Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Newbury Today Forum _ Newbury News _ Council rules graffiti "not offensive enough" to remove
Posted by: Mark NWN Jun 17 2010, 12:25 PM
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=13634
QUOTE
WEST Berkshire Council left a piece of graffiti depicting male genitalia up for three months after officers deemed it not offensive enough to remove.
After making several pleas to the district council to clean up a defaced bus shelter on School Hill, in Chaddleworth, which had been daubed with vulgar artwork in March, Chaddleworth Parish Council this week received a written response from the district council which said: “Unfortunately, as it is not classed as 'offensive' it does not take priority and is removed by the Probation Service as and when they carry out work in the area.
“They have a significant amount of non offensive graffiti to remove in the district and it was unfortunate that they did not get out to your village to remove the small amount you have on the last couple of occasions they have worked in West Berkshire.”
The district council finally relented after repeated requests from the parish council, and sent a private contractor to paint over the scene yesterday (Wednesday) morning.
Spokesman for West Berkshire Council Keith Ulyatt said: “There is no sliding scale of what is deemed offensive and what is not, but something that is racially offensive or sexually offensive does get prioritised and removed immediately.
“The incident in question was not seen as offensive at the time and was not prioritised.”
After making several pleas to the district council to clean up a defaced bus shelter on School Hill, in Chaddleworth, which had been daubed with vulgar artwork in March, Chaddleworth Parish Council this week received a written response from the district council which said: “Unfortunately, as it is not classed as 'offensive' it does not take priority and is removed by the Probation Service as and when they carry out work in the area.
“They have a significant amount of non offensive graffiti to remove in the district and it was unfortunate that they did not get out to your village to remove the small amount you have on the last couple of occasions they have worked in West Berkshire.”
The district council finally relented after repeated requests from the parish council, and sent a private contractor to paint over the scene yesterday (Wednesday) morning.
Spokesman for West Berkshire Council Keith Ulyatt said: “There is no sliding scale of what is deemed offensive and what is not, but something that is racially offensive or sexually offensive does get prioritised and removed immediately.
“The incident in question was not seen as offensive at the time and was not prioritised.”
What do you make of this?
Pictures fine but words not allowed?
Where do you draw the line (excuse the pun)?
Posted by: user23 Jun 17 2010, 12:28 PM
How big was the picture of the genitalia?
No exaggerating, please. 
Posted by: Bloggo Jun 17 2010, 12:58 PM
QUOTE (Mark NWN @ Jun 17 2010, 01:25 PM) 
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=13634
What do you make of this?
Pictures fine but words not allowed?
Where do you draw the line (excuse the pun)?
What do you make of this?
Pictures fine but words not allowed?
Where do you draw the line (excuse the pun)?
The councils statement does sort of contradict itself but there are stacks of images of male and female genitalia in every art gallery around the world so arguably it could be classed as primitive art.
Posted by: JeffG Jun 17 2010, 02:53 PM
It's hard for us non-Chaddleworthians to make a judgment whether it's offensive or not when the NWN doesn't publish a picture.
Posted by: Mark NWN Jun 17 2010, 03:18 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Jun 17 2010, 01:28 PM)
How big was the picture of the genitalia?
No exaggerating, please.
No exaggerating, please.
According to the person who reported it, it was a fairly prominent image
QUOTE (JeffG @ Jun 17 2010, 03:53 PM)
It's hard for us non-Chaddleworthians to make a judgment whether it's offensive or not when the NWN doesn't publish a picture.
We are the eyes and ears of the public in certain situations but we rely on you guys to come to us with stuff like this too, a picture would have been helpful obviously but I was only informed of it the day it was cleared up.
Which leads me to my next question, what is the situation like in your area? If graffiti appears does it get cleared up fairly quickly? Do you have any examples of "offensive" graffiti near you? If so take a pic and send it to me mark.taylor@newburynews.co.uk
Posted by: misc Jun 17 2010, 03:47 PM
QUOTE (Mark NWN @ Jun 17 2010, 03:18 PM)
If graffiti appears does it get cleared up fairly quickly? Do you have any examples of "offensive" graffiti near you? If so take a pic and send it to me mark.taylor@newburynews.co.uk
I've phoned the council twice to report the same piece of graffiti. On both occasions I was told that it "should be dealt with within a couple of weeks". Which it wasn't. Eventually I gave up (just like I gave up trying to get the council/Veolia to collect my recycling). This was around two years ago and the graffiti is still there.
Posted by: Mark NWN Jun 17 2010, 04:08 PM
QUOTE (misc @ Jun 17 2010, 04:47 PM)
I've phoned the council twice to report the same piece of graffiti. On both occasions I was told that it "should be dealt with within a couple of weeks". Which it wasn't. Eventually I gave up (just like I gave up trying to get the council/Veolia to collect my recycling). This was around two years ago and the graffiti is still there.
You can PM me the details anonymously if you like
Posted by: Newburymafia Jun 17 2010, 04:37 PM
Come on people....what bloke HASN'T drawn a **** and balls on something at some point in his life?!
Lets face it, even a throbbing 6ft **** ejaculating profanity scrawled in hot pink isn't going to kill anyone - particularly if painted on the side of a bus shelter in the ****hole of nowehere.
Anyone who finds scribblings on walls offensive hasn't got enough to worry about.
Personally, I'd rather the council were fixing potholes in roads and collecting our bins on time as priority.
Posted by: Strafin Jun 17 2010, 04:49 PM
QUOTE (Newburymafia @ Jun 17 2010, 05:37 PM)
Come on people....what bloke HASN'T drawn a **** and balls on something at some point in his life?!
Lets face it, even a throbbing 6ft **** ejaculating profanity scrawled in hot pink isn't going to kill anyone - particularly if painted on the side of a bus shelter in the ****hole of nowehere.
Anyone who finds scribblings on walls offensive hasn't got enough to worry about.
Personally, I'd rather the council were fixing potholes in roads and collecting our bins on time as priority.
Lets face it, even a throbbing 6ft **** ejaculating profanity scrawled in hot pink isn't going to kill anyone - particularly if painted on the side of a bus shelter in the ****hole of nowehere.
Anyone who finds scribblings on walls offensive hasn't got enough to worry about.
Personally, I'd rather the council were fixing potholes in roads and collecting our bins on time as priority.
OK, everyone round to Mafia's house then....
Posted by: GMR Jun 17 2010, 05:04 PM
QUOTE (Mark NWN @ Jun 17 2010, 01:25 PM)
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=13634
What do you make of this?
Pictures fine but words not allowed?
Where do you draw the line (excuse the pun)?
What do you make of this?
Pictures fine but words not allowed?
Where do you draw the line (excuse the pun)?
What is all the fuss about? We've got the famous chalk man with a huge erection engraved on a hillside. We've got classical art nudes; male and females on open exhibition. We've got nude art by some of Earth's greatest painters. We've got statues of young boys peeing into fountains. The contents isn't or shouldn't be a problem, but the graffiti itself is another matter.
Posted by: Exhausted Jun 17 2010, 05:16 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Jun 17 2010, 01:28 PM)
How big was the picture of the genitalia?
No exaggerating, please.
No exaggerating, please.
Was it as big as this.
http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=9606
offended loads of helicopter and small aircraft pilots I believe.
Posted by: Iommi Jun 17 2010, 05:18 PM
Like with everything, it starts off with simple doodles that get ignored. This sends out a message that people don't care, which then provokes anti social behaviour.
Posted by: GMR Jun 17 2010, 05:22 PM
QUOTE (Iommi @ Jun 17 2010, 06:18 PM)
Like with everything, it starts off with simple doodles that get ignored. This sends out a message that people don't care, which then provokes anti social behaviour.
I agree. The problem wasn’t what was drawn, but the graffiti itself. Isn’t there a law about graffiti, and I am not talking about the contents?
Posted by: JeffG Jun 17 2010, 06:26 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Jun 17 2010, 06:22 PM)
Isn’t there a law about graffiti?
Isn't it just called "criminal damage"?
Posted by: GMR Jun 17 2010, 06:34 PM
QUOTE (JeffG @ Jun 17 2010, 07:26 PM)
Isn't it just called "criminal damage"?
The trouble is the police didn’t think so as they left part of the graffiti there.
Posted by: user23 Jun 17 2010, 06:47 PM
QUOTE (misc @ Jun 17 2010, 04:47 PM)
I've phoned the council twice to report the same piece of graffiti. On both occasions I was told that it "should be dealt with within a couple of weeks". Which it wasn't. Eventually I gave up (just like I gave up trying to get the council/Veolia to collect my recycling). This was around two years ago and the graffiti is still there.
Hang on. It's been there two years and no one from the community has bothered to do anything about it bar phone the council? In fairness the council shouldn't have said they'd clean it up if what this person claims they said is correct but still. Two years and not one local person has taken a cloth and a bit of solvent to it.In the brave new world of the Coalition I can see tasks like this being handed over to volunteer neighbourhood action groups and the like to save a few pennies. After all, cleaning off a willy, drawn on a bus shelter is hardly up there with safeguarding children and caring for the elderly.
Posted by: GMR Jun 17 2010, 07:21 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Jun 17 2010, 07:47 PM)
Hang on. It's been there two years and no one from the community has bothered to do anything about it bar phone the council? In fairness the council shouldn't have said they'd clean it up if what this person claims they said is correct but still. Two years and not one local person has taken a cloth and a bit of solvent to it.
In the brave new world of the Coalition I can see tasks like this being handed over to volunteer neighbourhood action groups and the like to save a few pennies. After all, cleaning off a willy, drawn on a bus shelter is hardly up there with safeguarding children and caring for the elderly.
In the brave new world of the Coalition I can see tasks like this being handed over to volunteer neighbourhood action groups and the like to save a few pennies. After all, cleaning off a willy, drawn on a bus shelter is hardly up there with safeguarding children and caring for the elderly.
It is not the responsibility of the citizen to clean up after yobs. That is down to the council. Also; if such graffiti is found and reported then it is the duty of the police to find out who the culprits are and act; i.e. make them either clean it up, or get them or their parents to pay for the cleanup.
What good would it have done if such a person had cleaned it up? Another yob would come along and do the same. Then what?
Posted by: Bloggo Jun 18 2010, 07:40 AM
QUOTE (GMR @ Jun 17 2010, 08:21 PM)
It is not the responsibility of the citizen to clean up after yobs. That is down to the council. Also; if such graffiti is found and reported then it is the duty of the police to find out who the culprits are and act; i.e. make them either clean it up, or get them or their parents to pay for the cleanup.
What good would it have done if such a person had cleaned it up? Another yob would come along and do the same. Then what?
What good would it have done if such a person had cleaned it up? Another yob would come along and do the same. Then what?
This is a great example of an opportunity to utilize the untapped labour of those relctant to work in the area.
Before collecting their benefits they could be asked to help clean up the town.
But no , it would violate their human right to be bone idle.
Posted by: Andy1 Jun 18 2010, 09:05 AM
It could be thousands of years before this graffiti is removed, I mean look at the Cerne Abbas Giant Chalk Man, not only did those Pagans deface the hill, the National Trust have been keeping it up.
Posted by: JeffG Jun 18 2010, 09:15 AM
QUOTE (Andy1 @ Jun 18 2010, 10:05 AM)
the national trust have been keeping it up.
What with?
Posted by: Bloggo Jun 18 2010, 09:27 AM
QUOTE (JeffG @ Jun 18 2010, 10:15 AM)
What with?
An injection, two of sand and one of cement.
Posted by: Jayjay Jun 18 2010, 10:58 AM
QUOTE (Mark NWN @ Jun 17 2010, 04:18 PM)
According to the person who reported it, it was a fairly prominent image
We are the eyes and ears of the public in certain situations but we rely on you guys to come to us with stuff like this too, a picture would have been helpful obviously but I was only informed of it the day it was cleared up.
Which leads me to my next question, what is the situation like in your area? If graffiti appears does it get cleared up fairly quickly? Do you have any examples of "offensive" graffiti near you? If so take a pic and send it to me mark.taylor@newburynews.co.uk
We are the eyes and ears of the public in certain situations but we rely on you guys to come to us with stuff like this too, a picture would have been helpful obviously but I was only informed of it the day it was cleared up.
Which leads me to my next question, what is the situation like in your area? If graffiti appears does it get cleared up fairly quickly? Do you have any examples of "offensive" graffiti near you? If so take a pic and send it to me mark.taylor@newburynews.co.uk
Just take a walk round town. Sainsbury underpass, Robin Hood underpass, Burger King underpass graffiti has been there well over 12 months. In the Bus Station there is not an inch of glass you can see through and most of the timetables have been defaced.
Posted by: user23 Jun 18 2010, 12:41 PM
QUOTE (Bloggo @ Jun 18 2010, 08:40 AM)
This is a great example of an opportunity to utilize the untapped labour of those relctant to work in the area.
Before collecting their benefits they could be asked to help clean up the town.
But no , it would violate their human right to be bone idle.
Not sure if that would be entirely legal, forcing people to do a particular job. We used to do it 200 years ago, it was called slavery then and we still do it now but only to those who have committed a crime. As far as I know not working isn't a crime, yet.Before collecting their benefits they could be asked to help clean up the town.
But no , it would violate their human right to be bone idle.
The truth is it's everyone in the community's "job" to take pride in their surroundings and if no one has bothered to clean this up after two years then it's probably not that much of a problem. As I said previously I can see tasks like this being handed to volunteer neighbourhood action groups to save government a few pennies in the near future.
Posted by: Bloggo Jun 18 2010, 12:48 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Jun 18 2010, 01:41 PM)
Not sure if that would be entirely legal, forcing people to do a particular job. We used to do it 200 years ago, it was called slavery then and we still do it now but only to those who have committed a crime. As far as I know not working isn't a crime, yet.
The truth is it's everyone in the community's "job" to take pride in their surroundings and if no one has bothered to clean this up after two years then it's probably not that much of a problem. As I said previously I can see tasks like this being handed to volunteer neighbourhood action groups to save government a few pennies in the near future.
The truth is it's everyone in the community's "job" to take pride in their surroundings and if no one has bothered to clean this up after two years then it's probably not that much of a problem. As I said previously I can see tasks like this being handed to volunteer neighbourhood action groups to save government a few pennies in the near future.
Yes, my post was a little "tongue in cheek".
Posted by: JeffG Jun 18 2010, 12:59 PM
QUOTE (Bloggo @ Jun 18 2010, 01:48 PM)
Yes, my post was a little "tongue in cheek".
Even so, I think it's called workfare, where people who are physically able are asked to take part in community projects in return for their benefit. If they decline, they don't get the benefit.
Can't see much of a problem with that.
Ah, here we are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workfare
Posted by: Iommi Jun 18 2010, 01:17 PM
QUOTE (user23 @ Jun 18 2010, 01:41 PM)
Not sure if that would be entirely legal, forcing people to do a particular job. We used to do it 200 years ago, it was called slavery then and we still do it now but only to those who have committed a crime. As far as I know not working isn't a crime, yet.
Crims have to do the work, 'for free'. Slavery was something people had not choice in. Work for benefit, would provide a choice.
QUOTE (user23 @ Jun 18 2010, 01:41 PM)
The truth is it's everyone in the community's "job" to take pride in their surroundings and if no one has bothered to clean this up after two years then it's probably not that much of a problem. As I said previously I can see tasks like this being handed to volunteer neighbourhood action groups to save government a few pennies in the near future.
Cleaning some of this graffiti takes specialist equipment . At the end of the day, we pay council tax for this to be cleaned. If the council can't or won't, then doing it ourselves should provide a discount. Or taking recent austere measures into account, help off set the effect of the government's reduced funding.
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 18 2010, 01:22 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Jun 17 2010, 08:21 PM)
It is not the responsibility of the citizen to clean up after yobs. That is down to the council. Also; if such graffiti is found and reported then it is the duty of the police to find out who the culprits are and act; i.e. make them either clean it up, or get them or their parents to pay for the cleanup.
What good would it have done if such a person had cleaned it up? Another yob would come along and do the same. Then what?
What good would it have done if such a person had cleaned it up? Another yob would come along and do the same. Then what?
You are wrong. Apathy breeds contempt.
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 18 2010, 01:23 PM
QUOTE (Jayjay @ Jun 18 2010, 11:58 AM)
Just take a walk round town. Sainsbury underpass, Robin Hood underpass, Burger King underpass graffiti has been there well over 12 months. In the Bus Station there is not an inch of glass you can see through and most of the timetables have been defaced.
It isn't glass, but plastic. Plastic does not weather well.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 18 2010, 01:26 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jun 18 2010, 02:22 PM)
You are wrong. Apathy breeds contempt.
To be honest I am more worried abouth physical attacks on people and the fact that a lot of young people today don't have any pride in working and expect everything to be handed to them.
I have a couple who live close to me. They are nice people. Don't get me wrong. They believe it is there right not too work and it is a 'lifestyle choice'. I did ask them what they would do if everyone had this attitude to which they replied 'people are really stupid for working'.
Posted by: JeffG Jun 18 2010, 01:30 PM
If they want to make that lifestyle choice, and have private means, that's fine by me. As long as they are not receiving any benefits.
Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 18 2010, 01:33 PM
QUOTE (JeffG @ Jun 18 2010, 02:30 PM)
If they want to make that lifestyle choice, and have private means, that's fine by me. As long as they are not receiving any benefits.
I don't know the answer to that question to be honest. I have never asked them. It's not the sort of thing I'd drop into a conversation. For all I know perhaps they are Millionaires! (But I doubt it somehow...)
Posted by: JeffG Jun 18 2010, 01:49 PM
TDH (to neighbour): "Gosh, lucky you - I wish I had the means not to have to work..."
Posted by: Iommi Jun 18 2010, 02:36 PM
It could be worse, just imagine that all these 'workshys' suddenly got their act together and made themselves capable to do our jobs - for less money!
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 18 2010, 02:49 PM
QUOTE (TallDarkAndHandsome @ Jun 18 2010, 02:26 PM)
To be honest I am more worried abouth physical attacks on people and the fact that a lot of young people today don't have any pride in working and expect everything to be handed to them.
I have a couple who live close to me. They are nice people. Don't get me wrong. They believe it is there right not too work and it is a 'lifestyle choice'. I did ask them what they would do if everyone had this attitude to which they replied 'people are really stupid for working'.
I have a couple who live close to me. They are nice people. Don't get me wrong. They believe it is there right not too work and it is a 'lifestyle choice'. I did ask them what they would do if everyone had this attitude to which they replied 'people are really stupid for working'.
That is not what I meant. The Apathy on the part of the residents - ie by not spending 5 mins to paint over the 'offensive' graffitti will lead to more of the same. Soon you have little respect for the area & it is a downhill spiral. Waiting for the local council to come & do it isn't that far from a 'why work' attitude.
Posted by: Iommi Jun 18 2010, 03:26 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jun 18 2010, 03:49 PM)
That is not what I meant. The Apathy on the part of the residents - ie by not spending 5 mins to paint over the 'offensive' graffitti...
Is it that easy though, and, are residents entitled to paint, or treat council, or other people's property?
Posted by: misc Jun 18 2010, 03:29 PM
QUOTE (Iommi @ Jun 18 2010, 03:26 PM)
Is it that easy though, and, are residents entitled to paint, or treat council, or other people's property?
I assume not - which is one of the reasons why I haven't painted over it myself.
Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 18 2010, 03:44 PM
QUOTE
It is not the responsibility of the citizen to clean up after yobs. That is down to the council. Also; if such graffiti is found and reported then it is the duty of the police to find out who the culprits are and act; i.e. make them either clean it up, or get them or their parents to pay for the cleanup.
What good would it have done if such a person had cleaned it up? Another yob would come along and do the same. Then what?
What good would it have done if such a person had cleaned it up? Another yob would come along and do the same. Then what?
Is it truly the councils responsibility to clean up after yobs? I wonder.....
As for the police action, what power do they have to 'make them clean it up', let alone get the parents to pay for the cleanup? And as no-one seems to know who did the deed, what magic wand will 'the police' (actually a human being with no special psychic powers) wave to identify the culprit?
Posted by: GMR Jun 18 2010, 03:48 PM
QUOTE (Bloggo @ Jun 18 2010, 08:40 AM)
This is a great example of an opportunity to utilize the untapped labour of those relctant to work in the area.
Before collecting their benefits they could be asked to help clean up the town.
But no , it would violate their human right to be bone idle.
Before collecting their benefits they could be asked to help clean up the town.
But no , it would violate their human right to be bone idle.
To be honest I think that will be coming in the governments next budget.
Posted by: GMR Jun 18 2010, 03:50 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jun 18 2010, 02:22 PM)
You are wrong. Apathy breeds contempt.
The trouble is apathy is all around us.
Posted by: misc Jun 18 2010, 03:52 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Jun 18 2010, 03:50 PM)
The trouble is apathy is all around us.
Whatever...
Posted by: GMR Jun 18 2010, 04:02 PM
QUOTE Is it truly the councils responsibility to clean up after yobs? I wonder.....
If not them, then who? If nothing is done then that will end up defining Newbury. If one citizen took the effort to clean up after the graffiti vandals then he/ or she will be put on. It then becomes their task. Would that be right?QUOTE As for the police action, what power do they have to 'make them clean it up', let alone get the parents to pay for the cleanup? And as no-one seems to know who did the deed, what magic wand will 'the police' (actually a human being with no special psychic powers) wave to identify the culprit?
Isn't it a crime? They may not be able to make them 'clean up' (even though they should) but they can do them for the damage.
As for not knowing who is doing the dastly deed; I talked to a police officer awhile back about graffiti in our area and I was told that they know which group was responsible, even though they don't know exactly which individual it was. Nevertheless, if you are saying there is nothing we (authorities) can do, then you are also saying that they've got carte blanche to do whatever they want because nobody can or will be bothered to stop them. Where will this attitude end? And what does it say for Newbury?
Posted by: GMR Jun 18 2010, 04:03 PM
QUOTE (misc @ Jun 18 2010, 04:52 PM)
Whatever...
Posted by: Exhausted Jun 18 2010, 04:50 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Jun 18 2010, 05:02 PM)
Isn't it a crime? They may not be able to make them 'clean up' (even though they should) but they can do them for the damage.
If it can be proven who the culprits were, rather than hearsay, then an order to cleanup could be made against either the perpatrators or if underage, the parents. But, I wouldn't want our police officers wasting their time on this type of thing unless it was more of a professional tagging going on and our property was being badly defaced. Actually, what is the difference between a graffiti artist and the artists who were painting the Bricklayers. That had to be far worse than a willy on a bus shelter. Get a life people.
Posted by: GMR Jun 18 2010, 04:54 PM
QUOTE (Exhausted @ Jun 18 2010, 05:50 PM)
If it can be proven who the culprits were, rather than hearsay, then an order to cleanup could be made against either the perpatrators or if underage, the parents. But, I wouldn't want our police officers wasting their time on this type of thing unless it was more of a professional tagging going on and our property was being badly defaced. Actually, what is the difference between a graffiti artist and the artists who were painting the Bricklayers. That had to be far worse than a willy on a bus shelter. Get a life people.
So basically what you are say that they can continue regardless? I am sure the yobs will appreciate your green light attitude. The trouble is; out of little crimes bolder acts arise.
Posted by: Iommi Jun 18 2010, 05:45 PM
QUOTE (Exhausted @ Jun 18 2010, 05:50 PM)
Actually, what is the difference between a graffiti artist and the artists who were painting the Bricklayers. That had to be far worse than a willy on a bus shelter. Get a life people.
As GMR said, tolerating graffiti, is likely to be the thin end of the wedge. If one was trying to sell their house, I doubt many would be happy for their prospective buyers to pass a wall on the way to the house with graffiti splashed all over it. If your neighbour, meanwhile, painted their house in graffiti, I suspect one would get equally upset. Yet, this is the same principle.
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 18 2010, 06:00 PM
QUOTE (Iommi @ Jun 18 2010, 04:26 PM)
Is it that easy though, and, are residents entitled to paint, or treat council, or other people's property?
I'm not saying they should do it openly.
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 18 2010, 06:02 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Jun 18 2010, 04:50 PM)
The trouble is apathy is all around us.
You can't moan then can you?
Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 18 2010, 06:04 PM
QUOTE (Iommi @ Jun 18 2010, 06:45 PM)
As GMR said, tolerating graffiti, is likely to be the thin end of the wedge. If one was trying to sell their house, I doubt many would be happy for their prospective buyers to pass a wall on the way to the house with graffiti splashed all over it. If your neighbour, meanwhile, painted their house in graffiti, I suspect one would get equally upset. Yet, this is the same principle.
I certainly do not condone or tolerate, but the hard fact of life is the offenders are rarely caught. Police resources are directed to other issues by central edict, and too few complaints are made for the local issue to get on the radar.
An area afflicted by graffiti says what the areas youngsters may be like (and their parents etc. A single house painted in abstract 'art' merely indicates the mindset of the occupant.....
Posted by: Exhausted Jun 18 2010, 06:05 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Jun 18 2010, 05:54 PM)
So basically what you are say that they can continue regardless? I am sure the yobs will appreciate your green light attitude. The trouble is; out of little crimes bolder acts arise.
Not quite what I said, but a phone call to the Old Bill...... "Someone has defaced the side wall of my house" ..... Old Bill"When".... Answer, "I don't know, it happened the other day".......Old Bill "Do you know who the culprit was and did you or anybody else witness it ?"....... Answer "No".
So, what would the policeman who turned up (possibly) do. Check the handwriting... Visit every house in the area to see if anybody has a matching can of paint.
What do you think ? (large purple graffiti please)
Posted by: Iommi Jun 18 2010, 07:31 PM
I don't think people are claiming that graffiti should be a top police priority, we are only trying to describe why, to some of the people who think this isn't a problem, when we think it is. There's few sayings more patronising than the 'get a life statement'!
People being more community spirited is a valid point, but in some cases, this wouldn't be practical.
Posted by: GMR Jun 18 2010, 08:47 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jun 18 2010, 07:02 PM)
You can't moan then can you?
Of course you can moan, you don’t just give up.
Posted by: GMR Jun 18 2010, 08:47 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jun 18 2010, 07:00 PM)
I'm not saying they should do it openly.
They shouldn’t do it at all; openly or on the sly.
Posted by: GMR Jun 18 2010, 08:50 PM
QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Jun 18 2010, 07:04 PM)
I certainly do not condone or tolerate, but the hard fact of life is the offenders are rarely caught. Police resources are directed to other issues by central edict, and too few complaints are made for the local issue to get on the radar.
An area afflicted by graffiti says what the areas youngsters may be like (and their parents etc. A single house painted in abstract 'art' merely indicates the mindset of the occupant.....
An area afflicted by graffiti says what the areas youngsters may be like (and their parents etc. A single house painted in abstract 'art' merely indicates the mindset of the occupant.....
I agree that they hardly get caught. That is why the council or the police should step up a gear. We’ve got the resources to catch the culprits. Not to do it gives them carte blanche and sends out a message that society is an easy touch. From there they progress.
Posted by: GMR Jun 18 2010, 09:01 PM
QUOTE (Exhausted @ Jun 18 2010, 07:05 PM)
Not quite what I said, but a phone call to the Old Bill...... "Someone has defaced the side wall of my house" ..... Old Bill"When".... Answer, "I don't know, it happened the other day".......Old Bill "Do you know who the culprit was and did you or anybody else witness it ?"....... Answer "No".
So, what would the policeman who turned up (possibly) do. Check the handwriting... Visit every house in the area to see if anybody has a matching can of paint.
What do you think ? (large purple graffiti please)
So, what would the policeman who turned up (possibly) do. Check the handwriting... Visit every house in the area to see if anybody has a matching can of paint.
What do you think ? (large purple graffiti please)
OK, I agree. Let us leave it. Let us send out a message that we can’t catch them – even though we are supposed to have the greatest police force and minds in the world. And why not send out the message to progress a bit further (sorry, you have), they might find some other stuff that we don’t regard as important. Maybe smashing windows, or scrapping the side of cars. Not really a priority, are they, and of course the police have other ‘important’ things to do. What about robbery... or does that classify as important? Murder? Too much. In fact why not just go the whole hog and just prosecute the people who call the police for being a nuisance; those that want a good society, a good neighbourhood.
Posted by: Exhausted Jun 18 2010, 10:19 PM
GMR, what is it with you. You have this ability to go totally over the top when replying to posts, reading stuff into them then coming back like a hysterical girl. If you want the police to go graffiti hunting and spend resources on that then fine but do you not concede that in the scheme of things it is close to the bottom of the scale.
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 18 2010, 11:05 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Jun 18 2010, 09:47 PM)
They shouldn’t do it at all; openly or on the sly.
Well that is the 21st century attitude we have come to expect isn't it?
No my job, mate.
#
There is **** all over my street, but I pay my rates!
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 18 2010, 11:08 PM
QUOTE (Exhausted @ Jun 18 2010, 11:19 PM)
GMR, what is it with you. You have this ability to go totally over the top when replying to posts, reading stuff into them then coming back like a hysterical girl. If you want the police to go graffiti hunting and spend resources on that then fine but do you not concede that in the scheme of things it is close to the bottom of the scale.
GMR wants to live in a Police state.
We 'know' who did it - nuff said!
Posted by: Iommi Jun 18 2010, 11:20 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jun 18 2010, 07:00 PM)
I'm not saying they should do it openly.
Well what are you saying? People should be prepared to potentially break the law, to save the council fulfilling their responsibility? Like I said, you suggested that this is all over a 5 minute scrub. Sometimes (for the second time), it isn't that easy to remove some graffiti. It can take specialist equipment.
I suspect you would get a number of volunteers, if the council were to advertise for them, provided they supplied the equipment to do it with.
Personally, I think it would be better for the community, if the community were 'empowered' to look after their own patch. I would expect to see this reflected in my council tax rate, mind!
Posted by: GMR Jun 18 2010, 11:30 PM
QUOTE (Exhausted @ Jun 18 2010, 11:19 PM)
GMR, what is it with you. You have this ability to go totally over the top when replying to posts, reading stuff into them then coming back like a hysterical girl. If you want the police to go graffiti hunting and spend resources on that then fine but do you not concede that in the scheme of things it is close to the bottom of the scale.
This is supposed to be a debating area. Putting scenarios, suggestions etc up doesn’t equate with hysterical women.
My point was that if we don’t do anything about the little things then the chancers will grow into doing bigger things. Also; how do we create a better society if we start ignoring things? Another point; are you saying that graffiti is so on the bottom that we should ignore it? If so what is the point of having laws that says you will be punished if you do so-and-so and then in the same breath say it isn’t that important.
Posted by: GMR Jun 18 2010, 11:34 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jun 19 2010, 12:08 AM)
GMR wants to live in a Police state.
We 'know' who did it - nuff said!
We 'know' who did it - nuff said!
So you are saying because we want people arrested or punished for breaking the law equates to wanting a ‘police state’? Isn’t letting it go and doing nothing belittling the law?
Posted by: Biker1 Jun 19 2010, 05:30 AM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jun 19 2010, 12:08 AM)
GMR wants to live in a Police state.
We 'know' who did it - nuff said!
We 'know' who did it - nuff said!
Perhaps we should give "Zero Tolerance" a try.
It worked in the USA.
(Or is that what you call a "Police State"?)
Graffiti is a scourge and should be treated as such.
Posted by: JeffG Jun 19 2010, 09:16 AM
Forget the police - it's nothing to do with them.
West Berks Council, A-Z of Council Services, under G for Graffiti is given the number (01635) 519080.
(It's actually the Streetcare number, but specifically listed.)
Who you gonna call?
Posted by: GMR Jun 19 2010, 09:17 AM
QUOTE (Biker1 @ Jun 19 2010, 06:30 AM)
Perhaps we should give "Zero Tolerance" a try.
It worked in the USA.
(Or is that what you call a "Police State"?)
Graffiti is a scourge and should be treated as such.
It worked in the USA.
(Or is that what you call a "Police State"?)
Graffiti is a scourge and should be treated as such.
You can’t have ‘zero tolerance’ otherwise you’ll have the PC brigade taking up arms. As you see on this forum, by the PC brigade, certain crime should be tolerated and swept under the carpet; if people suffer or it affects their community, so what!! The police have more 'important things to do'.
Posted by: GMR Jun 19 2010, 09:19 AM
QUOTE (JeffG @ Jun 19 2010, 10:16 AM)
Forget the police - it's nothing to do with them.
West Berks Council, A-Z of Council Services, under G for Graffiti is given the number (01635) 519080.
(It's actually the Streetcare number, but specifically listed.)
Who you gonna call?
West Berks Council, A-Z of Council Services, under G for Graffiti is given the number (01635) 519080.
(It's actually the Streetcare number, but specifically listed.)
Who you gonna call?
If it has nothing to do with the police then why did they interfere in the first place (see first post)? According to our local community police it has everything to do with them. If a crime or misdemeanour happens they will sort it out (as they said).
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 19 2010, 09:30 AM
QUOTE (GMR @ Jun 19 2010, 12:34 AM)
So you are saying because we want people arrested or punished for breaking the law equates to wanting a ‘police state’? Isn’t letting it go and doing nothing belittling the law?
You miss the point. Without proof the police can do nothing. You can't arrest or punish someone without proof.
Hearsay & rumour about who did what are not enough. If it was, that would be your Police State.
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 19 2010, 09:31 AM
QUOTE (Biker1 @ Jun 19 2010, 06:30 AM)
Perhaps we should give "Zero Tolerance" a try.
It worked in the USA.
(Or is that what you call a "Police State"?)
Graffiti is a scourge and should be treated as such.
It worked in the USA.
(Or is that what you call a "Police State"?)
Graffiti is a scourge and should be treated as such.
Yes it is what I would call a Police State. Have you ever watched an episode of 'World's Wildest Police Chases'?
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 19 2010, 09:36 AM
QUOTE (Iommi @ Jun 19 2010, 12:20 AM)
Well what are you saying? People should be prepared to potentially break the law, to save the council fulfilling their responsibility? Like I said, you suggested that this is all over a 5 minute scrub. Sometimes (for the second time), it isn't that easy to remove some graffiti. It can take specialist equipment.
I suspect you would get a number of volunteers, if the council were to advertise for them, provided they supplied the equipment to do it with.
Personally, I think it would be better for the community, if the community were 'empowered' to look after their own patch. I would expect to see this reflected in my council tax rate, mind!
I suspect you would get a number of volunteers, if the council were to advertise for them, provided they supplied the equipment to do it with.
Personally, I think it would be better for the community, if the community were 'empowered' to look after their own patch. I would expect to see this reflected in my council tax rate, mind!
Painting over graffitti on the inside of a bus shelter is breaking that law? If it was on my street & I was that bothered about it I wouldn't think twice about doing it.
Posted by: JeffG Jun 19 2010, 09:37 AM
From Wikipedia:
QUOTE
The term police state describes a state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the population. A police state typically exhibits elements of totalitarianism and social control, and there is usually little or no distinction between the law and the exercise of political power by the executive.
The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional state.
The inhabitants of a police state experience restrictions on their mobility, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political control may be exerted by means of a secret police force which operates outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional state.
Not exactly the same as zero-tolerance to graffiti.
Posted by: GMR Jun 19 2010, 10:00 AM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jun 19 2010, 10:30 AM)
You miss the point. Without proof the police can do nothing. You can't arrest or punish someone without proof.
Hearsay & rumour about who did what are not enough. If it was, that would be your Police State.
Hearsay & rumour about who did what are not enough. If it was, that would be your Police State.
I agree with you. However, it is regarded as low priority; that means they will never do anything about it, unless they are standing there watching them do it. So what is the point of having a law that says it is illegal to graffiti and then don’t enforce it? It sends out a message that some breaking of laws will not be tolerated, while others are tolerated. Let us remove it of the statute books then and just make it the responsibility of local councils to clear up; but then that sends out a message that it is ok to graffiti as somebody will clean up after them.
Just a matter of interest. Councils across the country have been accused of using spy technology to spy on their citizens (citizens pretending that they live in a certain catchment area etc) to catch them out. Why can’t they use such technology to catch Graffiti vandals? That will send out a message that all laws should be obeyed and breaking them will be dealt with severally.
Posted by: GMR Jun 19 2010, 10:03 AM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jun 19 2010, 10:31 AM)
Yes it is what I would call a Police State. Have you ever watched an episode of 'World's Wildest Police Chases'?
No it isn’t what you call a police state. A police state is as JeffG quoted. It is called upholding the law, otherwise what is the point of making the law in the first place if you then dismiss it as irrelevant.
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 19 2010, 11:18 AM
QUOTE (GMR @ Jun 19 2010, 11:03 AM)
No it isn’t what you call a police state. A police state is as JeffG quoted. It is called upholding the law, otherwise what is the point of making the law in the first place if you then dismiss it as irrelevant.
to quote Judge Dredd - 'I Am The Law'
Posted by: user23 Jun 19 2010, 12:06 PM
QUOTE (Exhausted @ Jun 18 2010, 11:19 PM)
If you want the police to go graffiti hunting and spend resources on that then fine but do you not concede that in the scheme of things it is close to the bottom of the scale.
Quite right. We would have to pay for CCTV cameras or for new officers to monitor virtually everything that could be drawn on in West Berkshire, 24 hours a day. Can you imagine how much that would cost.We should count ourselves lucky that a willy drawn on a rural bus-stop seems to be the worst thing wrong with the area at the moment. I'm sure those who live in towns where muggings, shootings and other serious crime occurs on a regular basis would look at this whole thread and laugh.
Posted by: GMR Jun 19 2010, 01:27 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jun 19 2010, 12:18 PM)
to quote Judge Dredd - 'I Am The Law'
Judge Dredd is fictional so it doesn't really matter what he is or isn't.
Posted by: On the edge Jun 19 2010, 01:56 PM
And what about those apparently in authority on the scene? Could not the 'Parish Council' help here? After all they collect the precept so have a material interest. Or is this for them yet another example of rural Berkshire wisdom - all grab and no give.
Posted by: Iommi Jun 19 2010, 03:09 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jun 19 2010, 10:36 AM)
Painting over graffitti on the inside of a bus shelter is breaking that law?
What, a plain brick one? What colour would you use?
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 19 2010, 04:26 PM
QUOTE (Iommi @ Jun 19 2010, 04:09 PM)
What, a plain brick one? What colour would you use?
whatever was to hand.
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 19 2010, 04:27 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Jun 19 2010, 02:27 PM)
Judge Dredd is fictional so it doesn't really matter what he is or isn't.
You don't say. A satirical one.
Posted by: GMR Jun 19 2010, 06:41 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jun 19 2010, 05:27 PM)
You don't say. A satirical one.
Yes, a satirical one... but not, alas, a real one.
Posted by: Iommi Jun 19 2010, 07:29 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jun 19 2010, 05:26 PM)
whatever was to hand.
I see, a serious suggestion then!
Replace one act of vandalism with another.
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 19 2010, 07:36 PM
QUOTE (Iommi @ Jun 19 2010, 08:29 PM)
I see, a serious suggestion then! Replace one act of vandalism with another.
Replace one act of vandalism with another.I thought it was the depiction of a **** that was causing the problem. Not the fact the shelter had recieved some street art per se.
If I had done the repainting, it wouldn't be vanadalism. Maybe you need to improve your brush technique?
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 19 2010, 07:37 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Jun 19 2010, 07:41 PM)
Yes, a satirical one... but not, alas, a real one.
twice you've said this now.
but at least you understand the idea behind Dredd now. So did Rodney King.
Posted by: GMR Jun 19 2010, 08:02 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jun 19 2010, 08:37 PM)
twice you've said this now.
but at least you understand the idea behind Dredd now. So did Rodney King.
but at least you understand the idea behind Dredd now. So did Rodney King.
I only said it twice, as you said what you said twice... so I thought I’d help the hard of seeing out. I presume you are Rodney, while I am Dredd... which sounds, or should sound, about right.
Posted by: Iommi Jun 19 2010, 08:10 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jun 19 2010, 08:36 PM)
I thought it was the depiction of a **** that was causing the problem. Not the fact the shelter had recieved some street art per se. If I had done the repainting, it wouldn't be vanadalism. Maybe you need to improve your brush technique?
Unauthorised painting of private or council property, regardless of the standard of finish (remember you said you'd use anything that comes to hand), is vandalism. To save this pointless and ignorant 'message board tennis', do you get the point - people are not necessarily entitled to just go and paint willy-nilly (
).One man's depiction of a phallus, is another man's graffiti.
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 19 2010, 08:44 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Jun 19 2010, 09:02 PM)
I only said it twice, as you said what you said twice... so I thought I’d help the hard of seeing out. I presume you are Rodney, while I am Dredd... which sounds, or should sound, about right.
Why do I get the feeling that you'd quite like to be dishing out your own personal brand of 'justice'?
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 19 2010, 08:45 PM
QUOTE (Iommi @ Jun 19 2010, 09:10 PM)
Unauthorised painting of private or council property, regardless of the standard of finish (remember you said you'd use anything that comes to hand), is vandalism. To save this pointless and ignorant 'message board tennis', do you get the point - people are not necessarily entitled to just go and paint willy-nilly ( ).
One man's depiction of a phallus, is another man's graffiti.
).One man's depiction of a phallus, is another man's graffiti.
But we like pointless and ignorant 'message board tennis'. I mean, it is 9:45 on a Saturday night & all we have to do is post on a useless message bored.
Posted by: GMR Jun 19 2010, 09:02 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jun 19 2010, 09:44 PM)
Why do I get the feeling that you'd quite like to be dishing out your own personal brand of 'justice'?
Well, your feelings are wrong. I have no wish to get myself put in jail. There should be only one sort of justice; the law and courts. Sadly that isn't always the case.
Posted by: GMR Jun 19 2010, 09:07 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jun 19 2010, 09:45 PM)
But we like pointless and ignorant 'message board tennis'. I mean, it is 9:45 on a Saturday night & all we have to do is post on a useless message bored.
Are you suggesting that you haven’t got a life and that is why you are on here? Don’t let it upset you, you are not alone. Feel relieved that the majority of inmates in a mental institution are allowed access to the internet and they are probably on here keeping you company.
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 19 2010, 09:22 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Jun 19 2010, 10:07 PM)
Are you suggesting that you haven’t got a life and that is why you are on here? Don’t let it upset you, you are not alone. Feel relieved that the majority of inmates in a mental institution are allowed access to the internet and they are probably on here keeping you company.
you shouldn't let on tou know - they'll take away your keyboard.
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 19 2010, 09:23 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Jun 19 2010, 10:02 PM)
Well, your feelings are wrong. I have no wish to get myself put in jail. There should be only one sort of justice; the law and courts. Sadly that isn't always the case.
err, you are the one who said you were Dredd. Did you ever read 2000AD?
Posted by: GMR Jun 19 2010, 09:27 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jun 19 2010, 10:23 PM)
err, you are the one who said you were Dredd. Did you ever read 2000AD?
No I wasn’t the one who said I was Dredd. I was being ironic when I said “I presume you are Rodney, while I am Dredd...” In other words I was presuming you read it that way, or was saying something like that. You should read back to what I was answering to. As for have I ever read the comic; yes, and seen the film.
Posted by: GMR Jun 19 2010, 09:29 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jun 19 2010, 10:22 PM)
you shouldn't let on tou know - they'll take away your keyboard.
The trouble is they’ve taken it away so many times that now they just settle on the injections and a tickle from big Bertha.
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 19 2010, 09:36 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Jun 19 2010, 10:27 PM)
No I wasn’t the one who said I was Dredd. I was being ironic when I said “I presume you are Rodney, while I am Dredd...” In other words I was presuming you read it that way, or was saying something like that. You should read back to what I was answering to. As for have I ever read the comic; yes, and seen the film.
Hmmm, the film. Less said about that the better.
I wasn’t the one who said I was Dredd when I said.... I am Dredd
I said that Rodney King would understand when I was equating American policemen to Judge Dredd.
You only need to spend a few mins on Liveleak to see no end of American Coppers acting out their own Dreddesque fantasies.
Posted by: GMR Jun 19 2010, 09:41 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jun 19 2010, 10:36 PM)
Hmmm, the film. Less said about that the better.
I wasn't the one who said I was Dredd when I said.... I am Dredd
I said that Rodney King would understand when I was equating American policemen to Judge Dredd.
You only need to spend a few mins on Liveleak to see no end of American Coppers acting out their own Dreddesque fantasies.
I wasn't the one who said I was Dredd when I said.... I am Dredd
I said that Rodney King would understand when I was equating American policemen to Judge Dredd.
You only need to spend a few mins on Liveleak to see no end of American Coppers acting out their own Dreddesque fantasies.
I am sure we’ve had a few over here over the years. They didn’t much good though, did they?
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 19 2010, 09:42 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Jun 19 2010, 10:41 PM)
I am sure we’ve had a few over here over the years. They didn’t much good though, did they?
In America thay have shot quite a few petty criminals. And a dog.
Posted by: pinkfluffyclouds Jun 19 2010, 10:11 PM
BANKSY how rich is that guy not sure he painted one one of those though
Posted by: pinkfluffyclouds Jun 19 2010, 10:13 PM
QUOTE (pinkfluffyclouds @ Jun 19 2010, 11:11 PM)
BANKSY how rich is that guy now?? not sure he painted one of those though
Posted by: GMR Jun 19 2010, 10:15 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jun 19 2010, 10:42 PM)
In America thay have shot quite a few petty criminals. And a dog.
Who was she?
In America there is a moral to that; if you don't want to get shot, no matter how petty, don't do the crime. In Britain we have a different approach; if you want to do the crime you've got Human Rights legislation, apathy, a hands off approach to make your job easier. If the victim should step in and defend himself we'll prosecute them on your behalf. Far better approach I would think; it sends out a clear and precise message. We are the land of fools.
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 20 2010, 10:57 AM
QUOTE (GMR @ Jun 19 2010, 11:15 PM)
Who was she?
In America there is a moral to that; if you don't want to get shot, no matter how petty, don't do the crime. In Britain we have a different approach; if you want to do the crime you've got Human Rights legislation, apathy, a hands off approach to make your job easier. If the victim should step in and defend himself we'll prosecute them on your behalf. Far better approach I would think; it sends out a clear and precise message. We are the land of fools.
In America there is a moral to that; if you don't want to get shot, no matter how petty, don't do the crime. In Britain we have a different approach; if you want to do the crime you've got Human Rights legislation, apathy, a hands off approach to make your job easier. If the victim should step in and defend himself we'll prosecute them on your behalf. Far better approach I would think; it sends out a clear and precise message. We are the land of fools.
No, in the US they have trigger happy cops who shoot first & ask questions later. They think they are some kind of latter day Wyatt Earp.
What crime did Rodney King, Oscar Grant, commit?
Between June 11 and July 5 of this year, Chicago police shot twelve people, all Black and Latino. Six were wounded and survived. Six were killed.
The victims were young and old, a mother, fathers, and children. They were students aspiring to go to college, and workers. They were people with friends, families, and dreams. They included Shapell Terrell, a 39-year-old sanitation truck driver raising seven children; police fired 14 bullets into his back, killing him on the spot. That very same evening, Chicago police killed 49-year-old Darius Nicholson; his wife told TV news, “They came on a domestic [disturbance call], we ended up with a death.” Robin Johnson suffered from mental health problems and epilepsy; she was shot. The list goes on.
The very randomness of the police shooting spree in Chicago reveals much about what this is all about. A young high school student…a sanitation worker…a mother with a history of mental illness. The message is that anyone could be next—especially any African-American or Latino young man. The rash of police shootings in Chicago this summer is part of a reign of terror that means that millions of people in this country wake up every morning knowing that they could be shot for any reason. Or no reason at all. The police stories are suspiciously similar—“a gun was found.” Police acted as judge, jury, and executioner.
What has been the response? A public outcry? Indignant editorials in the city’s media? Calls for investigations? No, no, and no. There has been near silence in response to this wave of police shootings.
2008.
Posted by: Strafin Jun 20 2010, 12:00 PM
Yeah but where has your rant come from? No source cited, and it all sounds a bit "studenty" to me.
Posted by: Strafin Jun 20 2010, 12:05 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jun 20 2010, 11:57 AM)
What crime did Rodney King, Oscar Grant, commit?
Rodney King? Erm armed robbery, assault, drink driving, resisting arrest and failing to stop.
Grant wasn't charged as he died before any case could be put together, but was alledgedly involved in a brawl, and was accused of resisting arrest.
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 20 2010, 12:23 PM
QUOTE (Strafin @ Jun 20 2010, 01:05 PM)
Rodney King? Erm armed robbery, assault, drink driving, resisting arrest and failing to stop.
Grant wasn't charged as he died before any case could be put together, but was alledgedly involved in a brawl, and was accused of resisting arrest.
Grant wasn't charged as he died before any case could be put together, but was alledgedly involved in a brawl, and was accused of resisting arrest.
Grant ? - Allegedly involved in a Brawl. He was shot in the back whilst pinned to the ground.
King was a drunk driver. The armed robbery was 3 years prior & he been armed with a lump of metal.
Posted by: GMR Jun 20 2010, 01:56 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jun 20 2010, 11:57 AM)
No, in the US they have trigger happy cops who shoot first & ask questions later. They think they are some kind of latter day Wyatt Earp.
What crime did Rodney King, Oscar Grant, commit?
Between June 11 and July 5 of this year, Chicago police shot twelve people, all Black and Latino. Six were wounded and survived. Six were killed.
The victims were young and old, a mother, fathers, and children. They were students aspiring to go to college, and workers. They were people with friends, families, and dreams. They included Shapell Terrell, a 39-year-old sanitation truck driver raising seven children; police fired 14 bullets into his back, killing him on the spot. That very same evening, Chicago police killed 49-year-old Darius Nicholson; his wife told TV news, "They came on a domestic [disturbance call], we ended up with a death." Robin Johnson suffered from mental health problems and epilepsy; she was shot. The list goes on.
The very randomness of the police shooting spree in Chicago reveals much about what this is all about. A young high school student…a sanitation worker…a mother with a history of mental illness. The message is that anyone could be next—especially any African-American or Latino young man. The rash of police shootings in Chicago this summer is part of a reign of terror that means that millions of people in this country wake up every morning knowing that they could be shot for any reason. Or no reason at all. The police stories are suspiciously similar—"a gun was found." Police acted as judge, jury, and executioner.
What has been the response? A public outcry? Indignant editorials in the city's media? Calls for investigations? No, no, and no. There has been near silence in response to this wave of police shootings.
2008.
What crime did Rodney King, Oscar Grant, commit?
Between June 11 and July 5 of this year, Chicago police shot twelve people, all Black and Latino. Six were wounded and survived. Six were killed.
The victims were young and old, a mother, fathers, and children. They were students aspiring to go to college, and workers. They were people with friends, families, and dreams. They included Shapell Terrell, a 39-year-old sanitation truck driver raising seven children; police fired 14 bullets into his back, killing him on the spot. That very same evening, Chicago police killed 49-year-old Darius Nicholson; his wife told TV news, "They came on a domestic [disturbance call], we ended up with a death." Robin Johnson suffered from mental health problems and epilepsy; she was shot. The list goes on.
The very randomness of the police shooting spree in Chicago reveals much about what this is all about. A young high school student…a sanitation worker…a mother with a history of mental illness. The message is that anyone could be next—especially any African-American or Latino young man. The rash of police shootings in Chicago this summer is part of a reign of terror that means that millions of people in this country wake up every morning knowing that they could be shot for any reason. Or no reason at all. The police stories are suspiciously similar—"a gun was found." Police acted as judge, jury, and executioner.
What has been the response? A public outcry? Indignant editorials in the city's media? Calls for investigations? No, no, and no. There has been near silence in response to this wave of police shootings.
2008.
I am not defending the police, but King was a criminal. He wasn't a choir boy.
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 20 2010, 02:18 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Jun 20 2010, 02:56 PM)
I am not defending the police, but King was a criminal. He wasn't a choir boy.
So he deserved to be beaten up did he?
The Police are supposed to uphold the law, not break it.
Posted by: GMR Jun 20 2010, 03:19 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jun 20 2010, 03:18 PM)
So he deserved to be beaten up did he?
The Police are supposed to uphold the law, not break it.
The Police are supposed to uphold the law, not break it.
I never said that.
Posted by: Strafin Jun 20 2010, 03:59 PM
You implied that both were completely innocent, when they were not. The police were not right, but as I said your rant conveniently left out some key factors.
Posted by: Strafin Jun 20 2010, 04:01 PM
On the night of March 2, 1991, King and two passengers, Bryant Allen and Freddie Helms, were driving west on Foothill Freeway (Interstate 210) in the San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles. Prior to driving on the Foothill Freeway, the three men had spent the night watching a basketball game and drinking at a friend’s house in Los Angeles.[2] After being tested 5 hours after the incident, King's blood-alcohol level was found to be just under the legal limit. This meant that his blood alcohol level was approximately 0.19—nearly two and a half times the legal limit in California—when he was driving.[3] At 12:30 AM, Officers Tim and Melanie Singer, a husband-and-wife team of the California Highway Patrol, spotted King’s car speeding. The Singers pursued King, and the subsequent freeway chase reached speeds in excess of 100 mph.[4] According to King’s own statements, he refused to pull the car over because a DUI would violate his parole for a previous robbery conviction
From Wikipedia, so not gospel but it certainly shows that there was more to it than a standard DUI stop.
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 20 2010, 06:49 PM
QUOTE (Strafin @ Jun 20 2010, 05:01 PM)
On the night of March 2, 1991, King and two passengers, Bryant Allen and Freddie Helms, were driving west on Foothill Freeway (Interstate 210) in the San Fernando Valley area of Los Angeles. Prior to driving on the Foothill Freeway, the three men had spent the night watching a basketball game and drinking at a friend’s house in Los Angeles.[2] After being tested 5 hours after the incident, King's blood-alcohol level was found to be just under the legal limit. This meant that his blood alcohol level was approximately 0.19—nearly two and a half times the legal limit in California—when he was driving.[3] At 12:30 AM, Officers Tim and Melanie Singer, a husband-and-wife team of the California Highway Patrol, spotted King’s car speeding. The Singers pursued King, and the subsequent freeway chase reached speeds in excess of 100 mph.[4] According to King’s own statements, he refused to pull the car over because a DUI would violate his parole for a previous robbery conviction
From Wikipedia, so not gospel but it certainly shows that there was more to it than a standard DUI stop.
From Wikipedia, so not gospel but it certainly shows that there was more to it than a standard DUI stop.
And the Police should have arrested him & charged him. Not given him a **** good beating.
Posted by: GMR Jun 20 2010, 08:25 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jun 20 2010, 07:49 PM)
And the Police should have arrested him & charged him. Not given him a **** good beating.
Lucky it wasn't in this county otherwise he'd be worshipped as a god by our police force.
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 20 2010, 09:13 PM
QUOTE (GMR @ Jun 20 2010, 09:25 PM)
Lucky it wasn't in this county otherwise he'd be worshipped as a god by our police force.
GMR, you are to polar. He'd have been arrested in the UK and you know it.
btw, what about Kathryn Johnston? The circumstances here are almost comic. Comic apart from the death in a hail of police bullets of a 92 year old woman. The Police were so gung-ho in their use of firearms that several of their own officers were hit by 'friendly fire'.
Cops smashed her door down in a 'drug raid' & she, not living in the best of areas, fired a single shot from an aged pistol thinking she was being burgled. The poilce responded with 39 shots, 6 hitting the woman. She was then handcuffed & died shortly after. To cap it all the cops then tried to plant drugs in her house to imply she was a drug dealer.
Do you really want this kind of thing in the UK? The balance we have here is just fine. Sure some petty criminals will be let off. far better than trigger happy plod.
Posted by: Iommi Jun 20 2010, 09:47 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jun 20 2010, 10:13 PM)
GMR, you are to polar.
Hmm, I'd say the same about you on this; picking extreme examples to support your view...
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jun 20 2010, 10:13 PM)
Do you really want this kind of thing in the UK? The balance we have here is just fine. Sure some petty criminals will be let off. far better than trigger happy plod.
...but I do agree with your sentiment.
Posted by: On the edge Jun 20 2010, 10:08 PM
Going back to the subject - perhaps some Police action like this in Chaddleworth would really give them something to worry about....
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 20 2010, 10:15 PM
QUOTE (Iommi @ Jun 20 2010, 10:47 PM)
Hmm, I'd say the same about you on this; picking extreme examples to support your view...
...but I do agree with your sentiment.
...but I do agree with your sentiment.
The worrying thing is, from my reading I don't think this kind of event is that extreme in the USA......
We certainly don't want rookie cops with attitude on our streets.
Posted by: Strafin Jun 20 2010, 10:28 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jun 20 2010, 11:15 PM)
The worrying thing is, from my reading I don't think this kind of event is that extreme in the USA......
We certainly don't want rookie cops with attitude on our streets.
We certainly don't want rookie cops with attitude on our streets.
We've already got plenty of those, they don't have guns here though.
Have to point out though that your examples don't carry any weight without some sort of citation of source.
Posted by: dannyboy Jun 21 2010, 04:31 PM
QUOTE (Strafin @ Jun 20 2010, 11:28 PM)
We've already got plenty of those, they don't have guns here though.
Have to point out though that your examples don't carry any weight without some sort of citation of source.
Have to point out though that your examples don't carry any weight without some sort of citation of source.
you think I made them up?
Posted by: Strafin Jun 21 2010, 04:33 PM
Possibly. Or someone else could have.
Posted by: GMR Jun 21 2010, 05:31 PM
QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jun 20 2010, 10:13 PM)
GMR, you are to polar. He'd have been arrested in the UK and you know it.
btw, what about Kathryn Johnston? The circumstances here are almost comic. Comic apart from the death in a hail of police bullets of a 92 year old woman. The Police were so gung-ho in their use of firearms that several of their own officers were hit by 'friendly fire'.
Cops smashed her door down in a 'drug raid' & she, not living in the best of areas, fired a single shot from an aged pistol thinking she was being burgled. The poilce responded with 39 shots, 6 hitting the woman. She was then handcuffed & died shortly after. To cap it all the cops then tried to plant drugs in her house to imply she was a drug dealer.
Do you really want this kind of thing in the UK? The balance we have here is just fine. Sure some petty criminals will be let off. far better than trigger happy plod.
btw, what about Kathryn Johnston? The circumstances here are almost comic. Comic apart from the death in a hail of police bullets of a 92 year old woman. The Police were so gung-ho in their use of firearms that several of their own officers were hit by 'friendly fire'.
Cops smashed her door down in a 'drug raid' & she, not living in the best of areas, fired a single shot from an aged pistol thinking she was being burgled. The poilce responded with 39 shots, 6 hitting the woman. She was then handcuffed & died shortly after. To cap it all the cops then tried to plant drugs in her house to imply she was a drug dealer.
Do you really want this kind of thing in the UK? The balance we have here is just fine. Sure some petty criminals will be let off. far better than trigger happy plod.
Did you notice the wink smilie? I was being humorous.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)