Graffiti

[TDK]

*Bangs head on desk*

LilLoaf: You have been reading this thread, haven't you...? Have you not taken any notice of what I and others have been telling you about how the law would view this behaviour?

Just to clarify; this isn't fine. The circumstance you described was still an example of criminal damage but the authorities allowed it to remain following representations from the community who wanted to keep it. This is unusual and just because it has been allowed to happen once does not set a precedent. No authority is obliged to agree with the community, even under the circumstances you've described.

O L Leigh

Simple answer really- Graffitti is a crime & Street art is a fancy name for controlled graffitii, the main problem I can see is this tagging lark, a youth got killed a couple of years back in Oakengates Tunnel trying to get his tag as far inside the tunnel as possible but this only made a very small editorial in the news papers, if it had been front page news then maybe this could have had an impact, if my memory serves me right the headline was "15 year old gets killed by train"

 

[Kneedown]

The simple fact of the matter is, and it really is quite simple, is that if you deface something that doesn't belong to you but to someone else, then that is Criminal Damage, perpetrated by scum. Pure and simple. I could go and paint the blumin Mona Lisa on the side of a train and it would still be Criminal Damage!
So these "Artists" are trying to get a message across are they? What makes em think that a spotty faced hoodie with a spray can, out of his face on White Lightning, smokin a spliff (innit) has got anything worth saying and that the rest of decent society want to listen to?
Join up, do a tour of Afghanistan, then you might actually have some life experience worth listening to. Respect is EARNED, not given just like that, and vandalising other peoples property will not get you respected.

 

[Spaceflower]

The simple fact of the matter is, and it really is quite simple, is that if you deface something that doesn't belong to you but to someone else, then that is Criminal Damage, perpetrated by scum. Pure and simple. I could go and paint the blumin Mona Lisa on the side of a train and it would still be Criminal Damage!
So these "Artists" are trying to get a message across are they? What makes em think that a spotty faced hoodie with a spray can, out of his face on White Lightning, smokin a spliff (innit) has got anything worth saying and that the rest of decent society want to listen to?
Join up, do a tour of Afghanistan, then you might actually have some life experience worth listening to. Respect is EARNED, not given just like that, and vandalising other peoples property will not get you respected.
__________________

Nice stereotype! What makes you think youve got anything worth listening to? Is it the anorak?

 

[87015]

Nice stereotype! What makes you think youve got anything worth listening to? Is it the anorak?

Doubt he goes round scrawling it on other peoples property without permission?

 

[Spaceflower]

You may have a point there. But then again, I don't like people who stereotype. They are just as bad, if not worse.

 

[LilLoaf]

You may have a point there. But then again, I don't like people who stereotype. They are just as bad, if not worse.

I also hate this sterotype, who came up with this idea that anyone wearing a hooded top is breaking the law. If i want to wear a hooded top (with the hood up) then i can and should not be looked at as if i'm breaking the law. Just as if someone wants to wear a anarak coat (or however its spelt) then they can.

With reguards to all graffiti being wrong i disagree. This tagging lark just to say that someone was somewhere at sometime it wrong. However if its a nice drawing or a funky little message to try and stop teenagers from doing silly things like drugs, drink, joining gangs, then it should be allowed. As long as its not on someones PERSONEL PROPERTY like a car, house, van, shop. Put it on a wall, bus stop, train, waiting room. It should be a allowed as a freedom of expression. The law needs to be changed as the times have changed.

Just to confirm i DO NOT agree with tagging and swearing and rude pics in graffiti as that can affend people.

The whole point of graffiti art is the opposite, to make people think, reflect. Same as people do when going into an art gallery.

If a train with graffiti on it and a funky message, goes around the country and stops one maybe 2 people from getting killed from drugs, gangs, or whatever it may be, then wouldn't it be worth it. I think it would.

 

[O L Leigh]

With reguards to all graffiti being wrong i disagree. This tagging lark just to say that someone was somewhere at sometime it wrong. However if its a nice drawing or a funky little message to try and stop teenagers from doing silly things like drugs, drink, joining gangs, then it should be allowed. As long as its not on someones PERSONEL PROPERTY like a car, house, van, shop. Put it on a wall, bus stop, train, waiting room. It should be a allowed as a freedom of expression. The law needs to be changed as the times have changed.

Disagree as much as you like, but the law won't change.

O L Leigh

 

[D Stock Dan]

LilLoaf, confused by your views/ opinions, but hey.

I also hate this sterotype, who came up with this idea that anyone wearing a hooded top is breaking the law

Store owners? Security? Government? Councils? Fed up of thiefs in disguise, taking things, being a nuisance? IMO, if the government say somethings illegal/ set a new law, you should have no problem sticking with the rules if you've done nothing wrong.

About the graffiti, yeah, plain and simple, its illegal. There are no messages behind it. They just want respect by thier peeers "I done x, y and z yesterday" If you want proper respect, do a merit for the community, not a demerit. Because thats all they are, a demerit to society.

I dont think taggers have a message, they just do it for the hell of it. It doesnt make me think, just makes me irratated, and they know who they are irratating (most of Britain). If they wanted to get the message (and if they had one) they'd do it through a more reasonable medium (removable posters? speakers corner? etc...)

"Lets break the mould, lets tag up something" No, lets not, lets do it in the confindes of our own home, or where someone has allowed us to do it. About that building site, that isnt illegal, its a different story, its been allowed!

 

[Spaceflower]

IMO, if the government say somethings illegal/ set a new law, you should have no problem sticking with the rules if you've done nothing wrong.

Not neccessarily, but I'm not going to give a reason.

 

[87015]

As long as its not on someones PERSONEL PROPERTY like a car, house, van, shop. Put it on a wall, bus stop, train, waiting room.

WTF!! How is doing it on property that isn't personal but private/communal any better? They still have no right to vandalise it.

 

[Spaceflower]

no right

That's the attitude mate. You keep telling em.

 

[FusionRail]

I also hate this sterotype, who came up with this idea that anyone wearing a hooded top is breaking the law. If i want to wear a hooded top (with the hood up) then i can and should not be looked at as if i'm breaking the law. Just as if someone wants to wear a anarak coat (or however its spelt) then they can.

With reguards to all graffiti being wrong i disagree. This tagging lark just to say that someone was somewhere at sometime it wrong. However if its a nice drawing or a funky little message to try and stop teenagers from doing silly things like drugs, drink, joining gangs, then it should be allowed. As long as its not on someones PERSONEL PROPERTY like a car, house, van, shop. Put it on a wall, bus stop, train, waiting room. It should be a allowed as a freedom of expression. The law needs to be changed as the times have changed.

Just to confirm i DO NOT agree with tagging and swearing and rude pics in graffiti as that can affend people.

The whole point of graffiti art is the opposite, to make people think, reflect. Same as people do when going into an art gallery.

If a train with graffiti on it and a funky message, goes around the country and stops one maybe 2 people from getting killed from drugs, gangs, or whatever it may be, then wouldn't it be worth it. I think it would.

You said dont put it on personal property - well then you cant put it on a damn train as that is the property of its leasing company/owning TOC.

Youll probably find the 2 people saved by that train going round will count for the two people that died putting it on, one from falling off the bridge climbing into the yard, and the other (hopefully) stepping onto a 3rd rail.

Under no circumstances should graffiti be allowed anywhere, is its an 'art', confine it to a gallery. Maybe you will die when you go and decide to put some of your precious 'art' on a train!

 

[GB]

I also hate this sterotype, who came up with this idea that anyone wearing a hooded top is breaking the law. If i want to wear a hooded top (with the hood up) then i can and should not be looked at as if i'm breaking the law. Just as if someone wants to wear a anarak coat (or however its spelt) then they can.

Fully agree.

With reguards to all graffiti being wrong i disagree. This tagging lark just to say that someone was somewhere at sometime it wrong.

Double standards. You can't say one thing is OK but then call the other illegal, when by law (and most peoples opinion) they are both the same. Im sure there are some "taggers" out there that consider what they have done "art" just the same as you consider "graffti art" "art".

However if its a nice drawing or a funky little message to try and stop teenagers from doing silly things like drugs, drink, joining gangs, then it should be allowed. As long as its not on someones PERSONEL PROPERTY like a car, house, van, shop. Put it on a wall, bus stop, train, waiting room.

All property belongs to someone, whether it be you, me, commercial, industrial, or council.

It should be a allowed as a freedom of expression. The law needs to be changed as the times have changed.

The law is there to protect property owners and does not need to be changed. Nor should it

The whole point of graffiti art is the opposite, to make people think, reflect. Same as people do when going into an art gallery.

Then I suggest you get permission from the property owner first, or go to a gallery.


The whole notion that you can deface public/private property because you may have good intentions is quite stange and ridiculous.

If a train with graffiti on it and a funky message, goes around the country and stops one maybe 2 people from getting killed from drugs, gangs, or whatever it may be, then wouldn't it be worth it. I think it would.

People are really going to take any kind of notice?

 

[Kneedown]

You may have a point there. But then again, I don't like people who stereotype. They are just as bad, if not worse.

Uncomfortable though it may be, the simple fact remains. Nine times out of ten, stereotypes are accurate!
It mat not be PC to say so, but then again i don't do PC, i just live in the real world.

 

[Spaceflower]

Uncomfortable though it may be, the simple fact remains. Nine times out of ten, stereotypes are accurate!

Wheres the evidence? You expect me to belief that general statistic? Besides, PC or no PC, even if the majority of stereotypes are accurate, they are highly unfair on those which do not fit the stereotype and therefore this affects real peoples lives alot more directly than most graffitti.

Stereotyping in good humour is one one thing, what you are bordering on is discrimination.

 

[90019]

Uncomfortable though it may be, the simple fact remains. Nine times out of ten, stereotypes are accurate!
It mat not be PC to say so, but then again i don't do PC, i just live in the real world.

Can you prove this? or are you just going by your own opinions?

If you don't have conclusive evidence to back that claim up, then it's not a fact, merely an opinion.
In my opinion, going by myself and the people i know, maybe, at a push, only 1 in 10 stereotypes are correct, but probably less.

Personally, i hate stereotypes, and I don't know about you, but i hate being stereotyped, especially because they're almost always wrong.

 

[Kneedown]

Wheres the evidence? You expect me to belief that general statistic? Besides, PC or no PC, even if the majority of stereotypes are accurate, they are highly unfair on those which do not fit the stereotype

Stereotyping in good humour is one one thing, what you are bordering on is discrimination.

The evidence for me is 39years life experience, 15 of them in the service of Her Majesty. Better, and more true to life than any statistic conjoured up by a quango.

If i was being unfair on those who don't fit the stereotype then i wouldn't have said nine times out of ten.

As for discrimination, where have i advocated discriminating against certain stereotypes? Although i must confess, i've got no problem with anyone discriminating against the dregs of society, graffiti vandals included!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Can you prove this? or are you just going by your own opinions?

If you don't have conclusive evidence to back that claim up, then it's not a fact, merely an opinion.
In my opinion, going by myself and the people i know, maybe, at a push, only 1 in 10 stereotypes are correct, but probably less.

Personally, i hate stereotypes, and I don't know about you, but i hate being stereotyped, especially because they're almost always wrong.

I refer you to my above post.

 

[90019]

The evidence for me is 39years life experience, 15 of them in the service of Her Majesty. Better, and more true to life than any statistic conjoured up by a quango.

So it's an opinion and not a fact then
Simple fact of the matter is that you can't use your own personal experiences alone to prove something as a fact

 

[Spaceflower]

And, ironically, he is his own best argument.

 

[me123]

Nine times out of ten, stereotypes are accurate

OK; I'm just going to list ten random stereotypes and by your theory, nine of them should be accurate;

1. All Aberdonians have "desires" for sheep
2. All football fans are hooligans
3. All French people were berets
4. All Americans are thick
5. All Muslims are going to bomb us
6. All English people enjoy nothing more than a good game of Cricket
7. All railway enthusiasts sit on the ends of the platform for hours on end
8. All homosexual males are "sissy boys".
9. All homosexual females are large, muscular, hairy women
10. All Welsh people sing

I'm sorry, but the above ten stereotypes do not convince me of your argument.

 

[Dennis]

OK; I'm just going to list ten random stereotypes and by your theory, nine of them should be accurate;

1. All Aberdonians have "desires" for sheep
2. All football fans are hooligans
3. All French people were berets
4. All Americans are thick
5. All Muslims are going to bomb us
6. All English people enjoy nothing more than a good game of Cricket
7. All railway enthusiasts sit on the ends of the platform for hours on end
8. All homosexual males are "sissy boys".
9. All homosexual females are large, muscular, hairy women
10. All Welsh people sing

I'm sorry, but the above ten stereotypes do not convince me of your argument.

Nine out of tesn are correct, aren't they?

 

[LilLoaf]

OK; I'm just going to list ten random stereotypes and by your theory, nine of them should be accurate;

1. All Aberdonians have "desires" for sheep
2. All football fans are hooligans
3. All French people were berets
4. All Americans are thick
5. All Muslims are going to bomb us
6. All English people enjoy nothing more than a good game of Cricket
7. All railway enthusiasts sit on the ends of the platform for hours on end
8. All homosexual males are "sissy boys".
9. All homosexual females are large, muscular, hairy women
10. All Welsh people sing

I'm sorry, but the above ten stereotypes do not convince me of your argument.

Well,,4,5,8,9, are defo correct, spot on.

 

[90019]

OK; I'm just going to list ten random stereotypes and by your theory, nine of them should be accurate;

1. All Aberdonians have "desires" for sheep
2. All football fans are hooligans
3. All French people were berets
4. All Americans are thick
5. All Muslims are going to bomb us
6. All English people enjoy nothing more than a good game of Cricket
7. All railway enthusiasts sit on the ends of the platform for hours on end
8. All homosexual males are "sissy boys".
9. All homosexual females are large, muscular, hairy women
10. All Welsh people sing

I'm sorry, but the above ten stereotypes do not convince me of your argument.

They're all true!

 

[GB]

Well,,4,5,8,9, are defo correct, spot on.

Do you honestly believe that?

 

[90019]

Do you honestly believe that?

It is difficult to tell whether he's being serious or not :???:

 

[Kneedown]

So it's an opinion and not a fact then
Simple fact of the matter is that you can't use your own personal experiences alone to prove something as a fact

You can, because ones own personal experiences are fact, unless you disbelieve me and i'm sure you don't.
Statistics on the other hand are not always accurate, as they are only generally based on results from a small cross section of information or society.
If, for example, you pick 100 apples from an orchard at random, and you find that 10 apples out of that 100 are bad, then 90% of the apples you picked are of good quality, but that doesnt mean to say that 90% of the apples in the whole orchard are of good quality. Different factors may affect the ration of good to bad.

 

[Spaceflower]

You must have been ill then? Eating a whole orchard

 

[90019]

You can, because ones own personal experiences are fact, unless you disbelieve me and i'm sure you don't.Statistics on the other hand are not always accurate, as they are only generally based on results from a small cross section of information or society.
If, for example, you pick 100 apples from an orchard at random, and you find that 10 apples out of that 100 are bad, then 90% of the apples you picked are of good quality, but that doesnt mean to say that 90% of the apples in the whole orchard are of good quality. Different factors may affect the ration of good to bad

And you've just disproved your own argument.

As you have shown from your own example, you cannot use your own experience of a small percentage of something to prove a point about all of it.
As an example, a guy in my geography class things FSR are unreliable because when he uses them the trains are almost always late, however, around 90% of their trains are on time. Therefore, by using the opinions of a single person, we cannot get the facts.

 

[me123]

Nine out of tesn are correct, aren't they?

To confirm, I'm sure that none of them are correct. Just making a point :razz:

 

[O L Leigh]

I'm beginning to think that this topic has run it's course. The rest is just bickering.

O L Leigh