BBC funds graffiti criminal
 

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.

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.




The BBC have been instrumental in encouraging and promoting graffiti for 10
years now. Nothing comes as a surprise to me, but at least I do not pay for
these scum on principle.

BBC funds graffiti criminal
 

On Sep 16, 12:07*pm, "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.

Are you saying that someone who has been convicted of something
illegal can never be employed to do something legal?

Your heading implies that the BBC is funding criminal activities.

In fact, the BBC has simply commissioned someone who happens to be
accused of criminal activities to do a specific piece of work for
them. Set decoration carried out according the instructions of the
owner of the set is not illegal as far as I know.

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.



So he might now go looking for work now he realises he can make money by
doing what he loves, rather than make himself a criminal.

BBC funds graffiti criminal
 

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:07:48 +0100, "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.


If you are going to post to Usenet then please at least ensure that
the Subject line is not totally misleading . Are you saying that
someone who has commited a crime should never again be employed?

BBC funds graffiti criminal
 

On Sep 16, 1:12 pm, MIG wrote:
On Sep 16, 12:07 pm, "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.

Are you saying that someone who has been convicted of something
illegal can never be employed to do something legal?

It might be legal , but its a legal representation of his illegal
activities. Its a bit like hiring a murderer to play a murderer on TV.
Oh wait , they already did with Leslie Grantham.

Your heading implies that the BBC is funding criminal activities.

In fact, the BBC has simply commissioned someone who happens to be
accused of criminal activities to do a specific piece of work for
them. Set decoration carried out according the instructions of the
owner of the set is not illegal as far as I know.

Don't be so naive.

B2003

BBC funds graffiti criminal
 

On Sep 16, 1:57 pm, wrote:
If you are going to post to Usenet then please at least ensure that
the Subject line is not totally misleading . Are you saying that
someone who has commited a crime should never again be employed?

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?

B2003

BBC funds graffiti criminal
 

On Sep 16, 2:18*pm, Boltar wrote:
On Sep 16, 1:57 pm, wrote:

If you are going to post to Usenet then please at least ensure that
the Subject line is not totally misleading . Are you saying that
someone who has commited a crime should never again be employed?

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.

BBC funds graffiti criminal
 

On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, 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.

Would you rather the BBC had hired a professional set-painter for ten
times the price?

At least then you'd get to rant about the BBC squandering license-payers'
money instead!

tom

--
Any problem in computer science can be solved with another layer of
indirection. -- David Wheeler

BBC funds graffiti criminal
 

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?

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.

B2003

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

BBC funds graffiti criminal
 

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 02:10:09 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

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.

How long does a mailbag take to germinate?

BBC funds graffiti criminal
 

On Sep 17, 11:17*am, wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 02:10:09 -0700 (PDT), MIG





wrote:
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.

How long does a mailbag take to germinate?

Twenty six (which, by a remarkable coincidence, is the length of a
piece of string).

BBC funds graffiti criminal
 

"Light of Aria" wrote in message
...

"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.

So, to you, any billboard is graffiti and vandalism; or just the
BBC-specific ones?

A very odd POV in either case.


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

BBC funds graffiti criminal
 

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, wrote:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 02:10:09 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

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

crime.

crime.

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.

How long does a mailbag take to germinate?

Not long, but then getting them to breed with a femail bag can take years.

tom

--
inspired by forty-rod whiskey

BBC funds graffiti criminal
 

Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, wrote:

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 02:10:09 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

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

crime.

crime.

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.

How long does a mailbag take to germinate?

Not long, but then getting them to breed with a femail bag can take
years.

No wonder - it's a two-bagger!

BBC funds graffiti criminal
 

On Sep 17, 5:36*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 02:10:09 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

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

crime.

crime.

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.

How long does a mailbag take to germinate?

Not long, but then getting them to breed with a femail bag can take years..

It's all the tewing and frewing they do. Sigh. Who needs trowling
when one can generate sow much with typose (a monosaccharide with OH
groups transposed).

BBC funds graffiti criminal
 

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, MIG wrote:

On Sep 17, 5:36*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 02:10:09 -0700 (PDT), MIG
wrote:

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

crime.

crime.

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).

How long does a mailbag take to germinate?

Not long, but then getting them to breed with a femail bag can take years.

It's all the tewing and frewing they do. Sigh. Who needs trowling when
one can generate sow much with typose (a monosaccharide with OH groups
transposed).

HO HO HO.

tom

--
shouting drunkenly about 6502 assembler at parties

BBC funds graffiti criminal
 

"Carl Waring" wrote in message
...
"Light of Aria" wrote in message
...

"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.

So, to you, any billboard is graffiti and vandalism; or just the
BBC-specific ones?

A very odd POV in either case.





It depends on the context and place.

There are certain places such as urban built up areas where there is dead
space like railway bridges and the sides of industrial units or fly overs,
when I don't have a problem with adverts.

There are certain places where I have a great big problem with adverts:
Springs to mind, the top of peoples' heads, scenery, drama and films,
documentaries, scientific or artistic material, the countryside, public open
spaces, public squares, the central action on sporting events, news
bulletins, etc.

I could not give a monkeys whether you or the BBC do not agree with my POV.
So long as they cause me offence (or you concur with), I will not pay them
nor subsidise your entertainment.

On general balance, advertising does more harm to the world than good, not
precluding some of its benefits. I am extremely hostile to advertising, and
this is one of the key factors that therefore makes me more hostile to the
BBC than irony of ironies commercial television.

BBC funds graffiti criminal
 

Light of Aria wrote:
There are certain places where I have a great big problem with
adverts: Springs to mind, the top of peoples' heads, scenery, drama
and films, documentaries, scientific or artistic material, the
countryside, public open spaces, public squares, the central action
on sporting events, news bulletins, etc.

Ahh. So you /were/ talking about DOGs, etc. and not bill-boards. Glad we
cleared that up at least.

me more hostile to the BBC than irony of ironies commercial
television.

Yeah, 'cos commercial channels /never/ do that, do they? :-(


--
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:
There are certain places where I have a great big problem with
adverts: Springs to mind, the top of peoples' heads, scenery, drama
and films, documentaries, scientific or artistic material, the
countryside, public open spaces, public squares, the central action
on sporting events, news bulletins, etc.

Ahh. So you /were/ talking about DOGs, etc. and not bill-boards. Glad we
cleared that up at least.



DOGs, shout overs, billboards = grafitti and **** to me.

There is no difference to tagging a wall or park bench to tagging my TV
picture as far as I'm concernced, nor for that matter shouting over music.
They are anti-social, undesirable, "sinful" and immorale activities.

I accordingly regard The BBC as an organisation that is full of the immorale
and inferior.



me more hostile to the BBC than irony of ironies commercial
television.

Yeah, 'cos commercial channels /never/ do that, do they? :-(


--


I am under no obligation to be a viewer of commercial channels nor do they
leach my own money.

I have no "commercial" or financial relationship with these people, thank
you.