Classic British Flight Sim

This is a photo of my wife Rita in a "Banksy" in Cheltenham. I took this earlier this month when we were there for the weekend, Cheltenham being the town where I grew up.



Today I saw this news item: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-glou ... e-28032154 I'm not surprised, just disgusted that it has already effectively gone.

"Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you've got
Till it's gone"

Big Yellow Taxi - Joni Mitchell

For those who don't know Cheltenham is the home of GCHQ (Government Communications Headquarters) where the British keep their spies.

Jon

IMO it is criminal damage and he should be prosecuted if he ever gets ID'd. It is not his property he is defacing. It may be categorised as art and some of his stuff may well be clever, but that does not excuse his arrogance of assuming rights on someone elses property. He is an anarchist and hides behind his anonymity and that is the act of a coward. Allowing this gives licence to others who graffiti.

I agree absolutely with Vancouver : spraying other people's houses without their permission is pure vandalism

Reading the newspaper article, it appears that the homeowner was paid, therefore I assume he must have given permission for it to be done.

The people of the local area don't appear to have any complaints regarding it, and are sorry to see it go. It's been there for at least 10 weeks.

As for Banksy being "I D'd" He is now a well known artist whose work sells for loads of money.

I like it, and far from being graffiti, it's more a work of art. Cleverly thought out and executed.

That's my personal opinion, and I'm entitled to it, as are others whose opinions differ from mine.

Den.

I respect and understand the opinions of Vancouver and Chris about graffiti however I disagree with them in this case.

As the owner of the property is reported to have made up to £1,000,000 from selling this, "criminal damage" doesn't seem to be the correct term.

Jon

Not that I would ever disagree with a Beeb article..

Said article says the owner of the building was paid.. not that he was paid £1m. The 'work' is going up for auction and could well achieve £1m Also, it doesn't say that he was paid before this 'artist' defaced his wall so the suggestion is that he has been paid to have it removed. Regardless.. the owner has been paid and I reckon it will be a nice sum though not, £1m

ATB
DaveB