"Mike Bristow" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Richard J. wrote:
Even if the graffiti perpetrators think they have some talent, what
makes
them think it's legitimate to impose their designs on someone else's
property, which the owner has decided will be painted in a particular
colour? What really annoys me are graffiti vandals who destroy the
quiet
dignity of a brick wall that has stood for perhaps 130 years serving
the
people of London. I don't care whether it's a mere tag or something
more
elaborate and colourful. It's still criminal damage. Please don't be
tempted, Robin, to give the criminals the recognition they crave by
photographing their mutilation of our environment.

You assume that the artist did not get permission from someone
authorized to give it. While I have no doubt that they normally
do not get permission, I rather suspect that this isn't univeral.

In the context of this newsgroup, i.e. transport infrastructure, I damned
well hope it's universal. Are you suggesting that a senior manager of, say,
Metronet has given permission for graffiti to be applied to some of his
company's assets?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)