> 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.

> On Sep 16, 3:02 pm, MIG doreenbird.co.uk> 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 tossers 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?

>
> 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.
>

>
> "John Rowland" journeyflow.spamspam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:gao424$k2c$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk...

>>
>> 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. ...

> The BBC have been instrumental in encouraging and promoting graffiti for
> 10 years now.

> "Light of Aria" no.valid.domain.com> wrote in message
> news:gao4hc$2h4r$1@energise.enta.net...

>> 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" carlDASHwaring.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:D52Ak.62270$Fa6.26993@newsfe25.ams2...

>> "Light of Aria" no.valid.domain.com> wrote in message
>> news:gao4hc$2h4r$1@energise.enta.net...

>>> 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. ...

> 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.

> On Sep 16, 6:08 pm, MIG doreenbird.co.uk> 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.