Banksy Arrested

cheesyboy

cheesyboy

cheesyboy

Soldato
Joined
7 Dec 2012
Posts
17,513
Location
Gloucestershire
Castiel said:
You completely missed the point of the example insofar that the Bill accepted that Graffiti is already defined and pursuant to the criminal damage act 1971. (one of the reasons it did not pass)

If there was no consent then a criminal offence has taken place. That is it, there is no alternative position just because the graffiti is good...Clacton Council removed the Banksy Graffiti therefore an offence was committed as defined under the legislation available...it would be up to the CPS to decide any action if Banksy was caught, not The Council. If no prior consent was given then an offence has been committed. (for example, say Banksy was in the process of spraying one of his stencils when he was arrested..do you think the council can tell the Police or CPS to release him because of who he is?..the answer is no they cannot...unless they can show they gave prior consent to paint on that wall/building then the police will charge him with an offence) This is why Clacton offered to allow a more appropriate arrangement..i.e a legal one.

You are wrong, without consent it is vandalism...but if you are so sure you are right then nothing I can say with alter that.
Click to expand...

It really can't be criminal if the graffiti is welcome.

Clacton, yes, that could constitute vandalism - there was damage which the council had to rectify.

But, where a Banksy is welcomed, as it often is, it isn't a crime - the crime is not in the act of graffitiing itself, but in the damage (if you're arguing vandalism which is where this all started), and it simply can't be legally considered damage because it is considered an improvement by the owner.
 

Castiel

Castiel

Castiel

Permabanned
Joined
26 Jun 2010
Posts
0
cheesyboy said:
It really can't be criminal if the graffiti is welcome.

Clacton, yes, that could constitute vandalism - there was damage which the council had to rectify.

But, where a Banksy is welcomed, as it often is, it isn't a crime - the crime is not in the act of graffitiing itself, but in the damage (if you're arguing vandalism which is where this all started), and it simply can't be legally considered damage because it is considered an improvement by the owner.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid all the legislation and case law that supports it disagrees with you. If it is done without consent then it is a crime, where there is consent then there is no crime. In essence it is as simple as that...whether the council likes it or not is largely irrelevant unless it gave implicit consent for the work to be carried out. Councils cannot arbitrarily flout their own rules or decide whether one type of graffiti is welcome but not another...they can give consent for an artist, but they cannot ignore their own legislation just because they like the graffiti if no prior consent was given. The law doesn't work like that.

I know someone who was fined for putting a Slow Down sign in their own garden because they didn't have prior consent from the council, even though the council then erected their own sign. It was the lack of consent which was the problem, not that the council agreed with the sentiment.
 
Last edited:

Skidder

Skidder

Skidder

Man of Honour
Joined
28 Nov 2007
Posts
12,736
Sega Mega Dave said:
Graffiti in any shape or form is a chavs playground.

It doesn't look good, it's never looked good and never will look good. The fact that people class some clown spraying with stencils as an artist is depressing.
Click to expand...

If I take a dump on a canvas because I am caught short, it's not art, if I do it as expression then it is. Art doesn't stop being art just because you don't like it. Most art is awful in at least somebody's view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom