by Underground train after spraying graffiti
If you believe that the civil offence of trespassing justifies the murder of the trespasser, then why not stand for Parliament and try and get that enshrined in law? Breaking into an occupied dwelling more that the "civil offence of trespassing." |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:25 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk