| Re: BBC funds graffiti criminal |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Group: uk.transport.london · Group Profile
Author: MIGMIG Date: Sep 17, 2008 02:10
On Sep 17, 9:30Â am, Boltar yahoo.co.uk> wrote:> 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. Â The three million people are no more seeing a crime than if
>> there was fake blood splatter from acted murder scene. Â It's
>> entertainment, with references to the existence of crime. Â 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.
| 
