Graffiti artist gets 3 1/2 years, daily mail readers rejoice

[noam]

If I wore my favorite shirt on the street and some guy walked up to me and spraypainted over it, I'd demand him to pay the bill. No amount of 'no dude, this is art, if you don't want it, pay yourself to get it removed' would really change that.

Next Ninja to complain about their neighbours bumping music too loud at night and keeping them up gets a referral to this thread too. 'It's art'

that's a very good point ^

Not particularly, no. The advertiser asked for permission to get his stuff on the wall and traded money for the permission. The tagger thinks he's god and is entitled to get his stuff anywhere he wants and settle others with the bill to get it removed.

Art's all in the eye of the beholder. Some pieces of advertising art can be prettier than some lame tag, but we'd be pretty stupid to legislate based on taste.

the point isn't about being allowed to put advertising all over the place simply because you've paid enough money for it

the point is no one asked for the advertising in the first place except for the companies that pay to use the space and the companies selling the space

so what you're left with is a situation whereby people are only ever exposed to any kind of aesthetic which has been paid for with a sole aim of selling them something

so the argument that graffiti is proposing is that public spaces shouldn't be places where people are sold to

graffiti isn't selling anything except some metaphysical concept of individualism and egotism, other than that its simply pretty colours on a blank space

and a kid eating a hamburger with a scary red-haired clown thrusting a golden 'M' in your face is ugly as fuck to some people, just as is ugly to some but beautiful to others

you say we'd be stupid to legislate on taste but you seem to take that point of view from one side only which makes you sound silly

[magma]

The Facebook thing is shocking on the surface but completely out of context. Stuart Hall was sentenced according to the law at the time he committed the crime - if someone committed his crimes today they'd get a lot more than any graffer.

I like a lot of Graf and have known a fair few writers in my time, but it's clearly illegal... everyone knows you run the risk of getting pinched; that's as much of the attraction for a lot of people as any "art".

True, personally for me there are just a lot of people I would rather see in jail than this man, I know I don't get to decide that but actually believe everyone in this thread and all of occupy feel that way also...

Sure, I'd much rather they prioritised other crimes but you do the crime, you do the time. It's a bit like getting pulled for speeding and complaining... it's petty in the extreme to leave officers on empty motorways with speed guns, but we all know the risk when we put our foot down. Some of us choose to do it anyway. My first ever suit was bought because of a court date due to my lead foot.

My point was more about the Facebook thing comparing the sentences though - it's entirely irrelevant as the sentencing guidelines for Hall are 40 years old. You're supposed to be aware of the punishment before deciding whether to do a crime... you can't detain a protester and then change the protesting laws a week later to lock them up so, unfortunately, you can't do it for a 40 year old sex offense either.

But that's too much text to get on a shocking viral image.

[noam]

so if you arrest a man for a murder he committed 60 years ago you're entitled to execute him?

[Jizz]

lol, just when he thought he'd got away with it...

[d-T-r]

shame he got caught really.

[Genevieve]

the point isn't about being allowed to put advertising all over the place simply because you've paid enough money for it

the point is no one asked for the advertising in the first place except for the companies that pay to use the space and the companies selling the space

so what you're left with is a situation whereby people are only ever exposed to any kind of aesthetic which has been paid for with a sole aim of selling them something

so the argument that graffiti is proposing is that public spaces shouldn't be places where people are sold to

graffiti isn't selling anything except some metaphysical concept of individualism and egotism, other than that its simply pretty colours on a blank space

and a kid eating a hamburger with a scary red-haired clown thrusting a golden 'M' in your face is ugly as fuck to some people, just as is ugly to some but beautiful to others

you say we'd be stupid to legislate on taste but you seem to take that point of view from one side only which makes you sound silly

No, what you're left with is a situation where you've got to determine whether person putting their 'art' there has done it 'justly' or not. No one asked for that ad, but no one asked for the graffiti either. But the ad-person went through the channels the owner of the building said are appropriate. It's a personal agreement between two people. While you still may not like to see the ad, it still falls within someone's right of freedom of speech.

With public buildings, it should be blank because government shouldn't endorse 1 type of culture over another. If you're letting graffiti artists use every publicly owned building as a canvas for their art, then it's really no different than the 10 commandments in a courthouse. It's forcing people to financially endorse a particular point of view/religion/culture. Of course, there is only so much 'neutrality' you can get; an architect may be a postmodernist and citizens may not like postmodern buildings. But buildings have to look a certain way to still function. Here it's all about the expression of an idea and the graffiti artist's demand that everyone endorses his expression, even if they disagree.

[LA_Boxers]

I think one of the main issues is that if it had been Banksy then nothing would have been done about it.

1 rule for him 1 rule for everyone else.

[Lye_Form]

I think one of the main issues is that if it had been Banksy then nothing would have been done about it.

1 rule for him 1 rule for everyone else.

wasn't it the prosecutor that said the thing about banksy?

If it was the judge he would be in a lot of trouble.

[magma]

so if you arrest a man for a murder he committed 60 years ago you're entitled to execute him?

No, because capital punishment is now illegal. You can't go breaking today's laws in order to enforce yesterday's.

[LA_Boxers]

I think one of the main issues is that if it had been Banksy then nothing would have been done about it.

1 rule for him 1 rule for everyone else.

wasn't it the prosecutor that said the thing about banksy?

If it was the judge he would be in a lot of trouble.

It was indeed......but no doubt the judge probably agreed too.......as well as the police.

[noam]

so if you arrest a man for a murder he committed 60 years ago you're entitled to execute him?

No, because capital punishment is now illegal. You can't go breaking today's laws in order to enforce yesterday's.

so you enforce today's laws over a crime which was committed 60 years ago

whether capital punishment is now legal or not isn't the issue

the issue is whether you should punish people by the law at the time the crime was committed or when they're prosecuted for those crimes

the answer is and should be the latter, not the former

[noam]

the point isn't about being allowed to put advertising all over the place simply because you've paid enough money for it

the point is no one asked for the advertising in the first place except for the companies that pay to use the space and the companies selling the space

so what you're left with is a situation whereby people are only ever exposed to any kind of aesthetic which has been paid for with a sole aim of selling them something

so the argument that graffiti is proposing is that public spaces shouldn't be places where people are sold to

graffiti isn't selling anything except some metaphysical concept of individualism and egotism, other than that its simply pretty colours on a blank space

and a kid eating a hamburger with a scary red-haired clown thrusting a golden 'M' in your face is ugly as fuck to some people, just as is ugly to some but beautiful to others

you say we'd be stupid to legislate on taste but you seem to take that point of view from one side only which makes you sound silly

No, what you're left with is a situation where you've got to determine whether person putting their 'art' there has done it 'justly' or not. No one asked for that ad, but no one asked for the graffiti either. But the ad-person went through the channels the owner of the building said are appropriate. It's a personal agreement between two people. While you still may not like to see the ad, it still falls within someone's right of freedom of speech.

With public buildings, it should be blank because government shouldn't endorse 1 type of culture over another. If you're letting graffiti artists use every publicly owned building as a canvas for their art, then it's really no different than the 10 commandments in a courthouse. It's forcing people to financially endorse a particular point of view/religion/culture. Of course, there is only so much 'neutrality' you can get; an architect may be a postmodernist and citizens may not like postmodern buildings. But buildings have to look a certain way to still function. Here it's all about the expression of an idea and the graffiti artist's demand that everyone endorses his expression, even if they disagree.

no one is endorsing graffiti if its illegal

the point is that you say legislating based on taste is unjust but the legislation that graffiti is a crime comes about purely because people dont like the work that is done on their property

when people like a piece of graffiti and are happy for it stay, the legality of the crime is forgotten a la Banksy/various street artists

the legislation is upheld purely in terms of taste and nothing else

punish one the same as the other or not at all

government buildings being blank to not endorse one culture over another is neither here nor there, if someone writes on a wall its not asking you to endorse their point of view or even like the work - but punishing it as a crime in such an extreme way is detrimental to the desired effect and is contrary to freedom of expression anyway

[Lye_Form]

so if you arrest a man for a murder he committed 60 years ago you're entitled to execute him?

No, because capital punishment is now illegal. You can't go breaking today's laws in order to enforce yesterday's.

so you enforce today's laws over a crime which was committed 60 years ago

whether capital punishment is now legal or not isn't the issue

the issue is whether you should punish people by the law at the time the crime was committed or when they're prosecuted for those crimes

the answer is and should be the latter, not the former

What about if you sleep with a 17 year old, then the age of consent goes up to 18 a month after.

Should you then be prosecuted for statutory rape?

or visa versa.

[titchbit]

I think the issue is that laws that make something illegal also specify the punishments for such crimes. if there is no longer a law that makes a crime illegal, then there is no longer a standardized and accepted punishment for it. we can't have judges just making shit up as they go, can we?

[noam]

so if you arrest a man for a murder he committed 60 years ago you're entitled to execute him?

No, because capital punishment is now illegal. You can't go breaking today's laws in order to enforce yesterday's.

so you enforce today's laws over a crime which was committed 60 years ago

whether capital punishment is now legal or not isn't the issue

the issue is whether you should punish people by the law at the time the crime was committed or when they're prosecuted for those crimes

the answer is and should be the latter, not the former

What about if you sleep with a 17 year old, then the age of consent goes up to 18 a month after.

Should you then be prosecuted for statutory rape?

or visa versa.

thats not the point im making, if you sleep with a 17 year old (and thats illegal, which its not, lets say 15) you slept with someone who is 15... the argument here is whether you should be prosecuted under the laws of when the crime was committed or whether you should be prosecuted under the laws of when you are being tried.

if you sleep with a girl who is 15 in 1950 and the law then says its legal and you're being tried for it now, then its an unlawful trial because the law at the time stated it was legal. If it was illegal in 1950 however, should you be tried under the law as it stood in 1950 or the law as it stands when you're being tried, for this example lets say, 2013.

i believe you should be tried under the law as it stands now, but the sentence should take into account the severity of the crime, so even though having sex with a minor may be punished more harshly now, it should still be judged on the severity of the crime.

[LA_Boxers]

On a side note......DFIE got done too.

http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/10491 ... sentenced/

How his sentence was suspended.....no consistency.

[noam]

Vamp caused DAMAGE tho

for a looooooooonge time too

guy looks like a bell end tho lol

[gwa]

yeah and smug about going to jail. wtf

[noam]

tbf he's probably gutted abotu losing his 60grand a year accounts management job but confident in the fact he'll go to a minimum security daycare centre where he'll shmozy up with 'bruvs' and 'cuzs' and tell 'heavy' stories about 'braaaass' and whatnot...

[butter_man]

graffs alright visually, but its not everyones cup of tea. a lot of stuff is cartoonish and looks quite cool at first. white walls are much better that goes for advertising too. maybe its different in the city where its all overcrowded with auditory and visual sensations so another multi colored mini mouse licking a giant mushroom is another thing to overwhelm the senses.
but out here in the sticks, you got a nice field and a lovely red brick wall... thats it innit, anything more is just shit.

oh yeh and 3+ years for graffing is jokes but its still crimo damage tho. worse is gettin nicked for swearing, just a fuckin sound with your mouth innit.