• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "Just time for a Daily Mail article before I go"

Collapse

  • d000hg
    replied
    Originally posted by Bob Dalek View Post
    It's a f--king piss take and the idiots who sanctioned it should be hung, etc.
    Why? I consider graffiti a valid form of artistic expression, some stuff is really good (although most isn't).

    All this fuss over £3,000... having a meeting to discuss it probably cost way more than that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bob Dalek
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    I like the message, but considering how much tax money goes into exhibitions of more traditional art £3000 is nothing, if you consider graffiti to be art.
    Even if you don't, and it does reduce the amount of money spent on cleaning up paint elsewhere, then it's exactly the same principle as a skate park.

    edit: Or was all this obvious and I'm supposed to be laughing at the conservative fuddy-duddy bias?
    It's a f--king piss take and the idiots who sanctioned it should be hung, etc.

    Interestingly, the irate tax payer can't be done for doing it, as it's graffiti!
    Last edited by Bob Dalek; 16 October 2008, 18:42.

    Leave a comment:


  • BrilloPad
    replied
    This was in the Telegraph - why not use a link from there?

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    I like the message, but considering how much tax money goes into exhibitions of more traditional art £3000 is nothing, if you consider graffiti to be art.
    Even if you don't, and it does reduce the amount of money spent on cleaning up paint elsewhere, then it's exactly the same principle as a skate park.

    edit: Or was all this obvious and I'm supposed to be laughing at the conservative fuddy-duddy bias?

    Leave a comment:


  • PRC1964
    started a topic Just time for a Daily Mail article before I go

    Just time for a Daily Mail article before I go

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...i-artists.html

Working...
X