BBC funds graffiti criminal
 

John Rowland wrote:
According to Underground News Sept 2008, pg 654, while a railway graffiti
vandal was on bail, he was hired by the BBC to spray his tag on the
EastEnders set.

I remember that story. I've no idea what "Underground News" is, but
presumably it cuts costs by reprinting stories from six months ago.

BBC funds graffiti criminal
 

On Sep 16, 4:46*pm, Boltar wrote:
On Sep 16, 3:02 pm, MIG wrote:

Why should he profit from his criminal activities? If he hadn't been
arrested for tagging and got noticed they wouldn't have been employed
by those liberal ******* up at elstree would he?

But he is only profiting when his activities are legal. *It really
requires a lot of stretching of points and disregard of plenty worse
things in the world to be able to drum up the tiniest dreg of outrage
about this.

Interesting logic - because there are worse crimes don't worry about
the little things. Didn't the police use that method for a while?

I am not suggesting not worrying about things. Just suggesting that
if one wanted to contrive something to be outraged about, there must
be easier targets.


Anyway , a graffiti vandal wants his tag to be seen. What better for
the little twerp than if 3 million people see it on TV. Talk about
rewarding crime.

The penny doesn't seem to be dropping that decorating a set is not a
crime. The three million people are no more seeing a crime than if
there was fake blood splatter from acted murder scene. It's
entertainment, with references to the existence of crime. There's a
lot of that kind of entertainment.

BBC funds graffiti criminal
 

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...

According to Underground News Sept 2008, pg 654, while a railway graffiti
vandal was on bail, he was hired by the BBC to spray his tag on the
EastEnders set.


Simple "tagging" is, in my view, mindless vandalism. However, I sometimes
look at whole carriage decorations and wonder. I'm not sure it's ever my
"taste" in art but I do find myself admiring the work that has gone in to
designing and then executing the "decoration". In such circumstances I
find myself having an internal debate as to how the person who did it could
be encouraged out of the business of graffiti and into art (or graphic
design or....) in almost a "Good Will Hunting" manner. If we can identify
the person who undertook the design do we punish and then encourage? How
do we find such people *before* they start on a life of graffiti? I don't
claim to know the answer.

BBC funds graffiti criminal
 

Graham Harrison wrote:

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...

According to Underground News Sept 2008, pg 654, while a railway
graffiti vandal was on bail, he was hired by the BBC to spray his tag
on the EastEnders set.


Simple "tagging" is, in my view, mindless vandalism. However, I
sometimes look at whole carriage decorations and wonder. I'm not sure
it's ever my "taste" in art but I do find myself admiring the work that
has gone in to designing and then executing the "decoration". In such
circumstances I find myself having an internal debate as to how the
person who did it could be encouraged out of the business of graffiti
and into art (or graphic design or....) in almost a "Good Will Hunting"
manner. If we can identify the person who undertook the design do we
punish and then encourage? How do we find such people *before* they
start on a life of graffiti? I don't claim to know the answer.


I run around local canals on long training runs - some concrete bridges
have the most spectacular tagging, really intricate that must have taken
an age of stencil preparation as well as lots of different cans of paint.

When do they do all this and how do they do it in the dark?? I've ran at
all times of the day and evening yet I've never seen anyone, I've seen a
myriad of other things going on but never that.

BBC funds graffiti criminal
 

"Light of Aria" wrote in message
...
The BBC have been instrumental in encouraging and promoting graffiti for
10 years now.

I'm sure that you will be able to back-up this claim with facts and also
cite credible sources for your statement.

Or not, as the case may be.

--
Carl Waring
DigiGuide:
Full: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
Web-based: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=3&r=1495

BBC funds graffiti criminal
 

"Carl Waring" wrote in message
...
"Light of Aria" wrote in message
...
The BBC have been instrumental in encouraging and promoting graffiti for
10 years now.

I'm sure that you will be able to back-up this claim with facts and also
cite credible sources for your statement.

Or not, as the case may be.

Oh, hang on. I /was/ thinking that you might actually be moaning about the
BBC's (and every other broadcasters) use of DOGs but I've just noticed the
other group you x-posted this to.

I assume that you must be on about the advertising of it's programming that
the BBC (and every other broadcaster) does around London, etc.

If so, what's the bloody problem? Are you exceptionally stupid or something?

--
Carl Waring
DigiGuide:
Full: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
Web-based: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=3&r=1495

BBC funds graffiti criminal
 

"Carl Waring" wrote in message
...
"Carl Waring" wrote in message
...
"Light of Aria" wrote in message
...
The BBC have been instrumental in encouraging and promoting graffiti for
10 years now.

I'm sure that you will be able to back-up this claim with facts and also
cite credible sources for your statement.

Or not, as the case may be.

Oh, hang on. I /was/ thinking that you might actually be moaning about the
BBC's (and every other broadcasters) use of DOGs but I've just noticed the
other group you x-posted this to.

I assume that you must be on about the advertising of it's programming
that the BBC (and every other broadcaster) does around London, etc.

If so, what's the bloody problem? Are you exceptionally stupid or
something?

--
Carl Waring
DigiGuide:
Full: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495
Web-based: http://getdigiguide.com/?p=3&r=1495




What you call advertising, is what I regard as graffiti and vandalism. Just
because others do it does not make it acceptable to me.

I am not responsible for the message I was replying to nor its cross
posting.

I do not and will not have my tastes, standards, and preferences dictated
to.

BBC funds graffiti criminal
 

On Sep 16, 6:08 pm, MIG wrote:
The penny doesn't seem to be dropping that decorating a set is not a
crime. The three million people are no more seeing a crime than if
there was fake blood splatter from acted murder scene. It's
entertainment, with references to the existence of crime. There's a
lot of that kind of entertainment.

And the penny doesn't seem to be dropping with you that the only
reason he got the job was *because* he'd committed a crime. They
obviously wanted a specific well known tag otherwise why didn't they
just get their set designer to scribble some crap on a wall? Its not
exactly rocket science.

B2003

BBC funds graffiti criminal
 

On Sep 17, 9:30*am, Boltar wrote:
On Sep 16, 6:08 pm, MIG wrote:

The penny doesn't seem to be dropping that decorating a set is not a
crime. *The three million people are no more seeing a crime than if
there was fake blood splatter from acted murder scene. *It's
entertainment, with references to the existence of crime. *There's a
lot of that kind of entertainment.

And the penny doesn't seem to be dropping with you that the only
reason he got the job was *because* he'd committed a crime. They
obviously wanted a specific well known tag otherwise why didn't they
just get their set designer to scribble some crap on a wall? Its not
exactly rocket science.

I'm sure that there must be easier ways of getting your work noticed
than being convicted of crimes (and if not caught, they couldn't have
found and used him). You could say that they were encouraging
criminals to get caught.

People in gaol get work, and get paid for it, that unemployed people
outside probably couldn't get (whatever the modern equivalent of
sowing mailbags is). Maybe they commit crimes just to get this work.
Our justice system is funding criminals. Outrage.

BBC funds graffiti criminal
 

On Sep 17, 10:10 am, MIG wrote:
I'm sure that there must be easier ways of getting your work noticed
than being convicted of crimes (and if not caught, they couldn't have
found and used him). You could say that they were encouraging
criminals to get caught.

There are easier ways , but these kids are too stupid to know what
they are. But then if you spray paint crap onto walls in your spare
time you're obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer to start
with.

People in gaol get work, and get paid for it, that unemployed people
outside probably couldn't get (whatever the modern equivalent of
sowing mailbags is). Maybe they commit crimes just to get this work.
Our justice system is funding criminals. Outrage.

Keeping them working in prison stops them getting bored and rioting.
Though they should be working for their meals , not money though no
doubt some human rights activists would burst into tears and get out
their placards if that was suggested.

B2003