# Two die spraying graffiti at Barking



## Monkeynuts (Jan 13, 2007)

Pair killed by Underground train:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6258337.stm

A timely reminder of the dangers associated with causing criminal damage to public property / undertaking art projects using the public realm as a canvas.


----------



## dlx1 (Jan 13, 2007)

So BTP cased them down the line and killed them.


----------



## maes (Jan 13, 2007)

I was stuck on the district line for an hour or so last night as the whole thing shut down. Guess this is why. That fucking sucks.


----------



## editor (Jan 13, 2007)

It's a tragedy that two lives should be lost this way. I feel sorry for the victim's families, because it's such a waste.

But you really can't blame the BTP for their deaths, can you?

Railways are fucking dangerous places and people shouldn't be farting about around the tracks, especially at night. 

And how do you think the driver feels today? He's just killed two people through no fault of his own.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 13, 2007)

thedyslexic1 said:
			
		

> So BTP cased them down the line and killed them.



Erm... no


----------



## dlx1 (Jan 13, 2007)

> But you really can't blame the BTP for their deaths, can you?



Yes.

BTP cased them out of the yard on to a live line were tubes were running. Could have stop the tube trains at Barking east so no movement of traffice.

or nicked them when there climing out of the yard on street leve.

What they were doing was woung but don't think they should have payed with there lifes.



> driver feels today?


----------



## detective-boy (Jan 13, 2007)

thedyslexic1 said:
			
		

> So BTP cased them down the line and killed them.


Er ... how about:

So BTP officers turned up and (quite lawfully) wanted to question them about an alleged offence of criminal damage and *they chose to run away down the line instead of co-operating*.

Why do you not think that people should be held accountable for their own actions.  They chose to (a) commit an offence and (b) run away.  The fact that they were killed is *their* fault and their fault alone.  

It is tragic, but do not even try and blame it on anyone else.

Cunt.


----------



## detective-boy (Jan 13, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> He's just killed two people through no fault of his own.


thedyslexic1 cunt would doubtless claim it was ... if only he hadn't been driving the fucking train, knowing that graffitti artists may be about on the tracks at that time of night.  Huh!  Some people eh?  No fucking consideration for others ...


----------



## exosculate (Jan 13, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> A timely reminder of the dangers associated with causing criminal damage to public property / undertaking art projects using the public realm as a canvas.



How many people die each year putting up billboard adverts.


----------



## dlx1 (Jan 13, 2007)

cunt that nice   



> BTP officers turned up and (quite lawfully) wanted to question them about an alleged offence.


Never siad they should be nicked But could have question them after they have left the yard. That way not next to a live line in deanger of an officers or a lad getting killed.

Tthey going to run like rabbit


----------



## Radar (Jan 13, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> How many people die each year putting up billboard adverts.


Dunno, are billboard posters thick enough for example to leg it onto live tracks at night in order to avoid a parking picket  ?? 

Bit like the burgler who attempts to leg it from capture by swimming the Thames.  If you rate your own life that lowly that you are repeatedly willing to risk your own life in order to buck a minor offence, its bound to happen eventually.

I wasn't schooled in a UK urban environment so never seen this myself, but don't schools situated near tube/railway lines get regular track safety visits by the BTP ??


----------



## detective-boy (Jan 13, 2007)

thedyslexic1 said:
			
		

> cunt that nice


It may not be nice, but it is accurate (in my opinion, obviously)

Defecting the blame for something like this from those responsible to those doing their job in a perfectly reasonable manner (so far as is apparent from the reports so far) is cuntish.

You did that.

QED you are a cunt.


----------



## exosculate (Jan 13, 2007)

Radar said:
			
		

> Dunno, are billboard posters thick enough for example to leg it onto live tracks at night in order to avoid a parking picket  ??
> 
> Bit like the burgler who attempts to leg it from capture by swimming the Thames.  If you rate your own life that lowly that you are repeatedly willing to risk your own life in order to buck a minor offence, its bound to happen eventually.
> 
> I wasn't schooled in a UK urban environment so never seen this myself, but don't schools situated near tube/railway lines get regular track safety visits by the BTP ??




It was referring to the stupid _public realm as canvas_ bit in the OP. The advertising boards are equally public realm and in your face. they are just legitimate grafitti.


----------



## treefrog (Jan 13, 2007)

thedyslexic1 said:
			
		

> Never siad they should be nicked But could have question them after they have left the yard. That way not next to a live line in deanger of an officers or a lad getting killed.
> 
> Tthey going to run like rabbit






			
				bbc said:
			
		

> the pair, aged 19 and 21



FFS they weren't little kids, they were adults and prefectly capable of understanding the danger that running along an underground track involved. It's all very sad but to suggest that the BTP are responsible because they tried to stop 4 men (men, not boys) from vandalising trains is absurd.

Tragic though


----------



## wiskey (Jan 13, 2007)

dyslexic, i think you're wrong about btp - they have a no chase policy as far as i know. 

sadly it can take AGES for the power to be cut off on the tube.


----------



## dlx1 (Jan 13, 2007)

shurly BTP would have been happier to have arrest them, then have to report to next of kin!
Could have arrest out of the yard

This not the 1st Death at Barking


----------



## DarthSydodyas (Jan 13, 2007)

trains and the train areas around barking are littered with shite grafitti.  I have NO sympathy for these tosspots.


----------



## dlx1 (Jan 13, 2007)

good greef have you never done any thing stupid  in your life


----------



## exosculate (Jan 13, 2007)

DarthSydodyas said:
			
		

> trains and the train areas around barking are littered with shite grafitti.  I have NO sympathy for these tosspots.



I have sympathy for anyone who dies tragically. But I have to agree the quality of grafitti leaves alot to be desired in many places.


----------



## DJ Squelch (Jan 13, 2007)

Theres at least one graffiti related death in london each year. Its a danger thats part of doing it and part of the excitement, its still sad when someone gets killed. There were at least 3 people killed in 2 years on the same line when I was doing it. I tripped over near live rails or nearly got crushed by moving trains on numerous occasions. Quite scary to think how reckless i was back then.
 They were probably chased by security rather than BTP. BTP stopped chasing people over lines back in 87 after they got a lot of stick chasing someone in Neasden who got electrocuted. Although they do still raid yards but only if they can trap people between rows of trains.


----------



## DarthSydodyas (Jan 13, 2007)

thedyslexic1 said:
			
		

> good greef have you never done any thing stupid  in your life


  nope.  i'm a choir boy.


----------



## Ribbit (Jan 13, 2007)

DarthSydodyas said:
			
		

> trains and the train areas around barking are littered with shite grafitti.  I have NO sympathy for these tosspots.



Well said.  Good riddance.  Shame the other two didn't get killed too.  I feel for the driver, as it'd've been better if the live rail had killed them.  They'd have felt that as well.  Wankers.


----------



## DJ Squelch (Jan 13, 2007)

Rabbit said:
			
		

> I do daydream of hurting people. Punching them, choking them... worse. There's very few people I don't have these thoughts about.



Makes sense. Have you tried councelling to get over your anger problems?


----------



## detective-boy (Jan 13, 2007)

DJ Squelch said:
			
		

> BTP stopped chasing people over lines back in 87 after they got a lot of stick chasing someone in Neasden who got electrocuted.


Bookmarks thread for when someone gets into a depot and sticks a bomb under a train and it turns out that BTP say someone hanging around but didn't want to shout or anything because that might scare them and they might run off and hurt themselves ...

Fucking ridiculous.     There can never be a no-chase "policy".  Every case must be treated on it's merits and if there is a possibility there is something else going on then attempts must be made to intervene.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 13, 2007)

thedyslexic1 said:
			
		

> good greef have you never done any thing stupid  in your life


There's stupid, and there's fecking moronic.  

Darwin rules OK ?


----------



## JHE (Jan 13, 2007)

It's extraordinary how much nasty nonsense this unfortunate incident has provoked.

Trying to blame Plod is ludicrous rubbish from the ACAB gang.

DarthSydodyas' reaction is pretty galling too.  "I have NO sympathy for these tosspots."  They were idiots, not bastards.  How about sympathy for their relatives and friends and the driver?

Ribbit is even worse:  "Good riddance. Shame the other two didn't get killed too."  If you wish death on graffiti-spraying idiots, I hate to think what you wish on burglars or thugs.


----------



## dlx1 (Jan 13, 2007)

> Someone gets into a depot and sticks a bomb under a train


Well they would call BTP, They call ant territory police of suppression bomb

Anrt the the heat seeking cameras or infer red there to catch bomber or Vandles.

can line power be turn off from one station to next ?


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 13, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> It was referring to the stupid _public realm as canvas_ bit in the OP. The advertising boards are equally public realm and in your face. they are just legitimate grafitti.



Nothing stupid about it. There was a lengthy and quite tedious discussion about whether tagging was or was not art. I have just put both facets in so it doesn't start up again. At the same time it is a sardonic reference that makes my own feelings on the matter clear.

So to add to the expense of cleaning it off we now have this sort of totally senseless waste of life. And for what?

Their parents will be distraught. Most people never get over the death of a child.


----------



## wiskey (Jan 13, 2007)

thedyslexic1 said:
			
		

> can line power be turn off from one station to next ?



no its done in sections i think.


----------



## JHE (Jan 13, 2007)

thedyslexic1 said:
			
		

> Well they would call BTP, They call ant territory police of suppression bomb...









_"You got the suppression bomb, Ant?"_


----------



## davesgcr (Jan 13, 2007)

Criminal damage and trespass whichever way you look at it ......

Period.

PS - it costs about 12k to repaint a train carriage - less to clean - needless activity ....fucking tags woud nver get beyond a trip to the heavy cleaning shed anyway.

Loss of a life(s) is tragic ....but get real - tagging is a needless and eventully pointless activity.


----------



## exosculate (Jan 13, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Nothing stupid about it. There was a lengthy and quite tedious discussion about whether tagging was or was not art. I have just put both facets in so it doesn't start up again. At the same time it is a sardonic reference that makes my own feelings on the matter clear.
> 
> So to add to the expense of cleaning it off we now have this sort of totally senseless waste of life. And for what?
> 
> Their parents will be distraught. Most people never get over the death of a child.




But its OK to be saturated with awful billboard adverts everywhere you go?


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 13, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> But its OK to be saturated with awful billboard adverts everywhere you go?



I don't recall saying that Not sure why I would; it's not particularly relevant.

In fact I forgot to add that you were quite correct in describing billboards as legitimate graffiti given that they are... writing on walls. My favourite graffiti was always at Hyde Park Corner in Leeds where someone had a habit of adding something particularly appropriate to whatever advert was displayed. Such wit and creativity is however very rare.

But none of this is relevant to the thread.


----------



## exosculate (Jan 13, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> I don't recall saying that Not sure why I would; it's not particularly relevant.
> 
> In fact I forgot to add that you were quite correct in describing billboards as legitimate graffiti given that they are... writing on walls. My favourite graffiti was always at Hyde Park Corner in Leeds where someone had a habit of adding something particularly appropriate to whatever advert was displayed. Such wit and creativity is however very rare.
> 
> But none of this is relevant to the thread.




Its perfectly relevant. As its about who decides what is legitimate in public spaces. You put the drivel in the OP so it is relevant.


----------



## Prefade (Jan 13, 2007)

JHE said:
			
		

> Ribbit is even worse:  "Good riddance. Shame the other two didn't get killed too."  If you wish death on graffiti-spraying idiots, I hate to think what you wish on burglars or thugs.



I'm always entertained by the fact that threads wishing a horrible death on Mrs Thatcher and detailing plans that are in place for wild parties on the event of her death are condoned, celebrated and welcomed on these boards, but the minute anyone wishes something similar to happen to just about anyone else, it is condemned in a rather po-faced manner.

For the record, I do not wish death on graffiti sprayers, I actually wish for something more subtle, such as for them to arrive home and discover that the ambience of their homes have been destroyed say by someone spraying obscenities over the front or all over their bedrooms, or maybe covering their TV in paint so they cannot enjoy the experience of using it properly.

Having said that, to have them mown down by a train is equally as satisfying and whilst I respect the right of their families to disagree, I put myself, along with a great many Londoners, in the camp of those who thought "good riddance" with a smile of satisfaction when I read the news this morning.

Why weep for people whose only contribution to society was a destructive one?


----------



## exosculate (Jan 13, 2007)

Prefade said:
			
		

> Having said that, to have them mown down by a train is equally as satisfying and whilst I respect the right of their families to disagree, I put myself, along with a great many Londoners, in the camp of those who thought "good riddance" with a smile of satisfaction when I read the news this morning.
> 
> Why weep for people whose only contribution to society was a destructive one?




Whilst I'm not supporting tagging, that is very callous of you. Quite disgraceful I think.


----------



## Pie 1 (Jan 13, 2007)

Ribbit said:
			
		

> Well said.  Good riddance.  Shame the other two didn't get killed too.  I feel for the driver, as it'd've been better if the live rail had killed them.  They'd have felt that as well.  Wankers.



You're a nasty little shitstick, aren't you?


----------



## JHE (Jan 13, 2007)

Prefade said:
			
		

> Having said that, to have them mown down by a train is equally as satisfying and whilst I respect the right of their families to disagree, I put myself, along with a great many Londoners, in the camp of those who thought "good riddance" with a smile of satisfaction when I read the news this morning.



Oh, well... whatever cheers you up... 



> Why weep for people whose only contribution to society was a destructive one?



You _say_ they only contributed destruction, but I _don't know_ what they contributed or would have contributed.  Nor do you.


----------



## DJ Squelch (Jan 13, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Bookmarks thread for when someone gets into a depot and sticks a bomb under a train and it turns out that BTP say someone hanging around but didn't want to shout or anything because that might scare them and they might run off and hurt themselves ...
> 
> Fucking ridiculous.     There can never be a no-chase "policy".  Every case must be treated on it's merits and if there is a possibility there is something else going on then attempts must be made to intervene.



I think the no chasing over live lines is for the chasing officers safety as much as the writers. BTP don't want to die for the graffiti wars either. If they were chasing a terrorist who if allowed to escape might go on to kill people they might be more up for running over tracks.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 13, 2007)

Personally I would chain graffiti "artists" to the spot and make 'em clean it off with a toothbrush and ajax. 

Bring back the stocks.


----------



## exosculate (Jan 13, 2007)

gentlegreen said:
			
		

> Personally I would chain graffiti "artists" to the spot and make 'em clean it off with a toothbrush and ajax.
> 
> Bring back the stocks.




Yeah I know why you say that, but why can't they give more legitimate space over to people to do there thing. That would surely reduce the annoying badly placed tagging rubbish.


----------



## JHE (Jan 13, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> Yeah I know why you say that, but why can't they give more legitimate space over to people to do there thing. That would surely reduce the annoying badly placed tagging rubbish.



I've got nothing against giving it a good _try_ (council-provided graffiti walls, say), but I don't think it would work.  I reckon the taggers and so on want their stuff all over the place, where most other people don't want it.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> Yeah I know why you say that, but why can't they give more legitimate space over to people to do there thing. That would surely reduce the annoying badly placed tagging rubbish.



Nah, the challenge of getting to somewhere dangerous is part of why the tagging is done.  Other graffiti artists might well use the sanctioned spaces but the urge to tag is more akin to marking territory in a game of one-upmanship than simple self-expression.

And if no one ever died doing it, you couldn't call it 'dangerous' any more, so in a weird way the deaths that occur are a part of the feedback loop that perpetuates the tagging.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 13, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> Yeah I know why you say that, but why can't they give more legitimate space over to people to do there thing. That would surely reduce the annoying badly placed tagging rubbish.


The social worker in me recognises the feelings of "lack of ownership" of disaffected young people, but in cities, space is at a premium, and would they _really _ settle for "expressing" themselves somewhere that the general public cannot see.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 13, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> Its perfectly relevant. As its about who decides what is legitimate in public spaces. You put the drivel in the OP so it is relevant.



It's not drivel, just a tongue in cheek presentation that seems to have upset you.

"criminal damage to public property" - this is fact, like it or not.

"undertaking art projects using the public realm as a canvas" - without getting into the whole "is it art" shit again what's your problem with this? They are doing some painting on public things.

Advertising billboards are visible to the public and in the public domain but not on public property. The parallel you are trying to draw is inaccurate. No-one is going to stop you doing a load of tags or a fuck-off mural on the side of your house, just as you could if you wish try and sell the right to stick up a billboard to JD Decaux or whoever.


----------



## exosculate (Jan 13, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> It's not drivel, just a tongue in cheek presentation that seems to have upset you.
> 
> "criminal damage to public property" - this is fact, like it or not.
> 
> ...



My problem is that advertising boards do _criminal damage to public space_. Public space should not be used to inflict drivel on people which cannot be avoided. I do not recognise it as legitimate. But many people see it as legitimate, such as yourself, which clearly is very questionable.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> No-one is going to stop you doing a load of tags or a fuck-off mural on the side of your house, just as you could if you wish try and sell the right to stick up a billboard to JD Decaux or whoever.



Actually the Council WILL often stop you doing stuff to your own property, or at the very least force you to remove it afterwards.

As for advertising billboards, I rather wish the graffiti artists would devote more time to defacing[beautifying] these.


----------



## agricola (Jan 13, 2007)

A tragedy, lets hope it acts as a reminder to others of the dangers.


----------



## detective-boy (Jan 13, 2007)

thedyslexic1 said:
			
		

> Well they would call BTP, They call ant territory police of suppression bomb


So you think people have to work out which police to call for which time of thing is happening do you?   

And _how_ exactly would they be supposed to know exactly what was happening?  Do you think graffitti artists have big badges saying "I'm a tagger" whilst terrorists wear T-shirts emblazoned with "Death to the infidel tbe passengers!" or similar?  

And you think the different units (and even different forces) are responsible for the immediate response to different types of crime do you? 

Can I make a suggestion?  Find out what the fuck you are talking about before gobbing off about how the police should do their job?  It may just help prevent you looking quite such a twat ...


----------



## Ribbit (Jan 13, 2007)

Pie 1 said:
			
		

> You're a nasty little shitstick, aren't you?



Yeah, absolutely.  They got what they deserved.


----------



## f for fake (Jan 13, 2007)

They were out breaking the law, and got killed because of it, Why should i a law abiding person feel sorry for those 2? The only people i feel sorry for are the parents and family of those who died and the train driver who hit them, while doing his job.

What next trains traveling at snail pace just in case the driver sees a trespasser and can stop in time. 

It reminds me back in the 80s and 90s when kids "joy ride" stolen cars and crashed and killed themselfs. Good ridance to scum who thinks it fun to steal cars. As well as these two twats. If they are thick enough to run on to a live rail line and get hit by a train, well Darwin has wone.

you cant blame BTP as its there job to try and stop law breakers. The only people who are to blame are those 2 who are going to be 6ft under. Its time we take responability of our actions and and not to try and blame it on someone else


----------



## f for fake (Jan 13, 2007)

They were out breaking the law, and got killed because of it, Why should i a law abiding person feel sorry for those 2? The only people i feel sorry for are the parents and family of those who died and the train driver who hit them, while doing his job.

What next trains traveling at snail pace just in case the driver sees a trespasser and can stop in time. 

It reminds me back in the 80s and 90s when kids "joy ride" stolen cars and crashed and killed themselfs. Good ridance to scum who thinks it fun to steal cars. As well as these two twats. If they are thick enough to run on to a live rail line and get hit by a train, well Darwin has wone.

you cant blame BTP as its there job to try and stop law breakers. The only people who are to blame are those 2 who are going to be 6ft under. Its time we take responability of our actions and and not to try and blame it on someone else


----------



## exosculate (Jan 13, 2007)

8ball said:
			
		

> Actually the Council WILL often stop you doing stuff to your own property, or at the very least force you to remove it afterwards.
> 
> As for advertising billboards, I rather wish the graffiti artists would devote more time to defacing[beautifying] these.




Likewise


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2007)

agricola said:
			
		

> A tragedy, lets hope it acts as a reminder to others of the dangers.



What it will actually do is double the kudos points of tagging that particular spot.


----------



## detective-boy (Jan 13, 2007)

DJ Squelch said:
			
		

> If they were chasing a terrorist who if allowed to escape might go on to kill people they might be more up for running over tracks.


Precisely.  The dangers to the general public, the officers and the suspects (probably in that order) are taken into account in the dynamic risk assessment made by officers confronted with any incident in which a pursuit (on foot or in vehicles) is possible.  And a decision can only be made on the facts of each case. 

BUT, and it is a big but, that dynamic risk assessment can only ever be second best - the basic responsibility for anything that happens is _always_ with those who chose to act unlawfully and / or to flee in the first place.  Any mistakes (or, more usually, misjudgements) made by the people forced to deal with the situation which confronts them can only ever be secondary.

Whilst we continue to act as apologists for those taking informed decisions to do unlawful / stupid / dangerous things we encourage others to ignore the implications of their choices and remove from them the responsibility for their actions.


----------



## Athos (Jan 13, 2007)

f for fake said:
			
		

> ... well Darwin has wone.



Oh, the irony.


----------



## f for fake (Jan 13, 2007)

Athos said:
			
		

> Oh, the irony.


pray tell athos? am i to thick to understand you


----------



## Athos (Jan 13, 2007)

f for fake said:
			
		

> am i *to* thick to understand you



It just gets better!


----------



## f for fake (Jan 13, 2007)

Athos said:
			
		

> It just gets better!


good for you


----------



## Yossarian (Jan 13, 2007)

Prefade said:
			
		

> Having said that, to have them mown down by a train is equally as satisfying and whilst I respect the right of their families to disagree, I put myself, along with a great many Londoners, in the camp of those who thought "good riddance" with a smile of satisfaction when I read the news this morning.



Yes, but that's because you're a cunt.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 13, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> My problem is that advertising boards do _criminal damage to public space_. Public space should not be used to inflict drivel on people which cannot be avoided. I do not recognise it as legitimate. But many people see it as legitimate, such as yourself, which clearly is very questionable.



Well, they are legitimate as there is no law against them, except planning control.

Don't be attacking me as if I'm some sort of apologist for advertising boards. As I've said I enjoy seeing them defaced, and will add that I would prefer not to see them at all.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2007)

Not everyone uses 'legitimate' to simply mean legal, Monkeynuts, remember you're in the company of lefties


----------



## Louloubelle (Jan 13, 2007)

What a terrible thing to happen



of course I feel sorry fothe dead people, more so for their familes and for their living accomplices, who must be going through some kind of emotional hell right now

I did plenty of stupid, dangerous things as an adolescent and I bet a lot of the people posting here did too, it's part of growing up. Still terrible when you draw the short straw as these 2 have done

There's a poster here, hasn't posted my for a while but used to post a lot, who was into this kind of thing. I'm not sure how old he is 

Anyone know if he's OK?


----------



## Yossarian (Jan 13, 2007)

If it's who I think you mean, he's older than 21...


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 13, 2007)

f for fake said:
			
		

> They were out breaking the law, and got killed because of it, Why should i a law abiding person feel sorry for those 2?


Because it is human to feel sorry for young people who are killed, and inhuman not to. If we are, indeed, to take responsibility for our actions, then that includes taking responsibity for "no sympathy" statements that we make ourselves.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jan 13, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Whilst we continue to act as apologists for those taking informed decisions to do unlawful / stupid / dangerous things we encourage others to ignore the implications of their choices and remove from them the responsibility for their actions.



You aren't speaking for me are you?...because that would make you a cunt.


----------



## fruitimix (Jan 13, 2007)

fucking hell you lot are a bunch of nasty cunts, wishing death on someone just coz they've scribbled on a bit of public wall...this could quite easily have been someone i know, i can think of people much more worthy of your ire than people doing a bit of graffiti..


----------



## zenie (Jan 13, 2007)

I'm sadenned @ the deaths, and I'm saddened  @ some of the replies on thiis thread  

They died in the pursuit of their own happiness.

Maybe people's time and energy would be better put thinking of those who were lost, those who loved them and lost them, especially their two friends who were witnesses to the deaths by all accounts. Rather than taking the moral high ground and moaning about them breaking a meaningless law....

For a liberal forum there are many right wing views being thrown about 

I'm sad I've come back and this is what this has become


----------



## Yossarian (Jan 13, 2007)

zenie said:
			
		

> there are many right wing views being thrown about



Innit, some of the numpties on this thread would shame the Daily Mail letters page.


----------



## Louloubelle (Jan 13, 2007)

Yossarian said:
			
		

> If it's who I think you mean, he's older than 21...


b****c?

if so, that's a huge relief I was really worried


----------



## Ribbit (Jan 13, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Because it is human to feel sorry for young people who are killed, and inhuman not to. If we are, indeed, to take responsibility for our actions, then that includes taking responsibity for "no sympathy" statements that we make ourselves.



Bollocks.  It's not 'inhuman' to not feel sorry for criminals.  I don't feel sorry for anyone - pity them, yes, but I wouldn't even pity these two.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 13, 2007)

zenie said:
			
		

> I'm sadenned @ the deaths, and I'm saddened  @ some of the replies on thiis thread
> 
> They died in the pursuit of their own happiness.
> 
> ...


It may have more to do with maturity, and respect for everyone else's space.


----------



## Donna Ferentes (Jan 13, 2007)

Ribbit said:
			
		

> Bollocks.  It's not 'inhuman' to not feel sorry for criminals.  I don't feel sorry for anyone - pity them, yes, but I wouldn't even pity these two.


Then you say a great deal about yourself, and none of it pleasant.


----------



## Ribbit (Jan 13, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Then you say a great deal about yourself, and none of it pleasant.



I don't deny it.


----------



## Yossarian (Jan 13, 2007)

gentlegreen said:
			
		

> It may have more to do with maturity, and respect for everyone else's space.



There's maturity, then there's being so mature that you're a grumpy misanthropic old bastard who'll probably end up in prison after shooting a neighbour in a dispute over a hedge.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2007)

zenie said:
			
		

> For a liberal forum there are many right wing views being thrown about
> 
> I'm sad I've come back and this is what this has become



It's not like this all the time.

Nice to see you're back, anyway


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2007)

Yossarian said:
			
		

> There's maturity, then there's being so mature that you're a grumpy misanthropic old bastard who'll probably end up in prison after shooting a neighbour in a dispute over a hedge.


----------



## Yossarian (Jan 13, 2007)

Louloubelle said:
			
		

> b****c?
> 
> if so, that's a huge relief I was really worried



Yeah, I'm pretty sure his 21st was a couple of years back.


----------



## Ribbit (Jan 13, 2007)

Yossarian said:
			
		

> There's maturity, then there's being so mature that you're a grumpy misanthropic old bastard who'll probably end up in prison after shooting a neighbour in a dispute over a hedge.



Then there's being so liberal, you could be Tony Blair's aide.


----------



## editor (Jan 13, 2007)

Ribbit said:
			
		

> Yeah, absolutely.  They got what they deserved.


What? You can think taggers deserve to_ die_ for their crime?


----------



## Ribbit (Jan 13, 2007)

Not necessarily, but if they trespass on the railway, then getting hit by a train is their just-desserts, really.

Actually, the fact that they were tagging is fairly irrelevant.  I just think if you're stupid enough to be there, then you deserve the concequences.


----------



## Louloubelle (Jan 13, 2007)

f for fake said:
			
		

> They were out breaking the law, and got killed because of it, Why should i a law abiding person feel sorry for those 2?



because they were adolcescents doing things that adolescents do
in the grand scheme of things they weren't doing anything especially terrible, they weren't robbing people, they weren't stabbing people they were just spraying graffiti.  For all we know it could have been a magnificent piece of artwork, as some graffiti is IMO




			
				f for fake said:
			
		

> It reminds me back in the 80s and 90s when kids "joy ride" stolen cars and crashed and killed themselfs. Good ridance to scum who thinks it fun to steal cars. As well as these two twats. If they are thick enough to run on to a live rail line and get hit by a train, well Darwin has wone.



Except that joy riders are a danger to other people, unlike graffiti artists (or taggers if that's what they were).  Even joy riders are negligent rather then having a malicious intent.  Still terrible when they get killed.


----------



## Yossarian (Jan 13, 2007)

Ribbit said:
			
		

> Then there's being so liberal, you could be Tony Blair's aide.



You think not being overcome with glee at a couple of people committing a petty crime getting killed makes somebody an uber-liberal? Time to put down that Daily Express....


----------



## Louloubelle (Jan 13, 2007)

Yossarian said:
			
		

> Yeah, I'm pretty sure his 21st was a couple of years back.




Thanks, much appreciated


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 13, 2007)

Ribbit said:
			
		

> Not necessarily, but if they trespass on the railway, then getting hit by a train is their just-desserts, really.


I blame the parents, and the schools, and maybe the government, for not spending vast amounts of effort suggesting to people that pissing around on railways is a bit silly.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 13, 2007)

Louloubelle said:
			
		

> because they were adolcescents doing things that adolescents do.


Despite a pretty dysfunctional childhood, I don't remember ever feeling inclined to do anything remotely as fecking stupid.
(I'm probably more your Jeffrey Dahmer type  )


----------



## detective-boy (Jan 13, 2007)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> You aren't speaking for me are you?...because that would make you a cunt.


I'm expressing a view about how "we" - a society - should act.  If you want that to exclude you, fine.


----------



## Dan U (Jan 13, 2007)

all you people wishing death on people for tagging are cunts

i'm not a huge fan of a lot of tagging - decent graff is another matter entirely - but wishing/celebrating death on people.


----------



## Ribbit (Jan 13, 2007)

Yossarian said:
			
		

> You think not being overcome with glee at a couple of people committing a petty crime getting killed makes somebody an uber-liberal? Time to put down that Daily Express....



I'm not gleeful and I don't read the Express.  Or the Mail, before you ask.


----------



## Ribbit (Jan 13, 2007)

gentlegreen said:
			
		

> I blame the parents, and the schools, and maybe the government, for not spending vast amounts of effort suggesting to people that pissing around on railways is a bit silly.



Exactly.  So if they're _still_ that stupid, I have no pity for them.




			
				Dan U said:
			
		

> all you people wishing death on people for tagging are cunts
> 
> i'm not a huge fan of a lot of tagging - decent graff is another matter entirely - but wishing/celebrating death on people.



I don't wish death on anyone, let alone someone for tagging.  I just think they got what they deserved for _trespassing on a rail line_.


----------



## detective-boy (Jan 13, 2007)

Louloubelle said:
			
		

> because they were adolcescents doing things that adolescents do


They were 19 and 21 for fucks sake.  They are old enough to make their own bloody minds up.  They KNEW what they were doing.  They KNEW the risks.  They COULD have surrendered when they were caught and, like men, accepted the consequences.  Instead of which they took an INFORMED decision which cost them their lives and fucked up dozens of other peoples.

Men younger than them are being sent in our name to Iraq and they are dying doing things that they have no choice in.


----------



## Ribbit (Jan 13, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> They were 19 and 21 for fucks sake.  They are old enough to make their own bloody minds up.  They KNEW what they were doing.  They KNEW the risks.  They COULD have surrendered when they were caught and, like men, accepted the consequences.  Instead of which they took an INFORMED decision which cost them their lives and fucked up dozens of other peoples.
> 
> Young men younger than them are being sent in our name to Iraq and they are dieing doing things that they have no choice in.



Pfft, it's off-topic, but they do have a choice.  If you join the armed forces, you expect to go and fight for your country.  I wouldn't fight because I disagree with war, so I wouldn't join the army.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jan 13, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> I'm expressing a view about how "we" - a society - should act.  If you want that to exclude you, fine.



Cheers. However, I _know_ I'm excluded from your "society" all ready...but thanks for the after-thought anyways.


----------



## Ribbit (Jan 13, 2007)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> Cheers. However, I _know_ I'm excluded from your "society" all ready...but thanks for the after-thought anyways.



You're an arrogant prick, aren't you?


----------



## 8ball (Jan 13, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> They were 19 and 21 for fucks sake.  They are old enough to make their own bloody minds up.  They KNEW what they were doing.  They KNEW the risks.  They COULD have surrendered when they were caught and, like men, accepted the consequences.  Instead of which they took an INFORMED decision which cost them their lives and fucked up dozens of other peoples.
> 
> Young men younger than them are being sent in our name to Iraq and they are dieing doing things that they have no choice in.



Much as I enjoy baiting the Dibble of an evening, your point is a fair one - it's certainly their fault alone, and they knew the risks.

I feel sorry for their families but as for them, I feel nothing more than when a base-jumper gets splatted - the danger is a big part of the buzz and getting mashed by a train is the risk you take.  I did some dumb and risky things when I was younger (much younger than 21), and accepted the risk when doing so.  I sometimes think a part of why these kids do this is down to our risk-averse culture - it seems that dangerous pasttimes are only open to the rich who have had the good sense to keep the Health and Safety brigade away from their hobbies.


----------



## Giles (Jan 13, 2007)

I feel sorry for their families, friends etc, but I can't have much sympathy for them.

Playing around on railway lines is about as sensible as playing chicken on the M25.

They were old enough to know better, they weren't schoolkids.

Giles..


----------



## boskysquelch (Jan 13, 2007)

Ribbit said:
			
		

> You're an arrogant prick, aren't you?




 ALL SEWN UP

couldn't find _Paranoid Ward_.  

but there's a scrappy version of safety pin stuck in my heart for you,for you at the end.


----------



## crustychick (Jan 13, 2007)

Prefade said:
			
		

> I put myself, along with a great many Londoners, in the camp of those who thought "good riddance" with a smile of satisfaction when I read the news this morning.
> 
> Why weep for people whose only contribution to society was a destructive one?



Fuck sake. I'm glad I never lived in your London. Cunt.

Yes, they were stupid boys doing stupid things, but deriving pleasure, or a self-satisfied smug fuzzy feeling from their deaths? because they cost you a few pence more in your tax? where's the humanity? you know fuck all about these people. You are just a cunt - or a bored wind-up merchant.


----------



## Aldebaran (Jan 13, 2007)

Ribbit said:
			
		

> Exactly.  So if they're _still_ that stupid, I have no pity for them.



You come across as someone who firmly believes to be born with superior intellect and who considers everyone else as "inferior" to you.


> I don't wish death on anyone, let alone someone for tagging.



In your posts I read the opposite. 



> I just think they got what they deserved for _trespassing on a rail line_.



Hence if you cross a road in the dark you deserve to get hit by a car? 


salaam.


----------



## Ribbit (Jan 13, 2007)

Aldebaran said:
			
		

> You come across as someone who firmly believes to be born with superior intellect and who considers everyone else as "inferior" to you.
> 
> 
> In your posts I read the opposite.
> ...



How can you even compare the two?  Crossing the road isn't either illegal, or something to be avoided.  Crossing a rail line is both of those.  They weren't using a level crossing - they had no right to be there.


----------



## Ribbit (Jan 13, 2007)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> ALL SEWN UP
> 
> couldn't find _Paranoid Ward_.
> 
> but there's a scrappy version of safety pin stuck in my heart for you,for you at the end.



My speaker doesn't work.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jan 13, 2007)

Ribbit said:
			
		

> My speaker doesn't work.



probably fer best.

e2a :: v starnge..I thought I jus caught the News now jus saying that the _Police were investigating to see if the men who were killed were in fact anything to do with the people seen earlier graffiti spraying nearby_..ish. 

e2a2..oh i see....


----------



## Aldebaran (Jan 13, 2007)

Ribbit said:
			
		

> How can you even compare the two?  Crossing the road isn't either illegal, or something to be avoided.  Crossing a rail line is both of those.  They weren't using a level crossing - they had no right to be there.



Wether you crossing the road at that spot can be considered what you call "illegal" or not, is possible point of debate and has in fact nothing to do with the issue.
Just answer the question: If you cross a busy road in the dark do you deserve to die because you take the risk that drivers don't see you coming?

salaam.


----------



## Ribbit (Jan 13, 2007)

Of course not, you berk.  The two aren't comparable in the slightest.  How does crossing the road even relate to wandering along a rail line?  You're the one bringing up things that have nothing to do with the issue.


----------



## potential (Jan 13, 2007)

Aldebaran said:
			
		

> Wether you crossing the road at that spot can be considered what you call "illegal" or not, is possible point of debate and has in fact nothing to do with the issue.
> Just answer the question: If you cross a busy road in the dark do you deserve to die because you take the risk that drivers don't see you coming?
> 
> salaam.


was just on itv news, massive 12ft high fence's with razor wire at top loads of warning  sign's.    they shouldn't have been there in the 1st place


----------



## Aldebaran (Jan 13, 2007)

So you say that one risk, crossing the road in the dark well knowing that you risk to get hit by a car who's driver can't see you coming in time is understandable, but that running on a trainrail knowing that you risk to get hit by a train who's driver doesn't see you coming in time is not.

Apart from the speed of the vehicles coming towards you, what is the difference? Both involve calculated risks, none involves a want or desire to get those risks materialised.  

By the way, can you translate "berk" for the English illiterate? Thank you.

salaam.


----------



## f for fake (Jan 13, 2007)

Donna Ferentes said:
			
		

> Because it is human to feel sorry for young people who are killed, and inhuman not to. If we are, indeed, to take responsibility for our actions, then that includes taking responsibity for "no sympathy" statements that we make ourselves.




If a young male wants to break the law and tag a bit of land, then fair enough, BUT in doings so he was spotted and challenged by people, whos job it is to look after said land, and ran off in to a live train yard, with big bits of metal going down rails, then get hit and killed by the train, why should i feel sorry?? 

Does that mean if some one ODs on bad drugs i have to feel sorry for them, off topic i know, but come on, I have sympathy for the train driver whos train hit them, the family of the dead but not them. They made up there mind and took the risk, its just that their luck ran out.


----------



## Aldebaran (Jan 13, 2007)

potential said:
			
		

> was just on itv news, massive 12ft high fence's with razor wire at top loads of warning  sign's.    they shouldn't have been there in the 1st place



I'm not arguing against that. 
I am trying to see why the poster thinks someone would "deserve" to get killed at one place while the same type of calculated risk taken on an other place excempts the person from "deserving" to get killed.

salaam.


----------



## umi (Jan 13, 2007)

Aldebaran said:
			
		

> So you say that one risk, crossing the road in the dark well knowing that you risk to get hit by a car who's driver can't see you coming in time is understandable, but that running on a trainrail knowing that you risk to get hit by a train who's driver doesn't see you coming in time is not.
> 
> Apart from the speed of the vehicles coming towards you, what is the difference? Both involve calculated risks, none involves a want or desire to get those risks materialised.
> 
> ...



You are quite clearly a fool, my friend...


----------



## boskysquelch (Jan 13, 2007)

potential said:
			
		

> they shouldn't have been there in the 1st place



but did they *deserve* blabblabblahblah.

*I'm off to watch some mind-numbing crud instead, 

@Al::: "berk" = Berkshire Hunt (London/Cockney rhyming slang)= a VERY rude word... it is an _insult _but given in a friendly manner.

Aight!!


----------



## f for fake (Jan 13, 2007)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> but did they *deserve* blabblabblahblah.
> 
> *I'm off to watch some mind-numbing crud instead,
> 
> ...




er they should of not been there, no one deserves to die, but they were fool hardy and paid the highest price.
They did NOT deserve to die, BUT its their fault no one else's


----------



## potential (Jan 13, 2007)

Aldebaran said:
			
		

> I'm not arguing against that.
> I am trying to see why the poster thinks someone would "deserve" to get killed at one place while the same type of calculated risk taken on an other place excempts the person from "deserving" to get killed.
> 
> salaam.


no one deserves to be killed it was an acident, i would never stand on a railwayline . i would not want to risk the chance of being killed.
i would look both ways when crossing a busy road, so hopefuly  i wouldnt get run over.............


----------



## Front101 (Jan 13, 2007)

Rest in Peace to the pair of them. 

I have trouble believing police didn't chase.  


To the poster saying they deserved it, you're some kind of cunt. Fuck you.


----------



## hatz (Jan 13, 2007)

This is ridiculous.

Okay, they were doing grafitti, which in the eyes of some people is a terrible thing (though I wouldn't necessarily agree). And they took a risk by being in a place they shouldn't be (which everyone has surely done to some extent or another - come on, find me someone who hasn't). And they ran from the police, which wasn't the smartest thing to do.

They were 18 and 21. That is still pretty young for gods sake. That's the age of my little brothers. 18 and 21 is not old at all, and it's the sort of age where you DO take risks, and you're full of hormones and you're trying to impress your mates.

I find it quite sickening that anyone can say that they're glad these two kids are dead, and they felt happy about it. In my eyes, anyone who says they feel that way is out of touch with humanity.

FFS. They're dead, no one deserves to die at that age, regardless.


----------



## Ribbit (Jan 13, 2007)

Talk about twist what I said...


----------



## hatz (Jan 13, 2007)

Ribbit said:
			
		

> Talk about twist what I said...


Are you kidding? You have come across on this thread as a very nasty individual. Why don't you have a re-read and a re-think?


----------



## trashpony (Jan 13, 2007)

What a bloody waste


----------



## jæd (Jan 13, 2007)

hatz said:
			
		

> And they ran from the police, which wasn't the smartest thing to do..



Onto live tracks on a Friday night.... Being stupid is dangerous for your health and those around you.


----------



## Ribbit (Jan 13, 2007)

hatz said:
			
		

> Are you kidding? You have come across on this thread as a very nasty individual. Why don't you have a re-read and a re-think?



I am.  I'm glad that they've got what they deserved.  They weren't kids and even if they had been, trespassing on the railway wouldn't have been acceptable.

And no, before anyone jumps down my throat, that doesn't mean that just because it's unacceptable, I feel they should die.  What it means is, I feel they should get what's coming to them, as with anything else.  If that's being arrested, breaking a leg or dying, then so be it.


----------



## Front101 (Jan 13, 2007)

hatz said:
			
		

> They were 18 and 21. That is still pretty young for gods sake. That's the age of my little brothers. 18 and 21 is not old at all, and it's the sort of age where you DO take risks, and you're full of hormones and you're trying to impress your mates.
> 
> I find it quite sickening that anyone can say that they're glad these two kids are dead, and they felt happy about it. In my eyes, anyone who says they feel that way is out of touch with humanity.
> 
> FFS. They're dead, no one deserves to die at that age, regardless.



One of them had just become a father, too. Not that it makes much difference to the discussion but makes it more tragic.

Nobody should die over graffiti, the police should wait for them to exit the yard before arresting. Why didn't they inform the driver that there were people on the tracks?


----------



## f for fake (Jan 13, 2007)

Ribbit said:
			
		

> I am.  I'm glad that they've got what they deserved.  They weren't kids and even if they had been, trespassing on the railway wouldn't have been acceptable.
> 
> And no, before anyone jumps down my throat, that doesn't mean that just because it's unacceptable, I feel they should die.  What it means is, I feel they should get what's coming to them, as with anything else.  If that's being arrested, breaking a leg or dying, then so be it.



i understand what you mean, if i decided to drink shite loads, then get in a car and drive down the motorway on the wrong side, lose control trying to avoid a car and hit a bridge and die, then i deserved. If i survied and brock me neck leaving me disabled for life, then i got what i deserved. 

They brock into some where they were not ment to be, ran away from "security" and got hit by a train, so they got what they deserved, They took the chance and lost


----------



## Ribbit (Jan 13, 2007)

Finally, someone understood.  I may have sounded a bit callous, but I made the point eventually.


----------



## f for fake (Jan 13, 2007)

Front101 said:
			
		

> ..... Why didn't they inform the driver that there were people on the tracks?



may be they did warn the drivers about the kids, but was it in time??? who knows, well not really eh. But we werent there so its hard to say


----------



## f for fake (Jan 13, 2007)

Ribbit said:
			
		

> Finally, someone understood.  I may have sounded a bit callous, but I made the point eventually.


been on your side all the time


----------



## hatz (Jan 13, 2007)

Ribbit said:
			
		

> I am.  I'm glad that they've got what they deserved.


That's disgraceful.

I really hope someday you grow out of your polarised world and learn to have some basic emotions.


----------



## detective-boy (Jan 13, 2007)

Front101 said:
			
		

> Nobody should die over graffiti, the police should wait for them to exit the yard before arresting. Why didn't they inform the driver that there were people on the tracks?


Oh fuck off.  It's their fault.  THEY chose to run.  They were seen and they ran.  They could have stayed and faced the consequences of being caught.  But they didn't.  they ran.  And, in doing so, they endangered themselves and others.  And they died and THEY fucked up other people's lives.

Fuck off with your apologist crap, blaming evryone except those who fucking deserve the blame.

Why didn't fucking Superman swoop down and snatch them from in front of the fucking train.

Go join thedyslexic1 in cunt corner.


----------



## Front101 (Jan 13, 2007)

f for fake said:
			
		

> They brock into some where they were not ment to be, ran away from "security" and got hit by a train, so they got what they deserved, They took the chance and lost



ffs yes they knew the risks, obviously, yes they knew they could be killed but to come out with saying "NO sympathy" and "They got what the deserved" makes you sound like an absolute arsehole. You should say that shit to the people that knew him. Maybe you'd understand how awful it sounds. 


BT should have stopped the trains, turned the power off or waited for them to leave. No way, after all of the other deaths, should they have let them run down the line. I'm not saying it's BT's fault, but there was a safer way of doing this. There isn't a 'no chase' policy either btw


----------



## editor (Jan 13, 2007)

f for fake said:
			
		

> They brock into some where they were not ment to be, ran away from "security" and got hit by a train, so they got what they deserved, They took the chance and lost


Daily Mail "taggers deserve to die" forums thataway --->


----------



## DJ Squelch (Jan 13, 2007)

f for fake said:
			
		

> i understand what you mean, if i decided to drink shite loads, then get in a car and drive down the motorway on the wrong side, lose control trying to avoid a car and hit a bridge and die, then i deserved. If i survied and brock me neck leaving me disabled for life, then i got what i deserved.
> 
> They brock into some where they were not ment to be, ran away from "security" and got hit by a train, so they got what they deserved, They took the chance and lost



If you drink drive you risk killing other innocent people, graffiti isn't endangering anyone else's life except your own. Writers accept that what they do is criminal and generally don't moan when arrested & given a suitable sentance but rubbing yor hands together when people get killed for what in the grand scheme of things is a pretty much petty offence just shows you up to be the wanker(s) you are.


----------



## Oxpecker (Jan 13, 2007)

Front101 said:
			
		

> Nobody should die over graffiti, the police should wait for them to exit the yard before arresting. Why didn't they inform the driver that there were people on the tracks?



Absolutely, and why not go one step further and allow them to finish their artwork before rudely interrupting them?

I'm sorry they died, and I'm sorry for the driver who'll suffer for months if not years because of this. But there is no justification for them being there, and consequently no-one to blame but themselves.

I don't know if the driver was informed or not, but if the train was entering a depot there is a point where the train radio switches from line control to depot control, creating a delay between the police being informed and the driver receiving the message.


----------



## Front101 (Jan 13, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Oh fuck off.  It's their fault.  THEY chose to run.  They were seen and they ran.  They could have stayed and faced the consequences of being caught.  But they didn't.  they ran.  And, in doing so, they endangered themselves and others.  And they died and THEY fucked up other people's lives.
> 
> Fuck off with your apologist crap, blaming evryone except those who fucking deserve the blame.
> 
> ...



You're saying I'm a cunt for stating that nobody should die over graffiti and asking why the police didn't make a safer arrest? As above, they knew the risks, obviously, but it's still tragic.. what the fuck is wrong with you all??

Who else did they endanger?


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 13, 2007)

Front101 said:
			
		

> BT should have stopped the trains, turned the power off or waited for them to leave. No way, after all of the other deaths, should they have let them run down the line. I'm not saying it's BT's fault, but there was a safer way of doing this. There isn't a 'no chase' policy either btw



Should... but I don't know, there's a limit to how much operations can be disrupted by people who shouldn't be there. That's not to say "sod it, run them over" but who knows, there could be people trying to get in and mess around all the time and the whole thing would grind to a halt. Really, the onus has to be on people not to go and play with trains.

I think some of the lack of sympathy on here is a bit harsh - they shouldn't have been doing what they were doing but it's hardly something someone deserves to die for. But everyone knows not to go and play with trains; they knowingly took the the risk and it's no-one's fault but theirs. Blaming anyone else just doesn't stand up.

Very sad day for those affected.

ETA: Actually - "lack of sympathy" is fair enough seeing as you don't know them. The idea of "deserving it" is the bit that's going too far.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 13, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Go join thedyslexic1 in cunt corner.


 will nick this expression


----------



## longdog (Jan 13, 2007)

I'm inclined to think the same as whoever it was comparing what they did with playing chicken on the M25.

They had no right to be where they were for the very good reason that it's extremely dangerous.

Death may be an extreme penalty for being a moron but they brought it on themselves and I find it hard to have much sympathy for them. It's the train driver I feel most sorry for.


----------



## longdog (Jan 13, 2007)

Front101 said:
			
		

> You're saying I'm a cunt for stating that nobody should die over graffiti and asking why the police didn't make a safer arrest?



As I understand it the BTP didn't give chase. What less / more would you have liked to see them do? Maybe the BTP should be banned from all tube / train lines just in case some cretin decides to take off along a line and gets themselves hit by a train or electrocuted.


----------



## f for fake (Jan 13, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Daily Mail "taggers deserve to die" forums thataway --->


im not saying taggers deserve to die, idiots running on train tracks are asking for it, its not what they were doing before they ran, but the running in itself was the stupid thing to do.


----------



## Pie 1 (Jan 13, 2007)

Ribbit said:
			
		

> Talk about twist what I said...





> QUOTE=Ribbit:
> Well said. Good riddance. *Shame the other two didn't get killed too*. I feel for the driver, as it'd've been better if the live rail had killed them. They'd have felt that as well. Wankers.



What's to twist, you piece of shit?


----------



## detective-boy (Jan 13, 2007)

Front101 said:
			
		

> BT should have stopped the trains, turned the power off or waited for them to leave. No way, after all of the other deaths, should they have let them run down the line. I'm not saying it's BT's fault, but there was a safer way of doing this. There isn't a 'no chase' policy either btw


OK.  So someone is seen trespassing on the line.  So LUL (not BT - they do telephones  ) turn off the current.  Stranding God knows how many people, on God knows how many trains, God knows where, for God knows how long.  And BTP get God knows how many officers (instantly!) to throw a ring around the entire area where the sighting was.  And then they all just hang around and wait.  And wait.  And wait.  Whilst the people concerned _if they are_ graffitti artists spend as long as they like damaging as many trains as they like meaning that they will be taken out of service for God knows how long.  Or tampering with the rolling-stock in God knows what ways, meaning that God knows how many safety checks have to be carried out before it can be put back into service.  Or doing whatever else they had in mind.

_Just in case_ the people concerned happen to be so fucking stupid that on being challenged they run off onto a live railway line ...

Yes.  There WAS a "safer" way of doing this.  But it was totally and utterly impracticable.  Just like there's a "safer" way of doing most things. 

Do you expect every police officer to simply follow every suspect around discretely until they both die of old age?  Because otherwise, if they are approached, they may do someting stupid like run off across a nearby railway / road / into a river .... and they might get hurt.  

There is a much safer way of doing these things:  expect adults to act in an adult fashion and accept the consequences of their own decisions.


----------



## WouldBe (Jan 13, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> _Just in case_ the people concerned happen to be so fucking stupid that on being challenged they run off onto a live railway line ....


and not bothering to look when crossing the lines.


----------



## detective-boy (Jan 13, 2007)

Front101 said:
			
		

> ...and asking why the police didn't make a safer arrest?


I didn't notice you "asking".

I noticed you "telling".  You stated:




			
				Front101 said:
			
		

> ... but there *was* a safer way of doing this. (My emphasis)



There wasn't.  It was a perfectly safe an acceptable way to deal with the situation until THEY chose to make it more dangerous.  They are responsible.

Full fucking stop.


----------



## detective-boy (Jan 13, 2007)

WouldBe said:
			
		

> and not bothering to look when crossing the lines.


Yeah but No but Yeah but No but Yeah but it was Colin Coppers fault cos he once got caught behind the bike sheds at Training School kissing that ginger girl from the Scene of Crime Course and she told on him and he got detention and missed the lesson on chasing people on railway lines and if he hadn't he'd have known not to do anything until he'd told Davy Driver and Davy Driver it was his fault as well cos he once threw up at Sharons party and his missus was really mad at him and she told him he'd have to make it up to her and he was s'posed to take her clubbing last night but he was late and so he was going too fast and probably texting her an' everything and so he didn't see them on the line and that ...


----------



## detective-boy (Jan 13, 2007)

longdog said:
			
		

> Maybe the BTP should be banned from all tube / train lines just in case some cretin decides to take off along a line and gets themselves hit by a train or electrocuted.


Why not ban trains?  And electric?


----------



## potential (Jan 13, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Why not ban trains?  And electric?


and teenagers


----------



## WouldBe (Jan 13, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Why not ban trains?  And electric?



Turn the underground system into cycle tracks.


----------



## Giles (Jan 13, 2007)

Front101 said:
			
		

> One of them had just become a father, too. Not that it makes much difference to the discussion but makes it more tragic.
> 
> Nobody should die over graffiti, the police should wait for them to exit the yard before arresting. Why didn't they inform the driver that there were people on the tracks?



If people don't want to "die over graffiti" they shouldn't go and do it in suicidally dangerous places.

And I am absolutely not having this line that somehow its the fault of the police or security guards for chasing them, or shouting to them, or anything else.

You have to take responsibility for your own actions. You CANNOT start blaming other people for "making" you run down a busy railway line. You do it, your choice. No-one elses.

Giles..


----------



## Giles (Jan 13, 2007)

Front101 said:
			
		

> ffs yes they knew the risks, obviously, yes they knew they could be killed but to come out with saying "NO sympathy" and "They got what the deserved" makes you sound like an absolute arsehole. You should say that shit to the people that knew him. Maybe you'd understand how awful it sounds.
> 
> 
> BT should have stopped the trains, turned the power off or waited for them to leave. No way, after all of the other deaths, should they have let them run down the line. I'm not saying it's BT's fault, but there was a safer way of doing this. There isn't a 'no chase' policy either btw



No-one "let" them run down the railway line. They just ran off as soon as they saw that they had been seen. How were "they" (the police, or security staff) supposed to stop them running down the line, exactly? I don't get it.

Giles..


----------



## longdog (Jan 13, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> How were "they" (the police, or security staff) supposed to stop them running down the line, exactly?



By catching them and....

No...

Hang on...


----------



## exosculate (Jan 13, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Yeah but No but Yeah but No but Yeah but it was Colin Coppers fault cos he once got caught behind the bike sheds at Training School kissing that ginger girl from the Scene of Crime Course and she told on him and he got detention and missed the lesson on chasing people on railway lines and if he hadn't he'd have known not to do anything until he'd told Davy Driver and Davy Driver it was his fault as well cos he once threw up at Sharons party and his missus was really mad at him and she told him he'd have to make it up to her and he was s'posed to take her clubbing last night but he was late and so he was going too fast and probably texting her an' everything and so he didn't see them on the line and that ...



Based on what we know, how could anyone seriously blame the police for this. There are plenty of more worthwhile arguments to be had than this and you know it. So chill out.


----------



## Cid (Jan 13, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> If people don't want to "die over graffiti" they shouldn't go and do it in suicidally dangerous places.
> 
> And I am absolutely not having this line that somehow its the fault of the police or security guards for chasing them, or shouting to them, or anything else.
> 
> ...



It's not really a 'suicidally dangerous place' though is it? How often do you see reports of writers hit by trains? Compare that to the amount of graff you see on the tracks... yep. In this case it's two tragic deaths caused, I guess, by the fact the guys in question didn't really know what they were doing. Any experienced writer knows it's better to wind up in the hands of the police than run off down a potentially live rail when the trains are still running. Of course if the message had got through to the driver or whoever controls the leccy on the tracks it should have been shut down immediately, but sadly this just seems to be a case where there was no time for that to happen.


----------



## Gixxer1000 (Jan 13, 2007)

8ball said:
			
		

> Nah, the challenge of getting to somewhere dangerous is part of why the tagging is done.  Other graffiti artists might well use the sanctioned spaces but the urge to tag is more akin to marking territory in a game of one-upmanship than simple self-expression.
> 
> And if no one ever died doing it, you couldn't call it 'dangerous' any more, so in a weird way the deaths that occur are a part of the feedback loop that perpetuates the tagging.



Good point well made.


----------



## JHE (Jan 14, 2007)

Ribbit said:
			
		

> Finally, someone understood.



Do you often find yourself 'misunderstood'?  Don't worry, you poor thing. There are at least a few 'counsellors' and 'therapists' on u75 who will listen to your bollocks.

I'm not sure what they charge.  £80+ per hour?

If they had their way, they would be a highly paid and respected part of the NHS and you could have their services for free.

(If I had my way, people, including callous gits like you, would just have a good old moan down the pub or on a message board and the quacks would be unemployed, but I suppose that's a very kultrully insensitive thing to say.)


----------



## suzee blue cheese (Jan 14, 2007)

> Yeah but No but Yeah but No but Yeah but it was Colin Coppers fault cos he once got caught behind the bike sheds at Training School kissing that ginger girl from the Scene of Crime Course and she told on him and he got detention and missed the lesson on chasing people on railway lines and if he hadn't he'd have known not to do anything until he'd told Davy Driver and Davy Driver it was his fault as well cos he once threw up at Sharons party and his missus was really mad at him and she told him he'd have to make it up to her and he was s'posed to take her clubbing last night but he was late and so he was going too fast and probably texting her an' everything and so he didn't see them on the line and that ...



This isn't a funny topic, but you've given me my first laugh of the evening..

On the one hand we complain about the nanny state, on the other we complain cause nanny wasn't there to protect us from ourselves..  I'd rather run with the notion of personal responsibility.

My opinion fwiw:  It was a sad and pointless loss of life, but it was entirely preventable by the people who died.  Shame.


----------



## DarthSydodyas (Jan 14, 2007)

*just caught this shite*




			
				JHE said:
			
		

> DarthSydodyas' reaction is pretty galling too.  "I have NO sympathy for these tosspots."  They were idiots, not bastards.  How about sympathy for their relatives and friends and the driver?


  Are you lacking browny-points or something?


----------



## Louloubelle (Jan 14, 2007)

potential said:
			
		

> was just on itv news, massive 12ft high fence's with razor wire at top loads of warning  sign's.    they shouldn't have been there in the 1st place




a regular poster here regularly enters dangerous buildings, ignoring warning signs and crossing security barriers, to take photographs

do you think that he deserves to die too?


----------



## Louloubelle (Jan 14, 2007)

JHE said:
			
		

> Do you often find yourself 'misunderstood'?  Don't worry, you poor thing. There are at least a few 'counsellors' and 'therapists' on u75 who will listen to your bollocks.
> 
> I'm not sure what they charge.  £80+ per hour?
> 
> ...




Actually I worked mostly for charites and, when I worked for a pregnancy advisory service, given all the additional unpaid work I did, I earned less than the minimum wage

£80 an hour? No wonder you've worked yourself up into such an envious rage


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 14, 2007)

Louloubelle said:
			
		

> a regular poster here regularly enters dangerous buildings, ignoring warning signs and crossing security barriers, to take photographs
> 
> do you think that he deserves to die too?



With the second point, not the right parallel to draw unless he was going in to vandalise the buildings, or perhaps steal something from them. (Note that I'm just pointing this out; I don't believe the original vandals "deserved it").

But I'm sure the poster is aware of the risks he takes. And that's fine. If he did injure himself then I would be surprised if there were suggestions that the responsibility lay anwhere else.


----------



## Ribbit (Jan 14, 2007)

Pie 1 said:
			
		

> What's to twist, you piece of shit?



Yeah well, it's how I felt at the time.  I still think if you're stupid enough to be there then you get what you deserve.  It's got fuck all to do with graffiti - the fact is they were trespassing on the railway and being killed is a distinct possibility.  No sympathy.  Good riddance.


----------



## Ribbit (Jan 14, 2007)

hatz said:
			
		

> That's disgraceful.
> 
> I really hope someday you grow out of your polarised world and learn to have some basic emotions.



I've got plenty of emotion for people who deserve it.  Any emotion I've got for this is with the driver.


----------



## cemertyone (Jan 14, 2007)

Ribbit said:
			
		

> Yeah well, it's how I felt at the time.  I still think if you're stupid enough to be there then you get what you deserve..  No sympathy.  Good riddance.



Do you feel the same about the Brit soldiers who get stiffed in Iraq and Afghanistan.....i see another two went to meet Chur chill in the skies yesterday..


----------



## Giles (Jan 14, 2007)

hatz said:
			
		

> That's disgraceful.
> 
> I really hope someday you grow out of your polarised world and learn to have some basic emotions.



I don't think you can "learn to have some basic emotions". 

You either feel something or you don't.

You can of course, learn to say "appropriate" things, to fit in with the emotions others are feeling, and not to say other things that will offend the same people.

But that's not really the same thing.

Giles..


----------



## editor (Jan 14, 2007)

Ribbit said:
			
		

> I still think if you're stupid enough to be there then you get what you deserve.  It's got fuck all to do with graffiti - the fact is they were trespassing on the railway and being killed is a distinct possibility.  No sympathy.  Good riddance.


Right. So anyone merely _trespassing_ deserves to die?

What about burglary? Hanging too good for 'em?
Illegal car parking? That's got to be worth having a few limbs cut off, surely?


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 14, 2007)

cemertyone said:
			
		

> Do you feel the same about the Brit soldiers who get stiffed in Iraq and Afghanistan.....i see another two went to meet Chur chill in the skies yesterday..



Obviously it's an occupational hazard for them, but they don't really get a choice of whether they fancy a bit of sunshine or would rather stay in Colchester.

What a bizarre parallel to try and draw


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 14, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Right. So anyone merely _trespassing_ deserves to die?
> 
> What about burglary? Hanging too good for 'em?
> Illegal car parking? That's got to be worth having a few limbs cut off, surely?



Any chance a bit of reason might creep in on both sides?

Your examples are somewhat absurd too.

Would be interested to know what you would think about a burglar who gets a baseball bat to the head or a kitchen knife up to the handle in the course of his activities. Again I would say this comes down to a risk you take, and for which you have to take responsibility.


----------



## editor (Jan 14, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Would be interested to know what you would think about a burglar who gets a baseball bat to the head or a kitchen knife up to the handle in the course of his activities.


And this is your example of 'reasoned' comparison, yes?

Ribbit clearly said that it had "fuck all to do with graffiti" but they "deserved" to die just for trespassing.
I'd say that's pretty absurd. What do you think?


----------



## Aldebaran (Jan 14, 2007)

Ribbit said:
			
		

> Yeah well, it's how I felt at the time.  I still think if you're stupid enough to be there then you get what you deserve.  It's got fuck all to do with graffiti - the fact is they were trespassing on the railway and being killed is a distinct possibility.  No sympathy.  Good riddance.



Are you aware of it that you sound as if anybody born with a below-average IQ "deserves to get killed" when they do something those with a higher IQ can see as "stupid" behaviour?

So far you failed to adress my question: 
Besides the speed of the traffic coming towards you, what is the difference between taking the risk they took and taking the risk to cross a road in the dark, knowing drivers can't see you coming but on both occasions not wanting the danger to materialize? 
Do you argue they actively sought to get hit by a train or can you come into it that they simply miscalculated the risk. Like someone who gets hit by a car on a dark road clearly miscalculated the risk.

salaam.


----------



## Ribbit (Jan 14, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> Right. So anyone merely _trespassing_ deserves to die?
> 
> What about burglary? Hanging too good for 'em?
> Illegal car parking? That's got to be worth having a few limbs cut off, surely?



I didn't say anything about deserving to die.  I said they got what they deserved.  If you look back and find the post, you'll see there's a difference.


----------



## editor (Jan 14, 2007)

Ribbit said:
			
		

> I didn't say anything about deserving to die.  I said they got what they deserved.  If you look back and find the post, you'll see there's a difference.


So what did they 'deserve' if not death?


----------



## detective-boy (Jan 14, 2007)

Aldebaran said:
			
		

> Are you aware of it that you sound as if anybody born with a below-average IQ "deserves to get killed" when they do something those with a higher IQ can see as "stupid" behaviour?


Please link to your source for the fact that these two were of "below-average IQ" - such that the presence of fences, signs, lights, cameras, etc. would entirely pass them by as suggesting that perhaps they shouldn't be there (a fact, I would suggest, they grasped pretty well as they ran like fuck when challenged ...)


----------



## Ribbit (Jan 14, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> So what did they 'deserve' if not death?



Whatever happened to them.  Indirectly, death, yeah, but they'd have just as much deserved breaking a leg, or paralysis if that'd happened.  I was wrong in my other post where I said being arrested was a suitable end - it's not.  That wouldn't disuade them doing it again, so though their deaths were unfortunate, it's fair enough.


----------



## Aldebaran (Jan 14, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Please link to your source for the fact that these two were of "below-average IQ" - such that the presence of fences, signs, lights, cameras, etc. would entirely pass them by as suggesting that perhaps they shouldn't be there (a fact, I would suggest, they grasped pretty well as they ran like fuck when challenged ...)



It is not what I am discussing. (But on the other hand: can you provide a source that they were not?) 
I'm discussing the fact that Ribbit states they "deserved" to die because they were "stupid". 

salaam.


----------



## WouldBe (Jan 14, 2007)

Aldebaran said:
			
		

> Besides the speed of the traffic coming towards you, what is the difference between taking the risk they took and taking the risk to cross a road in the dark, knowing drivers can't see you coming but on both occasions not wanting the danger to materialize?



Cars have the ability to swerve. Trains don't.


----------



## editor (Jan 14, 2007)

Ribbit said:
			
		

> I was wrong in my other post where I said being arrested was a suitable end - it's not.  That wouldn't disuade them doing it again, so though their deaths were unfortunate, it's fair enough.


So being arrested isn't enough for you?

So what punishment would you view more suitable?


----------



## Ribbit (Jan 14, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> So being arrested isn't enough for you?
> 
> So what punishment would you view more suitable?



It would be if they were locked up and not given a slap on the wrist.


----------



## Pie 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

Ribbit said:
			
		

> Good riddance.



Listen, your probably just trolling TBH. either way your a cunt - that much is clear.

But why do you keep saying 'good riddance'


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 14, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> And this is your example of 'reasoned' comparison, yes?
> 
> Ribbit clearly said that it had "fuck all to do with graffiti" but they "deserved" to die just for trespassing.
> I'd say that's pretty absurd. What do you think?



I agree. My example wasn't reasoned comparison but an attempt to bridge the two positions.


----------



## Ribbit (Jan 14, 2007)

Pie 1 said:
			
		

> Listen, your probably just trolling TBH. either way your a cunt - that much is clear.
> 
> But why do you keep saying 'good riddance'



I'm not 'trolling', this is what I believe.  I 'keep saying good riddance' because I think they got what they deserved.


----------



## Aldebaran (Jan 14, 2007)

WouldBe said:
			
		

> Cars have the ability to swerve. Trains don't.



Good point, but I talk about the risk that they do *not* see you coming before it is too late to do anything. 

salaam.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 14, 2007)

WouldBe said:
			
		

> Cars have the ability to swerve. Trains don't.



I think the general consensus is that crossing railway lines is more dangerous than crossing the road. Speeds are also higher and braking distances far longer.

Funnily enough that's why you are not allowed on the railway, and why they put really big fences around the yards.


----------



## Aldebaran (Jan 14, 2007)

Ribbit said:
			
		

> I'm not 'trolling', this is what I believe.  I 'keep saying good riddance' because I think they got what they deserved.



Can you give your definition of "deserved" in this context?

salaam.


----------



## f for fake (Jan 14, 2007)

WouldBe said:
			
		

> Cars have the ability to swerve. Trains don't.



and they stop quicker.
and its not againts the law.
and your not trying to run away from someone after you've brocken the law.

cant believe this is still going. 

two lads have lost there life, sad

but they were breaking the law, so its there own fault no one else. 

They may not have desirved to die, but tough shit they got killed. I do not feel sorry for them, they had no right to be there.


----------



## Ribbit (Jan 14, 2007)

If you can't cross the road properly, you shouldn't try to.  It's not rocket science.  Any pedestrian roads are always lit up, so that pedestrians can see what's coming and so can vehicles.


----------



## Pie 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

Ribbit said:
			
		

> I'm not 'trolling', this is what I believe.  I 'keep saying good riddance' because I think they got what they deserved.



So in fact you do believe that they deserved to die then?
Like I said, either way you're a cunt. 

Brings me to your level somewhat, but I kind of find myself hoping you fail to see that bus tomorrow, TBH.


----------



## Aldebaran (Jan 14, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> I think the general consensus is that crossing railway lines is more dangerous than crossing the road. Speeds are also higher and braking distances far longer.



I don't discuss that. 
I bring forward that both involve calculated risk and an obvious expectation that the danger shall not materialize (unless you are suicical).

salaam.


----------



## Ribbit (Jan 14, 2007)

Aldebaran said:
			
		

> Can you give your definition of "deserved" in this context?
> 
> salaam.






			
				Dictionary.com said:
			
		

> de·serve     /dɪˈzɜrv/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-zurv] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -served, -serv·ing.
> –verb (used with object)
> 1.	to merit, be qualified for, or have a claim to (reward, assistance, punishment, etc.) because of actions, qualities, or situation: to deserve exile; to deserve charity; a theory that deserves consideration.



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deserved


----------



## Ribbit (Jan 14, 2007)

Pie 1 said:
			
		

> So in fact you do believe that they deserved to die then?
> Like I said, either way you're a cunt.
> 
> Brings me to your level somewhat, but I kind of find myself hoping you fail to see that bus tomorrow, TBH.



In that context, yes.  But if you're going to twist what I've said, don't make it so obvious.


----------



## Aldebaran (Jan 14, 2007)

Ribbit said:
			
		

> If you can't cross the road properly, you shouldn't try to.  It's not rocket science.  Any pedestrian roads are always lit up, so that pedestrians can see what's coming and so can vehicles.



It is clear they were capable of both crossing a road and a railway, that is not the point.  The deadly result of their crossing of a railroad this time, gives no proof it was the  first time they did it. (And I must deduce from your reply that you never crossed a road in the dark in a rural area.)

salaam.


----------



## Pie 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

Ribbit said:
			
		

> if you're going to twist what I've said, don't make it so obvious.



 
I really don't need to twist anything you've said. It all pretty damn clear.

I'm bored of you now anyway, you tit.


----------



## Aldebaran (Jan 14, 2007)

Ribbit: 
You *are* actualy serious that anyone who does something you call "stupid" *deserves* to die as a result.

What if you do something I call stupid. Do you deserve to die then too?

salaam.


----------



## Ribbit (Jan 14, 2007)

Aldebaran said:
			
		

> Ribbit:
> You *are* actualy serious that anyone who does something you call "stupid" *deserves* to die as a result.
> 
> What if you do something I call stupid. Do you deserve to die then too?
> ...



How do you know I haven't?  Just because I project these views doesn't make me angelic.  I'm a hypocrite, but that doesn't make me wrong.


----------



## Aldebaran (Jan 14, 2007)

Ribbit said:
			
		

> How do you know I haven't?  Just because I project these views doesn't make me angelic.  I'm a hypocrite, but that doesn't make me wrong.



I don't know. I ask you.
So when you did something stupid you deserved to die, in your view?
How come you are not dead?

salaam.


----------



## editor (Jan 14, 2007)

Ribbit said:
			
		

> I'm not 'trolling', this is what I believe.  I 'keep saying good riddance' because I think they got what they deserved.


Make your mind up.

Now you're back to saying that they deserved to die.


----------



## Ribbit (Jan 14, 2007)

Aldebaran said:
			
		

> I don't know. I ask you.
> So when you did something stupid you deserved to die, in your view?
> How come you are not dead?
> 
> salaam.



Luck.




			
				editor said:
			
		

> Make your mind up.
> 
> Now you're back to saying that they deserved to die.



Like I said, in that context, yes.


----------



## Irenick (Jan 14, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> BUT, and it is a big but, that dynamic risk assessment can only ever be second best - the basic responsibility for anything that happens is _always_ with those who chose to act unlawfully and / or to flee in the first place.  Any mistakes (or, more usually, misjudgements) made by the people forced to deal with the situation which confronts them can only ever be secondary.



Does this apply to the dozens of people killed annually by speeding police cars – some in pursuit; but not _always_.


----------



## Aldebaran (Jan 14, 2007)

Ribbit, why do you think the two young men who died didn't deserve the luck you had?

salaam.


----------



## detective-boy (Jan 14, 2007)

Aldebaran said:
			
		

> (But on the other hand: can you provide a source that they were not?)


I didn't raise the issue.  You did.


----------



## detective-boy (Jan 14, 2007)

Irenick said:
			
		

> Does this apply to the dozens of people killed annually by speeding police cars – some in pursuit; but not _always_.


Yes.  In every situation which is created by someone, any mistakes made by someone else trying to deal with that situation will _always_ be secondary.  The others may well be culpable for those subsequent mistakes but there will _always_ be primary responsibility with the person who created the situation in the first place.

The police car would not have been travelling fast across the red lights (or whatever) at all if the stolen car had not failed to stop when signalled.  Hence there would not have been an accident and no-one would have got hurt.

We have an attitude in this country that seems to remove responsibility for their actions from people.  We have made the "blame culture" society we now live in and it will only get worse.


----------



## Ribbit (Jan 14, 2007)

Aldebaran said:
			
		

> Ribbit, why do you think the two young men who died didn't deserve the luck you had?
> 
> salaam.



Luck runs out.


----------



## Aldebaran (Jan 14, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> I didn't raise the issue.  You did.



I was not "raising the issue". It was part of a question to an other poster and should have its interpretation only in that context.

salaam.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jan 14, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> We have an attitude in this country that seems to remove responsibility for their actions from people.  We have made the "blame culture" society we now live in and it will only get worse.



Woops...... _Our_ Bad!  



Society _deserves_ all it gets IMHO.


----------



## Aldebaran (Jan 14, 2007)

Ribbit said:
			
		

> Luck runs out.



So you say now that they had "bad luck".
How do you manage to make that a synonym of "they deserved it" ? 

salaam.


----------



## Ribbit (Jan 14, 2007)

Aldebaran said:
			
		

> So you say now that they had "bad luck".
> How do you manage to make that a synonym of "they deserved it" ?
> 
> salaam.



No, no, no.  Just because it was unlucky doesn't mean they didn't deserve it.  I'm not contradicting myself.


----------



## Aldebaran (Jan 14, 2007)

In my reading of your posts you contradict yourself frequently.

Since you explain that you didn't deserve the luck you had, how come you are still alive instead of acting upon your moral convictions, which implies you had to commit suicide right after the first time you "got lucky" while you deserved to die.

salaam.


----------



## Ribbit (Jan 14, 2007)

...That's a nonsensical question.


----------



## Aldebaran (Jan 14, 2007)

It is a logical question.

salaam.


----------



## Radar (Jan 14, 2007)

Ribbit said:
			
		

> ...That's a nonsensical question.


You're letting yourself be led by the nose !


----------



## Ribbit (Jan 14, 2007)

Yeah, well I've had enough of these repetitive questions.  I've explained how I feel time and time again, so that's it.


----------



## Aldebaran (Jan 14, 2007)

The impression I got is that you have not a very clear view on "how you feel" or about "why" you "feel how you feel". Time and time again.

salaam.


----------



## Irenick (Jan 14, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Yes.  In every situation which is created by someone, any mistakes made by someone else trying to deal with that situation will _always_ be secondary.  The others may well be culpable for those subsequent mistakes but there will _always_ be primary responsibility with the person who created the situation in the first place.
> 
> The police car would not have been travelling fast across the red lights (or whatever) at all if the stolen car had not failed to stop when signalled.  Hence there would not have been an accident and no-one would have got hurt.
> 
> We have an attitude in this country that seems to remove responsibility for their actions from people.  We have made the "blame culture" society we now live in and it will only get worse.



I’m pleased you cleared that up. 

But, isn’t the situation of a police car careening out of control in response, but not always, to a crime, the responsibility of the police officer in ‘control’ of his vehicle? What becomes of the duty of care to *all* other road and pavement users entrusted in the driver of the police car? It’s a world-turned-upside-down that allows for innocent pedestrians to be killed by police officers on duty; because the policeman’s actions were subordinate to those of the miscreant?

I’m sure there are people in graves, as the result of secondary police action, up and down the country saying: “Well, when put in those terms; who am I to argue with the law – especially since I’m dead, innit?”


----------



## Aldebaran (Jan 14, 2007)

General rule of cause and effect is not relevant. Parties considered to be able to take responsibility are responsible for their actions solely.  

salaam.


----------



## Ribbit (Jan 14, 2007)

Aldebaran said:
			
		

> The impression I got is that you have not a very clear view on "how you feel" or about "why" you "feel how you feel". Time and time again.
> 
> salaam.



You're wrong, but there you go.


----------



## Aldebaran (Jan 14, 2007)

Correction: You are wrong all the way. 

Summarizing what you said:

a) "they deserve it" for "being stupid"
b) hence "you" deserved it when "being stupid"
c) when "being stupid", while deserving to die you "got lucky" and you are clearly convinced you deserved that too, since you didn't commit suicide immediately.
d) on the other hand these two people didn't deserve to have the same luck as you had and as you obviously believe you deserved.

You are inconsistent with what you claim as being your own view on and "feeling" about such cases. You make a clear distinction between yourself and the two people who lost their lives.
My question is: Why?

salaam.


----------



## likesfish (Jan 14, 2007)

did not deserve to die 
 but bloody stupid thing to do and stupid place to be 
  can't really expect security just to let them get on with vandalising a train  they'd been caught they made the decsion to run there fault


----------



## Ribbit (Jan 14, 2007)

Aldebaran said:
			
		

> Correction: You are wrong all the way.
> 
> Summarizing what you said:
> 
> ...




I don't believe I deserve anything, nor have I said that I do.


----------



## Aldebaran (Jan 14, 2007)

One option: Maybe you don't understand your own posts then 

salaam.


----------



## Ribbit (Jan 14, 2007)

I know exactly what I've posted.  Everyones luck runs out at some point.


----------



## exosculate (Jan 14, 2007)

Aldebaran said:
			
		

> Correction: You are wrong all the way.
> 
> Summarizing what you said:
> 
> ...



I think Ribbit _deserves_ to be ridiculed for the inconsistency you have demonstrated most admirably.


----------



## Aldebaran (Jan 14, 2007)

Ribbit said:
			
		

> I know exactly what I've posted.  Everyones luck runs out at some point.



Now you (again) state they simply ran out of luck. 
Which brings us back to post nr. 200.

salaam.


----------



## Ribbit (Jan 14, 2007)

I was talking about me.


----------



## Aldebaran (Jan 14, 2007)

Which brings us back to post 211.

salaam.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 14, 2007)

JHE said:
			
		

> Do you often find yourself 'misunderstood'?  Don't worry, you poor thing. There are at least a few 'counsellors' and 'therapists' on u75 who will listen to your bollocks.
> 
> I'm not sure what they charge.  £80+ per hour?



<derial>
Errmmm....no.  Most therapists operate a sliding scale.  £15 - £20 is more accurate for someone earning £20ishK p.a.  Less if you're earning less, often free if on benefits or minimum wage.
</derail>


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 14, 2007)

Ribbit said:
			
		

> Yeah well, it's how I felt at the time.  I still think if you're stupid enough to be there then you get what you deserve.  It's got fuck all to do with graffiti - the fact is they were trespassing on the railway and being killed is a distinct possibility.  No sympathy.  Good riddance.



cunt


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 14, 2007)

f for fake said:
			
		

> and they stop quicker.
> and its not againts the law.
> and your not trying to run away from someone after you've brocken the law.
> 
> ...



you're a cunt too


----------



## suzee blue cheese (Jan 14, 2007)

> I don't believe I deserve anything, nor have I said that I do.



Well, if you will insist on posting stupid comments..


----------



## Jazzz (Jan 14, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Oh fuck off.  It's their fault.  THEY chose to run.  They were seen and they ran.  They could have stayed and faced the consequences of being caught.  But they didn't.  they ran.  And, in doing so, they endangered themselves and others.  And they died and THEY fucked up other people's lives.
> 
> Fuck off with your apologist crap, blaming evryone except those who fucking deserve the blame.
> 
> ...


yes... HAHA to them for once some pesky little crims got what they deserved... you don't RUN from the law you obey the police officer don't expect us to care for your safety if you don't pay attention... now if only there were more live rails when we needed them...tell you what, it's a mystery why we don't ARM our police to the teeth with tazers and guns... then it would all be SO much simpler, you run from the police you get shot!!! HAHAHA that world is coming soon.   Oh and if you disagree, you're a cunt  The world is full of cunts!!!    let's round them up!


----------



## rkoe (Jan 14, 2007)

some of u lot really havent got a clue..

what exactly do graffiti writers do wrong? they risk life n limb to create artwork? so y do you have so much aginst them. I dont think any of you can even begin to consider the amount of dedication these kids have for graffiti. 

it was a sad and tragic loss for both. and i dont no how any of you petty k*nts can say they deserved it. on the few occasions im travelling to work and iv seen a whole carriage decorated in a colourful and vibrant graffiti piece, my eyes light up. its incredible to think that kids break into a depot and then create this art. knowing they would not be paid for it, or b given any recognition. and you lot have the nerve to look down on them?

and i bet most of u loove all the whole 'modern urban' look in design or are pathetic banksy fans.. lol all of which has been inspired by REAL graffiti.

u fickle mother fukers..


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 14, 2007)

rkoe said:
			
		

> and i bet most of u loove all the whole 'modern urban' look in design or are pathetic banksy fans.. lol all of which has been inspired by REAL graffiti.
> ..


Banksy is class, tagging is the artistic equivalent of crapping on the pavement.


----------



## guinnessdrinker (Jan 14, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Er ... how about:
> 
> So BTP officers turned up and (quite lawfully) wanted to question them about an alleged offence of criminal damage and *they chose to run away down the line instead of co-operating*.



could you translate this one in french, please?


----------



## rkoe (Jan 14, 2007)

gentlegreen said:
			
		

> Banksy is class, tagging is the artistic equivalent of crapping on the pavement.



how is banksy class.. everything he does is soo obvious and cliche.. he is only popular as hes appealed to a load of art fags who in reality know fuck all about real art. His whole style contridicts itself. HE IS FAKE.


----------



## detective-boy (Jan 15, 2007)

Irenick said:
			
		

> But, isn’t the situation of a police car careening out of control in response, but not always, to a crime, the responsibility of the police officer in ‘control’ of his vehicle?


As I thought, another victim of fucking Simplisticville.   

In the real world, just because something is someone's responsibility doesn't mean it isn't someone else's as well.

Of course the driver of the vehicle has a very significant level of responsibility.  _Where_ did I saw or imply otherwise?

But where they are responding to the (unlawful) actions of another (you raised the issue of police pursuits which, by definition, include the pursued driver failing to comply with the law and stopping when signalled to do so but now you seem to be extending my answer to EVERY situation in which a police vehicle is involved in a collision which is an entirely dishonest approach to debate and which speaks volumes of your approach) their responsibility MUST be secondary - they would not be in the situation they found themselves of the other person had complied with the law.



> It’s a world-turned-upside-down that allows for innocent pedestrians to be killed by police officers on duty; because the policeman’s actions were subordinate to those of the miscreant?


And where, exactly, did I say or imply that either?

Fuckwit.


----------



## zoltan (Jan 15, 2007)

".....in reality know fuck all about real art...."

shite of the highest order. 

sorry for the diversion


----------



## Roadkill (Jan 15, 2007)

My sympathy is with the train driver, and then the victims.  In that order.

Tagging is just vandalism, and IMO taggers should be taken straight back to their pitches and made to clean them up.  But it's hardly a capital crime either.  Saying these two deserved to die is, well, harsh in the extreme IMO.  Not very nice.

Can't say I'd agree with suggestions that the power should be switched off (which takes about an hour btw) or that the BTP shouldn't chase them or whatever.  What they were doing was illegal and dangerous.  Presumably they knew the risks.  They did it anyway, and they paid the price.  Tough luck.  Okay, so it's a tragedy that they're dead, but it's not a tragedy we should be inconveniencing service users to try and prevent.


----------



## Roadkill (Jan 15, 2007)

rkoe said:
			
		

> some of u lot really havent got a clue..
> 
> what exactly do graffiti writers do wrong? they risk life n limb to create artwork? so y do you have so much aginst them. I dont think any of you can even begin to consider the amount of dedication these kids have for graffiti.
> 
> ...



I take it you'd be happy if someone went and sprayed their moronic tags all over the front of your house then?

No, I don't like tagging.  It's just vandalism.  I don't care very much about its being all over derelict buildings, but it does bother me when it's all over trains and so on.  Your justification for it is that you like the sight of a tagged train: I fucking hate it, and I think a majority feel the same way I do.

Those trains are OUR property, bought with OUR tax money and they cost a small fortune to repaid after they've been vandalised.  It's not incredible: it's shit.  Taggers cost us all money.  They should be fined very fucking heavily to help pay for the damage, and IMO they should be made to go back and clear their own shit up.

These two didn't deserve to die, but they did something dangerous and they paid the penalty.  Hard luck, but it happens.  It's the poor old driver who'll be having to have counselling because those two have been suddenly splattered all over the front of his train.  Is that okay too?

Stupid wanker.


----------



## maomao (Jan 15, 2007)

Roadkill said:
			
		

> My sympathy is with the train driver, and then the victims.  In that order.



Don't undertand this one. I've got a little bit more sympathy for the young people who were fried and smashed into bits than I have for the train driver who went through something extremely traumatic. (obviously I've got plenty of sympathy for both though  )

Ultimately there's no-one to blame but themselves but that doesn't stop it being very very sad indeed.


----------



## Roadkill (Jan 15, 2007)

They chose to put themselves in that situation, whereas the driver was just doing his job and ended up killing them through no fault of his own.  That's why I've more sympathy for him than them.

That said, their families must be going through hell right now too.


----------



## nightowl (Jan 15, 2007)

no sympathy for them. they weren't kids who didn't know what they were doing. they put themselves in a situation of extreme danger and paid the price. no one forced them to be there


----------



## Yossarian (Jan 15, 2007)

I'm amazed at the number of people on this thread who have apparently never done anything illegal, reckless, or dangerous in their entire lives!


----------



## f for fake (Jan 15, 2007)

Yossarian said:
			
		

> I'm amazed at the number of people on this thread who have apparently never done anything illegal, reckless, or dangerous in their entire lives!



may be because in my yoof, i was not a twat, in my early 20 to late 20's i was still not a twat, im still not a twat now.

if a kid breaks in anywhere and is killed by his or her actions then they got what they had coming.


----------



## maomao (Jan 15, 2007)

f for fake said:
			
		

> may be because in my yoof, i was not a twat, in my early 20 to late 20's i was still not a twat, im still not a twat now.
> 
> if a kid breaks in anywhere and is killed by his or her actions then they got what they had coming.



S'funny, cause you don't half come across like one.


----------



## f for fake (Jan 15, 2007)

maomao said:
			
		

> S'funny, cause you don't half come across like one.


good


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 16, 2007)

f for fake said:
			
		

> may be because in my yoof, i was not a twat, in my early 20 to late 20's i was still not a twat, im still not a twat now.
> 
> if a kid breaks in anywhere and is killed by his or her actions then they got what they had coming.



No, you _are_ a twat.


----------



## nightowl (Jan 16, 2007)

Yossarian said:
			
		

> I'm amazed at the number of people on this thread who have apparently never done anything illegal, reckless, or dangerous in their entire lives!



i'm sure a few have but i'm sure the majority haven't been dodging around some electrified train track late at night to vandalise stuff


----------



## Juice Terry (Jan 16, 2007)

Yossarian said:
			
		

> I'm amazed at the number of people on this thread who have apparently never done anything illegal, reckless, or dangerous in their entire lives!


I've done loads of dodgy, illegal, reckless and dangerous stuff in my life and if I'd ever been stupid enough to run under a tube train I fully accept that I'd have noone to blame but myself.


----------



## nightowl (Jan 16, 2007)

i'm surprised no one's been on here saying they were forced into it by social conditions etc


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 16, 2007)

nightowl said:
			
		

> i'm surprised no one's been on here saying they were forced into it by social conditions etc



I'm surprised its taken someone so long to make such an idiotic comment.


----------



## Prefade (Jan 16, 2007)

rkoe said:
			
		

> it was a sad and tragic loss for both. and i dont no how any of you petty k*nts can say they deserved it. on the few occasions im travelling to work and iv seen a whole carriage decorated in a colourful and vibrant graffiti piece, my eyes light up. its incredible to think that kids break into a depot and then create this art. knowing they would not be paid for it, or b given any recognition. and you lot have the nerve to look down on them?



I'd be very grateful if you could forward me your home address by PM at the earliest opportunity. You see I am an urban artist myself.

My medium is faeces, as my work is a post-globalism neo-logistical statement on the excesses of modern life and the way the wasted potential and resources of modern society are reflected in the waste products of our very own bodies.

Your appreciation of art and the joy you derive indiscriminate location of its canvasses have led me to select your home as the vista for my next piece of work. Using my chosen medium I will muralise your front door and any available windows with an iconic display that represents the curry I had last night.

As a further expression of my inner being I will then force the lock. The inside of your home will become an installation in itself, with what I describe as a dysenteric trail which will lead visitors around the property in a journey of both sight and scent, culimating in your bedroom where a perfectly curled seven inch turd will have pride of place on your pillow.

I will require no payment or recognition for my work as I will gain the satisfaction that without having to consult you, I know you will appreciate my vision, my talent and marvel at the selfless way I have donated it to you - my appreciative public.

I've had run ins with the fascist pigs in the past whose respect for my rights and my cultural contributions is negligible, but I feel this only adds to the relevance and deeply principled nature of my work. This does sadly mean I can only create at the dead of night, which means I might accidentally fall under a train on the way home. As the flies buzz around your turd filled bed, I know you will be hoping against hope that this does not happen to me.


----------



## nightowl (Jan 16, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I'm surprised its taken someone so long to make such an idiotic comment.



yeah as if some people on urban don't half fall over themselves trying to excuse yobs like these. be a different story if they caught them spray painting their fucking houses


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 16, 2007)

Prefade said:
			
		

> My medium is faeces,


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 16, 2007)

nightowl said:
			
		

> yeah as if some people on urban don't half fall over themselves trying to excuse yobs like these. be a different story if they caught them spray painting their fucking houses



What are you on about?


----------



## Pie 1 (Jan 16, 2007)

rkoe said:
			
		

> how is banksy class.. everything he does is soo obvious and cliche.. he is only popular as hes appealed to a load of art fags who in reality know fuck all about real art. His whole style contridicts itself. HE IS FAKE.


----------



## Radar (Jan 16, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> What are you on about?


You really don't understand ? Nightowl's point seems pretty clear !


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 16, 2007)

Radar said:
			
		

> You really don't understand ? Nightowl's point seems pretty clear !



It doesn't seem to follow from his previous point.


----------



## Onket (Jan 16, 2007)

Anyone know what their tags were?

And if you're going to post that you don't care- don't bother.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 16, 2007)

Onket said:
			
		

> Anyone know what their tags were?
> 
> And if you're going to post that you don't care- don't bother.



Yeah one of the fellas had one that looked something like this w@~#\\^ and the other had one like this ^&(^~], see them while you can 'cause once they get cleaned off you won't be seeing them again


----------



## Onket (Jan 16, 2007)

Great post.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Jan 17, 2007)

So, two guys took a risk, and their luck ran out.

Tragic for their parents, my sympathy is with them (and the poor driver), but tough fucking shit for the taggers themselves.

Take risks, accept the potential consequences.

Tagging looks bloody awful, costs huge amounts of money to remove and is hated by the vast majority of people.  If you want to scrawl you name on something do it on your own fucking property.

If that makes me a cunt, so be it.


----------



## exosculate (Jan 17, 2007)

One can think people have behaved in a very stupid and anti-social way. That does not mean one can't feel compassion for their suffering even if they have caused it by their own deeds.


----------



## tippee (Jan 17, 2007)

2 total doughnuts.. 

Entirely their own fault. Stupid, mindless hooligans who dedicate their lives to spoiling my home town can expect no sympathy from me.

Their parents' reaction to it says it all. What they should say is: "if I had been any good as a parent I would have taught the little bastard some values, like respect for others and decent behaviour. I would have thrashed the little bastard to within an inch of his life for spray painting walls to teach him a lesson. Instead I chose to classify him as a 'victim' of an 'obsession', as if he had a virus that had no cure. As a result I exerted no parental control or discipline whatsoever and now he's dead, all because of my incompetent, feckless parenting'.

But don't hold your breath.

And as for the orphan, well at least the poor blighter has a chance of passing GCSE Art now, without the influence of his father's, ahem, 'madskills'.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 17, 2007)

Blimey, the judgemental arseholes are out in force!


----------



## untethered (Jan 17, 2007)

No-one deserves to die for doing something as mindless and anti-social as spraying graffiti, but it's hard not to come to the conclusion that they were the architects of their own misfortune.


----------



## Onket (Jan 17, 2007)

tippee said:
			
		

> 2 total doughnuts..
> 
> Entirely their own fault. Stupid, mindless hooligans who dedicate their lives to spoiling my home town can expect no sympathy from me.
> 
> ...




tippee- you appear to be a cunt!

When I saw one of the lad's parents on TV the other night he made it very clear what he thought of his son's pastime. 

Perhaps you didn't see that though & just decided to post made up bile, yeah?


----------



## tippee (Jan 17, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Blimey, the judgemental arseholes are out in force!



Perhaps you'd like the side of your house coverd in fucking big meaningless squiggles?

I just judge on what I see and I don't like feeble excuses...


----------



## tippee (Jan 17, 2007)

Onket said:
			
		

> tippee- you appear to be a cunt!
> 
> When I saw one of the lad's parents on TV the other night he made it very clear what he thought of his son's pastime.
> 
> Perhaps you didn't see that though & just decided to post made up bile, yeah?



You appear not to have read my post carefully. I'm expecting a considered response.

I'm not holding my breath though.


----------



## Onket (Jan 17, 2007)

I read carefully enough. This is what you posted-




			
				tippee said:
			
		

> Their parents' reaction to it says it all.



You appear to have not listened to the parent's reaction carefully.


----------



## tippee (Jan 17, 2007)

Onket said:
			
		

> I read carefully enough. This is what you posted-
> 
> 
> 
> You appear to have not listened to the parent's reaction carefully.



'Terrible, we couldn't control him, it was an obsession, please don't copy him, etc.' - all very laudable. However no admission of their failure as parents to control and exert an influence on their son.

Let's hope the orphan's mother does abetter job.


"How did Daddy die Mummy?"

"Well darling, Daddy was a bit of a cunt. You see, although he had a partner and a little baby he decided it would be a laugh to go and vandalise other peoples property and then do a runner over electrified tracks at a busy depot"

Silly daddy.


----------



## Onket (Jan 17, 2007)

tippee said:
			
		

> 'Terrible, we couldn't control him, it was an obsession, please don't copy him, etc.' - all very laudable. However no admission of their failure as parents to control and exert an influence on their son.
> 
> Let's hope the orphan's mother does abetter job.
> 
> ...



Silly indeed. Not a cunt and certainly did not deserve to die.

Glad you've finally grasped it.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 17, 2007)

tippee said:
			
		

> Perhaps you'd like the side of your house coverd in fucking big meaningless squiggles?




This is relevant to what you said...how exactly?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 17, 2007)

This




			
				untethered said:
			
		

> No-one deserves to die for doing something as mindless and anti-social as spraying graffiti, but it's hard not to come to the conclusion that they were the architects of their own misfortune.



I have no problem with.


----------



## tippee (Jan 17, 2007)

If he tagged your house, car, van, place of work, you'd call him a Grade A cunt -that's what the deceased were, unfortunately. Especially the one with a baby. 

Graffiti might not be the worst crime ever, but it is one of the most annoying. A pasttime for cunts. 

Have you got any walls you'd like to give up as 'artspace' to taggers? - I doubt it...


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 17, 2007)

tippee said:
			
		

> You appear not to have read my post carefully. I'm expecting a considered response.
> 
> I'm not holding my breath though.



Write a considered post first...


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 17, 2007)

tippee said:
			
		

> If he tagged your house, car, van, place of work, you'd call him a Grade A cunt -that's what the deceased were, unfortunately. Especially the one with a baby.
> 
> Graffiti might not be the worst crime ever, but it is one of the most annoying. A pasttime for cunts.
> 
> Have you got any walls you'd like to give up as 'artspace' to taggers? - I doubt it...



What has this to do with what you originally wrote about their parents?


----------



## tippee (Jan 17, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> What has this to do with what you originally wrote about their parents?



Not much. It responds to Onket's post of 04.43 in which he states that the deceased was 'not a cunt'.

HTH


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 17, 2007)

tippee said:
			
		

> Not much. It responds to Onket's post of 04.43 in which he states that the deceased was 'not a cunt'.
> 
> HTH



Yes, it confirms that you are indeed a judgemental arsehole.

Thanks.


----------



## tippee (Jan 18, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Yes, it confirms that you are indeed a judgemental arsehole.
> 
> Thanks.



If having an opinion that differs from yours makes me judgemental in your eyes - good.

And your opinion on the parents would be that they should be applauded on the great way that they brought up their son?


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 18, 2007)

You can't even see why I think you're an arsehole.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jan 18, 2007)

/me unsubscribes from thread


----------



## baffled (Jan 20, 2007)

Bakerloo have more or less scrapped their service today due to graffiti being sprayed on almost all their trains, at present they have just 8 trains to service Queens Pk - Elephant & Castle and no service at all between Queens Pk - Harrow (silverlink covering this section).


----------



## DJ Squelch (Jan 20, 2007)

Good article in todays Guardian which has a connection to this thread.  

Thank you, Esther. Its nice to read something from the other point of view for once.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1994683,00.html


----------



## Yossarian (Jan 20, 2007)

tippee said:
			
		

> And your opinion on the parents would be that they should be applauded on the great way that they brought up their son?



I reckon tippee's going to be *really* surprised when his kids grow up to be crack whores...


----------



## Giles (Jan 20, 2007)

DJ Squelch said:
			
		

> Good article in todays Guardian which has a connection to this thread.
> 
> Thank you, Esther. Its nice to read something from the other point of view for once.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1994683,00.html



"the other point of view" being a determination to inflict expensive damage on public property, in order to get "respect" from a small group of similarly-minded vandals.

These people are waste of space, and I sincerely hope that more of them die and get horribly mutilated. 

They inflict 20 million quid's worth of damage on the train service every year. They are a big debit on society's bank balance and we do not need them.

And what the fuck is this "this Ain't Over BTP" shit? They break into well-secured train yards in order to cause damage for their own totally selfish reasons, then blame the transport police and security staff when one of their idiot number gets squished by a train or fried on the rails. 

Its not a "war" - its a bunch of stupid vandals who arrogantly believe that they have the right to vandalise other people's property and cause massive disruption to the daily lives of other people. 

I spit on their graves.

Giles..


----------



## exosculate (Jan 20, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> "
> 
> These people are waste of space, and I sincerely hope that more of them die and get horribly mutilated.




Regardless of these peoples anti-social behaviour.

You are a nasty, horrible, reactionary, prick.


----------



## Giles (Jan 20, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> Regardless of these peoples anti-social behaviour.
> 
> You are a nasty, horrible, reactionary, prick.



No, I'm not. 

I just don't have any sympathy with people who choose to spend large amounts of their time damaging public property for pointless, purely and utterly selfish motives.

They are a destructive waste of time. Would you like it if someone came and sprayed mongrel gibberish shit all over your house or car, and then left you with the bill for cleaning it off?

I can find no redeeming features at all in this behaviour, particularly when it is by grown men.

E2A: In between personal insults, you call me a "reactionary". This means, according to several dictionaries "An opponent of progress or liberalism".

So, to be against the needless multimillion-pound vandalism of a vital shared public resource for selfish pleasure,  is to oppose "progress or liberalism", is it?

Bollocks.

Giles..


----------



## DJ Squelch (Jan 21, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> I spit on their graves.
> 
> Giles..




Oh dear, another one who needs to see a therapist.


----------



## DJ Squelch (Jan 21, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> mongrel gibberish



Thats a phrase I haven't heard in a while. Did you hang around on the Metropolitan Line in 1989/1990. Thats what the BNP/NF used to write next to tags back then. 

What does that say about you? 

Maybe it was you!


----------



## Belushi (Jan 21, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> They are a destructive waste of time. Would you like it if someone came and sprayed mongrel gibberish shit all over your house or car, and then left you with the bill for cleaning it off?
> 
> I can find no redeeming features at all in this behaviour, particularly when it is by grown men.



As a taxpayer and a london transport user I own those trains as much as any other bugger, and I'd rather see the bloody things vandalised rather than two young lads lose their lives.


----------



## Yossarian (Jan 21, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> I spit on their graves.
> 
> Giles..




 I’d like to see you held down and tagged on the forehead by rogue tattooists, you Tory prick.


----------



## Giles (Jan 21, 2007)

DJ Squelch said:
			
		

> Thats a phrase I haven't heard in a while. Did you hang around on the Metropolitan Line in 1989/1990. Thats what the BNP/NF used to write next to tags back then.
> 
> What does that say about you?
> 
> Maybe it was you!



In 1989 I was Uni. In Canterbury. So no.

Giles..


----------



## maomao (Jan 21, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> No, I'm not.
> 
> I just don't have any sympathy with people who choose to spend large amounts of their time damaging public property for pointless, purely and utterly selfish motives.
> 
> ...



There's a clear difference between lacking sympathy and flaunting it in an unpleasant manner. Reactionary? Possibly not. Cunt? Definitely.


----------



## Radar (Jan 21, 2007)

I think the chap's dad, quoted in the mirror, puts it pretty clearly.



> "I can understand the buzz from climbing a gorge in a beautiful location, but not in the dark on a railway line with the chance of arrest and the probability you are going to end up under a train.
> 
> "Our lasting memory of him is lying on a grubby railway line after trying to get a bit of recognition from a handful of people. The public are not impressed by graffiti. It is just a mess."



This chap wasn't a child. He was nineteen, had a missus and a child of his own and was working. Even more reasons to stay away from railway lines.

The selfish cock risked all that to scrawl on the side of a tube train  Now his kid has to grow up without his father 

Giles, you do seem to be coming over a tad Genghis here.

[e2a:I fucked up on his age, though I read he was twenty]


----------



## Aldebaran (Jan 21, 2007)

To all who are so out on wishing death on people who spray some paint on public property:

Do you think the same about US soldiers "tagging" and "spraying" and dammaging and destroying the ruins of the city of Ur? A location of irreplacable historical importance and value. Can you picture yourselves the irreparable dammage done there?
Do allthese culture barbarians deserve death for their vandalism, including Bush and all who plotted this barbaric crazy plan to build there of all spots one of the largest US military bases in Iraq? After all, this is not only UK public property, but the world's heritage and hence the world's public property.

salaam.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 21, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> "the other point of view" being a determination to inflict expensive damage on public property, in order to get "respect" from a small group of similarly-minded vandals.
> 
> These people are waste of space, and I sincerely hope that more of them die and get horribly mutilated.
> 
> ...



What a pleasant person you are.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 21, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> No, I'm not.



Yes, you are.


----------



## tippee (Jan 21, 2007)

Aldebaran said:
			
		

> To all who are so out on wishing death on people who spray some paint on public property:
> 
> Do you think the same about US soldiers "tagging" and "spraying" and dammaging and destroying the ruins of the city of Ur? A location of irreplacable historical importance and value. Can you picture yourselves the irreparable dammage done there?
> Do allthese culture barbarians deserve death for their vandalism, including Bush and all who plotted this barbaric crazy plan to build there of all spots one of the largest US military bases in Iraq? After all, this is not only UK public property, but the world's heritage and hence the world's public property.
> ...




Make a mess yourself - clean it up yourself.
Should you get electrocuted, headbutted by a train, blown up, shot at in the process of cleaning up said mess, well, you've only got yourself to blame...


----------



## tippee (Jan 21, 2007)

Yossarian said:
			
		

> I reckon tippee's going to be *really* surprised when his kids grow up to be crack whores...



Unlikely. I think the orphan of the dead 'artist' is more likely to grow up to be a crack whore.


----------



## Aldebaran (Jan 21, 2007)

tippee said:
			
		

> Unlikely. I think the orphan of the dead 'artist' is more likely to grow up to be a crack whore.



Why? Do you know the family?

salaam.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 21, 2007)

tippee said:
			
		

> Unlikely. I think the orphan of the dead 'artist' is more likely to grow up to be a crack whore.



I think you're a cunt.


----------



## Giles (Jan 21, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Yes, you are.



Well, we will have to agree to differ on that one.

But I still think that arrogance and selfishness of these idiots who vandalise trains and stations is breathtaking. That article in the Guardian amazed me:

_"It's a really dedicated thing for people to go out and risk their lives to do something entirely for free that nobody will ever see," says Amoe, a 21-year-old writer from London_

He makes it sound like we should all be so impressed with their "dedication" when we are stood in the cold waiting for ages for our train, because half of the trains are out of action being cleaned up after being vandalised by him and his fellow "writers". Or when there are no trains running at all while they scrape up one of them who got it wrong.

And:

_Some suggest the tragedy may even spur writers on to take more risks. "A lot of people are getting very angry," says Twisted. "I think the whole graffiti scene sees that it could be a game, but some people now will call it war._

War? Why? Because one of this guys stupid mates got squished by a train, leaving behind a girlfriend and his own child?

Why does that make it a "war"? 

These people are seriously deluded.

Giles..


----------



## davesgcr (Jan 21, 2007)

What about the folk who hae to spend hours cleaning these trains ? - not exactly satising work is it ? - and other things get sacrified like the normal heavy cleaning programme - thence Daily Telegraph readers complain about "dirty trains" ....

I recall the scribbles "Mongrel Jibberish" on the Met line A stock trains - never realised it was BNP - sums it up - neither taggers or the reactionaries cant spell.  

And yes - i have spent hours of my unpaid time as a manager cleaning tags of trains / or ruining them so they dont run and get photoed in service.


----------



## tippee (Jan 21, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I think you're a cunt.



High praise. I thankyou.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 21, 2007)

*Giles*

Yeah, they may be daft (and who wasn't at that age?), but spitting on their graves?  Hoping they die or are terribly mutilated?  You're a nasty vicious piece of shit if that's what you really think.  Fuck you.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 21, 2007)

tippee said:
			
		

> High praise. I thankyou.



You're welcome.


----------



## tippee (Jan 21, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> You're welcome.



Cheers you excretia for brains fuckwit.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 21, 2007)

Such erudition, such wit.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jan 21, 2007)

Giles said:
			
		

> Or when there are no trains running at all while they scrape up one of them who got it wrong.



make your mind up...you want them dead and mutilated or not?  


@tippee you haven't got any children have you?


----------



## Groucho (Jan 21, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> Regardless of these peoples anti-social behaviour.
> 
> You are a nasty, horrible, reactionary, prick.



Yep. 

One of the two that this thread is about leaves a 6 month old child. The families of both are devistated, and some prick on this thread wishes that on more families.

I hope that people see that playing on the railways is a dangerous folly, and if you are in your early twenties and raising a family you really should have other priorities imo. But advocating the death penalty for thoughtless stupidity is extremely narrow minded and callous.

Essex is currently being covered by the tag of one of the dead in memory and in tribute. I find that touching and sad and, in a way, a bit pathetic.


----------



## tippee (Jan 21, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Such erudition, such wit.



You are clearly an idol of idiot-worshippers!


----------



## tippee (Jan 21, 2007)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> make your mind up...you want them dead and mutilated or not?
> 
> 
> @tippee you haven't got any children have you?



One anklebiter, one on the way. Try fishing in a pond next time.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 21, 2007)




----------



## tippee (Jan 21, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

>



You like to go round calling me a 'cunt' for having views that differ from yours -yet you get uppity when I direct foul langauge back at you.

It would also appear that it confuses you when someone quotes Shakespeare at you. 

As I said, you are an excretia for brains fuckwit. A dullard who goes round calling people a cunt and who doesn't like it thrown back at them.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 21, 2007)

Clueless aren't you?


----------



## trashpony (Jan 21, 2007)

tippee said:
			
		

> It would also appear that it confuses you when someone quotes Shakespeare at you.



At least blagsta knows what the word 'orphan' means 




			
				tippee said:
			
		

> Let's hope the orphan's mother does abetter job.


----------



## Giles (Jan 21, 2007)

Groucho said:
			
		

> Essex is currently being covered by the tag of one of the dead in memory and in tribute. I find that touching and sad and, in a way, a bit pathetic.



I find it sad and pathetic:

Some stupid bloke got himself killed while writing gibberish on the side of a tube train.

So we will show our sympathy and solidarity by writing the same gibberish all over the fucking place.

What a waste of time and effort.

Giles..


----------



## Radar (Jan 21, 2007)

Belushi said:
			
		

> As a taxpayer and a london transport user I own those trains as much as any other bugger, and I'd rather see the bloody things vandalised rather than two young lads lose their lives.


As a taxpayer and a london transport user I own those trains as much as any other bugger, and I'd like them to retain the colour-scheme they were intended to have and be in service when when the public who paid for them actually need them !

Wankers tagging don't make me feel safer or relaxed when I'm using public transport, or waiting at a station. Feel free to challange me when I'm reading a lit review or browsing a gallery, please feel free to fuck off and, if you're daft enough, chew 630 Volts if you force it in my face when I'm trying to get home at the end of a long day.

It's not art, it's anti-social wank.  it springs from the loins of tossers with no sense of perspective, but it's really NOT worth dieing for


----------



## tippee (Jan 22, 2007)

trashpony said:
			
		

> At least blagsta knows what the word 'orphan' means





(From dictionary.com)
1. a child who has lost both parents through death, or, less commonly, one parent


----------



## Front101 (Jan 22, 2007)

tippee said:
			
		

> Their parents' reaction to it says it all. What they should say is: "if I had been any good as a parent I would have taught the little bastard some values, like respect for others and decent behaviour. I would have thrashed the little bastard to within an inch of his life for spray painting walls to teach him a lesson. Instead I chose to classify him as a 'victim' of an 'obsession', as if he had a virus that had no cure. As a result I exerted no parental control or discipline whatsoever and now he's dead, all because of my incompetent, feckless parenting'.
> 
> But don't hold your breath.
> 
> And as for the orphan, well at least the poor blighter has a chance of passing GCSE Art now, without the influence of his father's, ahem, 'madskills'.



You fucking prick.

I've been trying to avoid reading this thread since the last time I did it was full of arseholes like you, wish I had now. You're a wanker, mate. 

Do you know anything about graffiti? No, you don't. You just repeat what the press tell you and what you assume to be the case.

Yes, there is a huge element of obsession involved. Have you ever met anyone into graf? No, you haven't. You'll never be able to understand the pull of it and so when you make posts hammering the parents about their child's obsession it makes you sound like even more of a cunt.

What is graffiti? It's criminal damage. So, by that, if your child throws a brick through a window does he/she deserve to die for it? That's basically what you're saying.


----------



## Yossarian (Jan 22, 2007)

tippee said:
			
		

> I would have thrashed the little bastard to within an inch of his life for spray painting walls to teach him a lesson.



With attitudes like that - plus the fact that you're a freak who says 'excretia' instead of shit - you'll be lucky if your children's inevitable rebellion against you only goes as far as them becoming graffiti artists!


----------



## tippee (Jan 22, 2007)

Front101 said:
			
		

> You fucking prick.
> 
> I've been trying to avoid reading this thread since the last time I did it was full of arseholes like you, wish I had now. You're a wanker, mate.
> 
> ...




Working on the railway, I know PLENTY about graffiti, you assuming prick.


----------



## tippee (Jan 22, 2007)

That's me for this thread. I've got a railway station to run.


----------



## DUMBO.66 (Jan 22, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> It was referring to the stupid _public realm as canvas_ bit in the OP. The advertising boards are equally public realm and in your face. they are just legitimate grafitti.


u been readin banksy?


----------



## DUMBO.66 (Jan 22, 2007)

oooops, just read how long n ugly this thread is, CHILL YOUR BEANSPROUTS, it seems graffin is not something anyone can agree on


----------



## 8ball (Jan 22, 2007)

Yeah - wonder if this would have gone on so long if a couple if kids had died doing an illegal base jump.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Jan 22, 2007)

8ball said:
			
		

> Yeah - wonder if this would have gone on so long if a couple if kids had died doing an illegal base jump.



No, it wouldn't have done.

But it's not particularly comparable. There is the element of trespass in common but the anti-social consequences of base jumping are pretty limited, beyond some small risk of one of them landing on your head, presumably. It is by no means as selfish a hobby.


----------



## 8ball (Jan 22, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> No, it wouldn't have done.
> 
> But it's not particularly comparable. There is the element of trespass in common but the anti-social consequences of base jumping are pretty limited, beyond some small risk of one of them landing on your head, presumably. It is by no means as selfish a hobby.



I think the big difference is that base jumping isn't as politically loaded in the sense of being connected with young disaffected working-class males, struggles with authority figures, the element of 'running from the police' being a possible factor etc.  

The thing is, I think a couple of base jumpers would have received _less_ sympathy than the lads mentioned in this thread, which, considering the difference in anti-social consequences which you rightly point out, could be said to be a little paradoxical. 

If they'd been planning something more damaging would they have received even more sympathy?  If they'd died pouring sulphuric acid into the water supply would we have declared a year of mourning and statues erected in their memory across the land?

Discuss.


----------



## DUMBO.66 (Jan 23, 2007)

theres only one kind of acid that someone should put in the water supply!


----------



## *Miss Daisy* (Jan 23, 2007)

DUMBO.66 said:
			
		

> theres only one kind of acid that someone should put in the water supply!


 Seconded!!!!!


----------



## likesfish (Jan 24, 2007)

oh yes lets spike the water supply thats an even more cuntish thing to do than vandalise tube trains  
 there deeply deluded idiots 
   and as for being politcally loaded stop deluding yourself next your be arguing drunken street violence is politcaly loaded


----------



## 8ball (Jan 24, 2007)

likesfish said:
			
		

> oh yes lets spike the water supply thats an even more cuntish thing to do than vandalise tube trains
> there deeply deluded idiots
> and as for being politcally loaded stop deluding yourself next your be arguing drunken street violence is politcaly loaded



The point is about four miles to your left.


----------



## laptop (Feb 10, 2007)

*Well, well, well...*



> *Union demands Tube death inquiry*
> 
> The Rail, Maritime and Transport Union (RMT) said despite a warning that someone was on the line, drivers were not told to reduce their speed.
> 
> ...



Corporate manslaughter charges appear appropriate.


----------



## f for fake (Feb 10, 2007)

laptop said:
			
		

> Corporate manslaughter charges appear appropriate.


idiot men on the track more like it


----------



## derf (Feb 10, 2007)

laptop said:
			
		

> Corporate manslaughter charges appear appropriate.



a couple of idiots do something stupid and you want someone to get into trouble for them being daft?

Maybe the trains should have been warned to slow down for the sake of the poor bastard that hit them but no way should charges like this come about.

They were daft and died. Could have been the live rail or a train but it was very stupid to go on the tracks.


----------



## maomao (Feb 10, 2007)

derf said:
			
		

> a couple of idiots do something stupid and you want someone to get into trouble for them being daft?



Procedure wasn't followed by the looks of it. Perhaps if it had been followed the poor driver wouldn't have had to go through what he's gone through.


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 10, 2007)

laptop said:
			
		

> Corporate manslaughter charges appear appropriate.


I think it may be a little premature to conclude that ...

... but if it appears that they were aware that there were people on the track (regardless of what they knew / thought they knew about who those people were) and they did not follow their procedures, then there is definitely something which needs to be thoroughly investigated.

And the bit about being told to move the train (unless there were very clear safety concerns) _after_ the collision was reported sounds very strange indeed - I think I'd need an awful lot of convincing that that could be justfied, at least until it were _known_ that there was no danger of further injury to anyone involved in the collision.

All very odd   and, if the leaked log is genuine, seems well-based.

But at least it provided us with the unusual spectacle of Bob Crow uttering more than six words in a line, *none* of which was strike, or even ballot ....


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Feb 10, 2007)

maomao said:
			
		

> Procedure wasn't followed by the looks of it. Perhaps if it had been followed the poor driver wouldn't have had to go through what he's gone through.



It appears that the simplicity of that point escapes many of the 'let the fools die' brigade unfortunately.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 10, 2007)

Paulie Tandoori said:
			
		

> It appears that the simplicity of that point escapes many of the 'let the fools die' brigade unfortunately.



But the simplest point of all, surely, is "Don't go and play on the railway"


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 10, 2007)

Really?  Wow!


----------



## Radar (Feb 10, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> But the simplest point of all, surely, is "Don't go and play on the railway"


Your message is too simple for some, both in RL and on here


----------



## Louloubelle (Feb 10, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> But the simplest point of all, surely, is "Don't go and play on the railway"




or even

don't drive racing cars, don't climb everest, don't try to walk on a tightrope across the grand canyon, don't dangle from the wing of a flying aircraft

There is an element of risk to life and limb involved in various exciting activities but when someone does die it's pretty nasty to crow about it.  IMO

ETA

people do these things precisely because they are dangerous, it adds an extra element of skill, and to them, achievement.  Lots of activities, especially for young males, all over the world involve danger and demand courage.  It's not like th young lads that died were doing anything that kids all over the world don't do they just got unlucky, and from the report that laptop linked to, it looks like other stuff happened too


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 10, 2007)

Louloubelle said:
			
		

> or even
> 
> don't drive racing cars, don't climb everest, don't try to walk on a tightrope across the grand canyon, don't dangle from the wing of a flying aircraft
> 
> There is an element of risk to life and limb involved in various exciting activities but when someone does die it's pretty nasty to crow about it.  IMO



I agree it's nasty to crow. But as the interesting point was made, if someone had died doing an extreme sport then the reaction would have been an "oh dear..." and move on, whereas because of the "cool, countercultural" aspect of tagging people come on here and try and blame people other than those who needlessly exposed themselves to risk.

Your examples are also pretty inappropriate given that they are all non-criminal activities that do not affect society (beyond perhaps the medical bill).

Better ones would have been burgling, arson, destruction of property


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 10, 2007)

Burgling and arson?  Get a grip ffs.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 10, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Really?  Wow!



Another sparkler from our resident sage


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 10, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Burgling and arson?  Get a grip ffs.



Difference of scale but more appropriate than fucking hanggliding.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 10, 2007)

Are you for real?


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 10, 2007)

Are you for real, in considering the grouping
[hanggliding, mountaineering, parachute jumping, freediving, tagging]
...a more consistent one than
[tagging, vandalism, arson]?

I guess you never did too well at school on the "spot the odd one out" exercises.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 10, 2007)

Are you on crack?  You're comparing graffiti to arson?  What the fuck is the matter with you?


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 10, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Are you on crack?  You're comparing graffiti to arson?  What the fuck is the matter with you?



Have you had a knock on the head, considering tagging as a sport?

I'll make it very very simple for you... tagging is like arson because they are both forms of criminal damage.

You aren't supposed to do it, see, _because it isn't yours...
_


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 10, 2007)

Your sense of logic is fucked mate.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 10, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Your sense of logic is fucked mate.



Feel free to expand. Tagging is not a sport (I'm not getting into the whole "is it art" thing again and besides I actually like some of it - e.g. stuff that has appeared on approach to London Bridge) but you are not allowed to do it; it is - whether or not you agree with the sentiment, the fact is undeniable - a form of criminal damage.

I'm not saying it is as serious as arson. It's at the other end of the scale, like giving someone a slap is from stabbing someone. But you shouldn't do either, and both are forms of assault.

The responsibility for accepting risk lies with those best placed for assuming it; that means not needlessly exposing yourself to it in the first place. Because you have gone on to do so, it is totally irrelevant what the driver did, what the police did etc as long as they did not maliciously worsen the situation.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 10, 2007)

You're comparing arson (which completely destroys property and puts other people's lives at risk) with spraying some paint on a train.

Get a sense of perspective ffs.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 10, 2007)

Can you read?

I'm saying it falls at one end of a scale. That is the nature of comparison. Rather than "equating".

Tagging - illegal, damages property and puts people's (perpetrators') lives at risk

Arson - illegal, completely destroys property and puts other people's lives at risk

Do you understand now?

You will see this is subtly different from

Hanggliding - legal, risk of accidentally damaging property if you go through someone's conservatory roof and puts people's (participants) lives at risk


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 10, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> You're comparing graffiti to arson?


They ARE totally seperate in the law after all ...

... Oh no.  Sorry, they're not!  Silly me!  

-  Graffiti = criminal damage = s.1(1) Criminal Damage Act 1971
-  Arson = criminal damage by means of fire = s.1(3) Criminal Damage Act 1971

Just the one subsection between them in a lexicon of criminal law yards high ...


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 10, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Can you read?
> 
> I'm saying it falls at one end of a scale. That is the nature of comparison. Rather than "equating".
> 
> ...



FWIW, I think the hangliding comparison is also daft.  However, it still stands that comparing tagging to arson is also pretty fucking daft.  They are entirely different things, done for entirely different reasons.  To directly compare them is idiotic.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 10, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> They ARE totally seperate in the law after all ...
> 
> ... Oh no.  Sorry, they're not!  Silly me!
> 
> ...



Yes, and?  The law has the final say on everything does it?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 10, 2007)

The intentions are different, the outcomes are different.  To directly compare is non-sensical.


----------



## BadlyDrawnGirl (Feb 10, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Yes, and?  The law has the final say on everything does it?


I agree. The law doesn't exhibit the greatest grasp of human intuition, it has to be said.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 10, 2007)

Arson and graffiti are only similar on the most superficial of levels.  Anyone with any critical faculties at all, should be able to see beyond that.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 10, 2007)

some tag on a train that is then taken out of service until the tags been removed is anything but petty vandalism 
  most graffitti is about as welcome a knob drawings and about as worthwhile


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 10, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Arson and graffiti are only similar on the most superficial of levels.  Anyone with any critical faculties at all, should be able to see beyond that.



That superficial level of both involving damage to property that costs money to put right... it's only a question of quantum in these particular "superficial" respects. I'm not really interested in what the intentions of arsonists or vandals are.

You seem to have a rather weak understanding of the nature of individual liberty and the necessary trade-offs with the rights of wider society.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 10, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> That superficial level of both involving damage to property that costs money to put right... it's only a question of quantum in these particular "superficial" respects.



This makes no sense.




			
				Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> I'm not really interested in what the intentions of arsonists or vandals are.



Obviously, that's why you're drawing fatuous comparisons.




			
				Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> You seem to have a rather weak understanding of the nature of individual liberty and the necessary trade-offs with the rights of wider society.



PML!   Please enlighten me, O wise one.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 10, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> This makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, that's why you're drawing fatuous comparisons.



I'll spell it out for you one last time.

Arson costs money to put right.

Tagging costs money to put right.

You shouldn't do either. Simple, eh?

This is not a fatuous comparison. It is based on the principle of not indulging in selfish interests that cost the rest of society money to put right.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 10, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> PML!   Please enlighten me, O wise one.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Liberty

I invite you to go and read


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 10, 2007)

Oh, the usual utilitarian shite that completely ignores the difference between +ve and -ve freedoms.  Thought so.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 10, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> I'll spell it out for you one last time.
> 
> Arson costs money to put right.
> 
> ...



So that's why you compare them?  Because they cost money to put right?  Right brainbox aincha?  LOL! 

Silly cunt.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 10, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Oh, the usual utilitarian shite that completely ignores the difference between +ve and -ve freedoms.  Thought so.



I fail to discern any informed, consistent and logical base of thought to your postings.

Go on then, explain why people should be allowed to go tag trains. Please also explain why setting light to things is less valid, and explain where you think the line should be drawn.

Please also explain why you would weight the opinion of someone who likes to go and tag trains against that of someone who prefers trains not to be tagged, and you propose that such conflicting interests in society be reconciled.

Looking forward to it.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 10, 2007)

Stop building straw men.

If you can find where I said it was OK to tag trains, feel free to quote me, eh?


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 10, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Stop building straw men.
> 
> If you can find where I said it was OK to tag trains, feel free to quote me, eh?



Cop out.

Do you think it is OK to tag trains?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 10, 2007)

No, its not a cop out.  You have attributed an opinion to me that I have not stated.

No, I don't really think its OK to tag trains.  However, I do understand the culture and motivations behind it.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 10, 2007)

Well, I see no point in continuing the argument in that case, because it is pretty unsubstantial.

I don't think it is OK to tag trains either. Please excuse me considering it criminal damage and mentally making a link between it and other forms of criminal damage (_without considering it equivalent to arson_), and I will be more than happy to accept that there are "culture and motivations behind it".


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 10, 2007)

You seem incapable of thinking of anything in other than strict black and white terms.  You also seem incapable of critical thinking, so yes, its fairly pointless.


----------



## pk (Feb 10, 2007)

A well painted colourful train is much nicer to look at than some filthy unwashed silver carriage.


----------



## laptop (Feb 10, 2007)

Anway... *even if* tagging trains were as bad as a Very Bad Thing, and *even granted* that running away from security onto the tracks is very stupid...



Does that mean that it's OK for LUL to ignore the procedures laid down for the eventuality that there are people (however bad, however stupid) on the tracks? 

Thereby causing grief to the driver, the widow, the child...


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 10, 2007)

laptop said:
			
		

> Anway... *even if* tagging trains were as bad as a Very Bad Thing, and *even granted* that running away from security onto the tracks is very stupid...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, its just looking too far down the chain of events that lead to the tragedy, in my opinion.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 10, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> You seem incapable of thinking of anything in other than strict black and white terms.  You also seem incapable of critical thinking, so yes, its fairly pointless.



Not really. It is a binary decision, right or wrong, OK or not OK. It is not, in my opinion, an area for ambiguity.

There may be mitigating factors etc but once it falls either side of the line it is a question of degree - i.e. how wrong.


----------



## exosculate (Feb 10, 2007)

People will be comparing speeding tickets to murder next, strange days.


----------



## BadlyDrawnGirl (Feb 10, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> People will be comparing speeding tickets to murder next, strange days.


Both equally heinous crimes in the eyes of the law and punishable by flogging, castration and hanging. ​


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 10, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> People will be comparing speeding tickets to murder next, strange days.



Have you just rolled up wearing big shoes in a car full of foam with the doors falling off?

What do you not get? Do you understand what "compare" means? That it implies a value judgement and is different from "equate"?


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 10, 2007)

Removed


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Feb 10, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> But the simplest point of all, surely, is "Don't go and play on the railway"



Oh do fuck off, there's a good boy


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 10, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Just the one subsection between them in a lexicon of criminal law yards high ...



Yet in every normal system any normal judge shall come to a very different appreciation of the act of crime.
Or do you suggest the criminal act of arsony to be undoubtably and fully competitive with the criminal act spraying paint on a public property? 

salaam.


----------



## nosos (Feb 10, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Not really. It is a binary decision, right or wrong, OK or not OK. It is not, in my opinion, an area for ambiguity.


You rarely get people openly proclaiming that they think in incredibly simplistic terms. It's quite refreshing.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 10, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Not really. It is a binary decision, right or wrong, OK or not OK. It is not, in my opinion, an area for ambiguity.
> 
> There may be mitigating factors etc but once it falls either side of the line it is a question of degree - i.e. how wrong.



Oh to live in such a simple world as you!

Meanwhile, back in reality...


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 10, 2007)

nosos said:
			
		

> You rarely get people openly proclaiming that they think in incredibly simplistic terms. It's quite refreshing.



Oh to quote so selectively...


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 10, 2007)

Aldebaran said:
			
		

> Yet in every normal system any normal judge shall come to a very different appreciation of the act of crime.
> Or do you suggest the criminal act of arsony to be undoubtably and fully competitive with the criminal act spraying paint on a public property?
> 
> salaam.



Oh here we go... Attack of the Fucking Simpletons. It's like a fucking Zombie film, they all come at once.

Could that be why they are separate sections of the criminal code? 

Note the "criminal", which is all I'm really saying.

And to think you're accusing me of simplistic thinking...


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 10, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Oh to quote so selectively...



Oh come on!  You're expressing a completely simple minded view of the world.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 10, 2007)

tagging trains is stupid and the "culture" consists of at most a couple of hundred lads max who really ought to find something better to do .
 no I don't think some tag added to a train really adds anything


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 10, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Oh come on!  You're expressing a completely simple minded view of the world.



In what way?

All I'm saying is

a) I think tagging is wrong and agree it constitutes criminal damage
b) but also concede it is a good way down the scale in terms of seriousness

It's not that controversial. I just don't think tagging is "right", or "neither right nor wrong" or "right and wrong" - when done on someone else's property.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 10, 2007)

likesfish said:
			
		

> tagging trains is stupid and the "culture" consists of at most a couple of hundred lads max who really ought to find something better to do .



Yeah, that's right.  


fucking moron


----------



## nosos (Feb 10, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Oh to quote so selectively...


What's fucking selective about it? You said: _It is a binary decision, right or wrong, OK or not OK. It is not, in my opinion, an area for ambiguity_. Your simplistic approach might very be justified (though clearly it's really fucking not) but denying that this attitude is simplistic is fucking absurd.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 10, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> In what way?
> 
> All I'm saying is
> 
> ...



The real world is a little more complex than you suggest.


----------



## nosos (Feb 10, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> a) I think tagging is wrong and agree it constitutes criminal damage
> b) but also concede it is a good way down the scale in terms of seriousness


So it's _wrong_ but not as _wrong_ as other _wrongs_?


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 10, 2007)

nosos said:
			
		

> So it's _wrong_ but not as _wrong_ as other _wrongs_?



Erm... that's why I said "There may be mitigating factors etc but once it falls either side of the line it is a question of degree - i.e. how wrong"


----------



## nosos (Feb 10, 2007)

What the fuck is ambiguity then? 

More to the point can we go back to why it's _wrong_?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 10, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Erm... that's why I said "There may be mitigating factors etc but once it falls either side of the line it is a question of degree - i.e. how wrong"



So its not binary then, is it?


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 10, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> The real world is a little more complex than you suggest.



Yes, you're right - but I believe tagging is wrong. If this opinion is simplistic so be it. It's not so complex a topic that I think it requires more detailed examination.

If it's your own wall / train or someone lets you do a piece somewhere then paint away.


----------



## derf (Feb 10, 2007)

maomao said:
			
		

> Procedure wasn't followed by the looks of it. Perhaps if it had been followed the poor driver wouldn't have had to go through what he's gone through.



If there were problems with comms then I can see how the driver would have reason to complain.
Poor sod has to live with killing someone.
He's the one I feel sorry for but I find it hard to have any feelings for the blokes who died doing something stupid.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 10, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> So its not binary then, is it?



 

You have me on that one.

OK then, there is a discontinuity between scales of rightness and wrongness and things are either right or wrong (clearly this depends on which perspective you are at looking at it from, but let's say it is possible to reach a global, balanced view - which in the case of a relatively simple issue like tagging is probably true, in my opinion) and it is then a question of where they fall on the respective scale.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 10, 2007)

nosos said:
			
		

> More to the point can we go back to why it's _wrong_?



On private property (unless you wish to misinterpet Proudhon and really believe "all property is theft") then it's wrong because, well, it's not yours to do stuff to and the owner may or may not like it.

On public property then it belongs to all of us and unless there is a majority of people in favour or at least indifferent then much the same applies I think.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 10, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Yes, you're right - but I believe tagging is wrong. If this opinion is simplistic so be it. It's not so complex a topic that I think it requires more detailed examination.
> 
> If it's your own wall / train or someone lets you do a piece somewhere then paint away.



Why do you believe it is wrong?  Because it is someone else's property?  Is it always wrong to do something to someone else's property without their permission?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 10, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> On private property (unless you wish to misinterpet Proudhon and really believe "all property is theft") then it's wrong because, well, it's not yours to do stuff to and the owner may or may not like it.



So the council towing my car away is wrong then?




			
				Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> On public property then it belongs to all of us and unless there is a majority of people in favour or at least indifferent then much the same applies I think.



What about advertising billboards polluting the public visual environment?  Is that right or wrong?


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 10, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Why do you believe it is wrong?  Because it is someone else's property?  Is it always wrong to do something to someone else's property without their permission?



Sounds like a good philosophy exam question. It's certainly polite to ask first.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 10, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Sounds like a good philosophy exam question. It's certainly polite to ask first.



So if the council tow my car away, they should ask first?  What about the government compulsory purchasing property (like when they build a new road)?  Is that wrong?


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 10, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> So the council towing my car away is wrong then?



That's because a bit of your property is on a bit of their property and it's easier to move your bit. There's also the presumption of the greater good. Clamping has always seemed a bit morally dubious to me though.






			
				Blagsta said:
			
		

> What about advertising billboards polluting the public visual environment?  Is that right or wrong?



I don't care for them and if you search back you will see I leave myself wide open to criticism by saying I enjoyed seeing them defaced. My defence is that it's only a bit of paper.

I would find it hard to argue they are "wrong" though.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 10, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> What about the government compulsory purchasing property (like when they build a new road)?  Is that wrong?



They are relying on the presumption of the greater good again. Obviously I might find it hard to agree if it was my house.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 10, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> That's because a bit of your property is on a bit of their property and it's easier to move your bit.



Whose property?  Isn't it public property?




			
				Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> There's also the presumption of the greater good.





Who gets to decide this?





			
				Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> I don't care for them and if you search back you will see I leave myself wide open to criticism by saying I enjoyed seeing them defaced. My defence is that it's only a bit of paper.
> 
> I would find it hard to argue they are "wrong" though.



So its OK for some people to deface public space, but not others?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 10, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> They are relying on the presumption of the greater good again. Obviously I might find it hard to agree if it was my house.



Greater good for who?

Is it a utilitarian argument?  How can the outcomes be foreseen?


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 10, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Whose property?  Isn't it public property? Who gets to decide this? So its OK for some people to deface public space, but not others?



It is public property. We appoint the council as custodians. In theory we all get to decide this. The fact that it works at best imperfectly doesn't necessarily mean the principle is a load of shit.

It isn't OK for some to deface public space.

In the case of the advertisers and ad companies then unfortunately it is private space to which the thing is attached. Much as you could if you wish paint your house an unpleasant colour or write what you like on your gable wall.

Excesses and visual pollution are of course _supposed_ to be controlled by the planning system, working under the same custodianship principle.

In the case of people defacing adverts, then it is wrong but sits at the extreme end of the scale seeing as it causes so little harm - being against neither publi property nor private individuals' property and so impermanent.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 10, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Greater good for who?
> 
> Is it a utilitarian argument?  How can the outcomes be foreseen?



That is presumably the underlying philosophy, yes. Cost / benefit analyses and all that, mechanistic, inhuman and subjective as they are.


----------



## maomao (Feb 10, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> What about advertising billboards polluting the public visual environment?  Is that right or wrong?



I was in Edinburgh last week and was coming down from the mound looking over Waverly station at the buildings behind Princes street. A really beautiful view that was only spoiled by the presence of 3 fuck off massive billboards planted right in the middle of the view. Was going to take a photo at first but decided not to. I think in English law what it boils down to is that it's okay to do certain things if you're a landowner but not if you're a pleb. What could be a better example of public property than a view of a beautiful city?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 10, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> It is public property. We appoint the council as custodians. In theory we all get to decide this. The fact that it works at best imperfectly doesn't necessarily mean the principle is a load of shit.



Do we get to appoint them?  No one asked me whether I wanted the council to contract their "traffic management" services out to a private company.  No one asked me whether I think towing a car away for not having the right parking permit is OK.




			
				Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> It isn't OK for some to deface public space.
> 
> In the case of the advertisers and ad companies then unfortunately it is private space to which the thing is attached. Much as you could if you wish paint your house an unpleasant colour or write what you like on your gable wall.



Except if I lived in a conservation area, I couldn't.




			
				Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Excesses and visual pollution are of course _supposed_ to be controlled by the planning system, working under the same custodianship principle.



Custodianship?  In whose interests?




			
				Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> In the case of people defacing adverts, then it is wrong but sits at the extreme end of the scale seeing as it causes so little harm - being against neither publi property nor private individuals' property and so impermanent.



Why is it wrong?  If its OK for someone to put them in my community without asking the people who live here, why is it wrong for the people who live here to deface them?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 10, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> That is presumably the underlying philosophy, yes. Cost / benefit analyses and all that, mechanistic, inhuman and subjective as they are.



So how can the outcomes be foreseen?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 10, 2007)

maomao said:
			
		

> I think in English law what it boils down to is that it's okay to do certain things if you're a landowner but not if you're a pleb.



Yes, this is what I'm driving at.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 10, 2007)

maomao said:
			
		

> I was in Edinburgh last week and was coming down from the mound looking over Waverly station at the buildings behind Princes street. A really beautiful view that was only spoiled by the presence of 3 fuck off massive billboards planted right in the middle of the view. Was going to take a photo at first but decided not to. I think in English law what it boils down to is that it's okay to do certain things if you're a landowner but not if you're a pleb. What could be a better example of public property than a view of a beautiful city?



Plenty of plebs have let JD Decaux or whoever plonk a billboard on the side of their house.

You would _hope_ that if enough people wrote to the council they would be able to do somthing about it - not that permission should have been given in the first place


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 10, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> So how can the outcomes be foreseen?



I don't know mate, I'm not in the business of doing them. I imagine they try and include predictions of some sort and try to ascribe values to various things.


----------



## maomao (Feb 10, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Plenty of plebs have let JD Decaux or whoever plonk a billboard on the side of their house.
> 
> You would _hope_ that if enough people wrote to the council they would be able to do somthing about it - not that permission should have been given in the first place



If they own houses then they're landowners. Even if in your opinion they are plebby ones.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 10, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> I don't know mate, I'm not in the business of doing them. I imagine they try and include predictions of some sort and try to ascribe values to various things.



You're expressing support of the state to be able to override individual property rights in certain circumstances _as determined by the state_.  This is hardly consistent with your previous arguments.


----------



## exosculate (Feb 10, 2007)

Gives round of applause to blagsta, who I think has conclusively shown that these issues relating to property are far from _binary_ matters.


----------



## exosculate (Feb 10, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Have you just rolled up wearing big shoes in a car full of foam with the doors falling off?




Does playing Grand Theft Auto count?


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 10, 2007)

maomao said:
			
		

> If they own houses then they're landowners. Even if in your opinion they are plebby ones.



You could be both!

Pleb wasn't my word by the way


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 10, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> You're expressing support of the state to be able to override individual property rights in certain circumstances _as determined by the state_.  This is hardly consistent with your previous arguments.



My previous argument was against individuals overriding common property rights.

I don't really go for the idea of "the state" as an entity beyond the sum total of all of us and the people we appoint to administer on our collective behalf.

So you are almost talking about the inverse, aren't you?

The collective outweighing the individual?


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 10, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> Gives round of applause to blagsta, who I think has conclusively shown that these issues relating to property are far from _binary_ matters.



I haven't been convinced it isn't when we're talking about people tagging things.

As I say, collective vs individual.


----------



## maomao (Feb 10, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> You could be both!
> 
> Pleb wasn't my word by the way



Fair enough, thw word pleb was flippant but if you're arguing that they own land then they're obviously primarily landowners with respect to this argument.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 10, 2007)

maomao said:
			
		

> Fair enough, thw word pleb was flippant but if you're arguing that they own land then they're obviously primarily landowners with respect to this argument.



 no land = nothing on which to put adverts

Although you could always try the side of your car, your van or indeed wear a nice t-shirt

Unless we are going to have an argument about the fundamental aspects of property rights, in which case I am just going to have to admit defeat


----------



## maomao (Feb 10, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> no land = nothing on which to put adverts



Exactly, which is maybe why a lot of youth, whether or not their parents own houses, and rightly or wrongly, feel a desire to claim some territory as their own. In this case manifesting itself as tagging. Which compared to cutting off whole sections of streets and shoppingt centres making them no go areas for old people in the area after a certain time at night (another manifestation of the same instinct) is relatively harmnless IMO.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 10, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> My previous argument was against individuals overriding common property rights.
> 
> I don't really go for the idea of "the state" as an entity beyond the sum total of all of us and the people we appoint to administer on our collective behalf.
> 
> ...



Eh?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 10, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> I haven't been convinced it isn't when we're talking about people tagging things.
> 
> As I say, collective vs individual.



Stop thinking in binaries.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 10, 2007)

maomao said:
			
		

> Exactly, which is maybe why a lot of youth, whether or not their parents own houses, and rightly or wrongly, feel a desire to claim some territory as their own. In this case manifesting itself as tagging. Which compared to cutting off whole sections of streets and shoppingt centres making them no go areas for old people in the area after a certain time at night (another manifestation of the same instinct) is relatively harmnless IMO.



Innit.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 10, 2007)

maomao said:
			
		

> Exactly, which is maybe why a lot of youth, whether or not their parents own houses, and rightly or wrongly, feel a desire to claim some territory as their own. In this case manifesting itself as tagging. Which compared to cutting off whole sections of streets and shoppingt centres making them no go areas for old people in the area after a certain time at night (another manifestation of the same instinct) is relatively harmnless IMO.



I think you might be over-intellectualising it a bit here... but at the same timeyou make it sound a bit like a dog pissing on things.

However, you may wel know more about it than I do.

Your last point is valid.


----------



## maomao (Feb 10, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> I think you might be over-intellectualising it a bit here... but at the same timeyou make it sound a bit like a dog pissing on things.



People don't piss on things because we lack the sense of smell to make it worthwhile. We have however evolved a neat symbol recognition system. Which means that some of us, er....paint our names on lamposts.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 10, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Eh?



What I mean is, I have argued that individual urges should not override common property rights, but I accept that sometimes the individual's property rights may have to take second place.

I.e. I'm taking about people (specifically numerical balance of interests) rather than property rights being supreme.

In that respect you will find I agree with you and maomao on various points.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 10, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> What I mean is, I have argued that individual urges should not override common property rights, but I accept that sometimes the individual's property rights may have to take second place.
> 
> I.e. I'm taking about people (specifically numerical balance of interests) rather than property rights being supreme.
> 
> In that respect you will find I agree with you and maomao on various points.



Where does power fit into this?


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 10, 2007)

Aldebaran said:
			
		

> Or do you suggest the criminal act of arsony to be undoubtably and fully competitive with the criminal act spraying paint on a public property?


Criminal Damage is damage by means other than fire.  Arson is damage by fire.

Either can endanger life ... or not.  Either can be of high value or low value.

In terms of the actual act, *why* do you say that the use of fire rather than paint puts the offence in a different category?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 10, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Criminal Damage is damage by means other than fire.  Arson is damage by fire.
> 
> Either can endanger life ... or not.  Either can be of high value or low value.
> 
> In terms of the actual act, *why* do you say that the use of fire rather than paint puts the offence in a different category?



Have you read the thread?


----------



## maomao (Feb 10, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Either can endanger life ... or not.



To be fair graffiti very very rarely endangers life (and then almost exclusively the life of the artist) whereas arson almost always poses some sort of risk (of injury at least if not of death).


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 11, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Have you read the thread?


Yes.

Have you got an answer?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 11, 2007)

Read the thread a bit more carefully.


----------



## nosos (Feb 11, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> In terms of the actual act, *why* do you say that the use of fire rather than paint puts the offence in a different category?


Because fire and paint are different things with different effects?


----------



## likesfish (Feb 11, 2007)

if I burn a train its completely fucked up by fire.
 if I tag it with my moronic tag its out of service till its repainted but will soon be back in service.
 just costing the train company money.
 its still criminal damage and the pricks should pay one way or another but its not arson 
 tagging the same thing as dogs peeing everywhere just not as smelly but equally as irritable


----------



## PacificOcean (Feb 11, 2007)

likesfish said:
			
		

> tagging the same thing as dogs peeing everywhere just not as smelly but equally as irritable



Dogs’ piss is invisible though unlike ugly tagging painted on every available surface.

It just looks crap and that Dutch Graffiti is even worse.  It spoils the traveling enviorment for everyone which is just selfish IMO.


----------



## Aldebaran (Feb 11, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Criminal Damage is damage by means other than fire.  Arson is damage by fire.



Which is both criminal in my book.



> In terms of the actual act, *why* do you say that the use of fire rather than paint puts the offence in a different category?



Where did I place it in an other category? I said that a judge shall evaluate intension, intensity, intended impact/result of the crime and hence make a normal, plausible distinction.
(My knowledge of English shows its shortcomings here, but I'm sure you see what I mean?)

salaam.


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 11, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Read the thread a bit more carefully.


So that's a no, then.


----------



## Yossarian (Feb 11, 2007)

Can you understand the difference between fire and paint?


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 11, 2007)

nosos said:
			
		

> Because fire and paint are different things with different effects?


Louloubelle posited that graffiti on trains was like driving fast cars (or something similar) - the danger added to the excitement.

Monkeynuts suggested that that was a strange comparison, burglary and arson would be more similar.

And Blagsta went into one about the comparison of graffiti and arson (from which they have not recovered)  

I continue to suggest that graffiti and arson - both being criminal acts and both involving damage to property - and more similar that graffiti and dangerous sports - which aren't and, er, don't.

What I am NOT saying is that there is any equivalence between spraying some shite tags on a train and setting fire to something - just that there is more similarity between those two acts than there is between spraying some shite tags on a train and dangerous sports.


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 11, 2007)

Yossarian said:
			
		

> Can you understand the difference between fire and paint?


Can you understand the difference between crime and non-crime?  Between causing damage and, er, not causing damage?


----------



## Yossarian (Feb 11, 2007)

Your eyes are rolling back in your head! Are you having some kind of fit? 

You might want to get that checked out, seems to happen quite a lot...


----------



## laptop (Feb 11, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> What I am NOT saying is that there is any equivalence between spraying some shite tags on a train and setting fire to something



Good 




			
				detective-boy said:
			
		

> just that there is more similarity between those two acts than there is between spraying some shite tags on a train and dangerous sports.



Depends entirely on where you stand, doesn't it? 

If the law is your job, clearly graf and arson have more in common, because dangerous sports are less often illegal - though base-jumpers do get arrested and I'm sure _parcours_ will lead to arrests soon...

If you're on the other end of the spray-can, then it probably does have more in common with dangerous sports. My nearest equivalent experience is flyposting, and *that* certainly feels more like dangerous art than it does arson


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 11, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> No one asked me whether I think towing a car away for not having the right parking permit is OK.


Wondered how long it would be before the arrogant "no-one asked *me*" crap raised it's head.

You clearly do not agree with any of the structures which our society has chosen to put in place in order to set rules by which we can all operate for the greater good.

It is pointless debating any of this with you because your argument inevitably leads to total anarchy.  Which is fine.  But (a) it won't happen and (b) if it does, it won't last (not even as long as Communism)


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 11, 2007)

laptop said:
			
		

> Good
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Reluctant to revive this, having been through it all with Blagsta, but whilst you can have a different opinion about the merits and morals of tagging (as some of us obviously do) compliance with the law is not strictly speaking (and again unfortunately, for some people and in some instances) something you can opt out of... so it's not really a matter of whether "law is [one's] job"! 

So regardless of where you stand on the subject, the current position of the law and the status of graffiti as an act of criminal damage is a matter of fact, and this is rather clearer than you seem to imply.


----------



## Cid (Feb 11, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Wondered how long it would be before the arrogant "no-one asked *me*" crap raised it's head.
> 
> You clearly do not agree with any of the structures which our society has chosen to put in place in order to set rules by which we can all operate for the greater good.
> 
> It is pointless debating any of this with you because your argument inevitably leads to total anarchy.  Which is fine.  But (a) it won't happen and (b) if it does, it won't last (not even as long as Communism)



So by your rationale we should blindly follow the government wherever they take us, simply because they believe they're acting for some 'greater good'?


----------



## maomao (Feb 11, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> So regardless of where you stand on the subject, the current position of the law and the status of graffiti as an act of criminal damage is a matter of fact, and this is rather clearer than you seem to imply.



Shall we tell this to the taggers then? They obviously didn't know it was illegal or they wouldn't have done it. Once you point it out I'm sure they'll stop.


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 11, 2007)

Cid said:
			
		

> So by your rationale we should blindly follow the government wherever they take us, simply because they believe they're acting for some 'greater good'?


No.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 11, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> So that's a no, then.



No you haven't read the thread.

Why bother posting then?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 11, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Can you understand the difference between crime and non-crime?  Between causing damage and, er, not causing damage?



Fair play to you for your knowledge of law and stuff, but you're not the most critical of thinkers are you?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 11, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Wondered how long it would be before the arrogant "no-one asked *me*" crap raised it's head.



Well, no I don't happen to believe the "social contract" is a valid argument for anything - you clearly do, but we've already established your alck of critical thinking.




			
				detective-boy said:
			
		

> You clearly do not agree with any of the structures which our society has chosen to put in place in order to set rules by which we can all operate for the greater good.



Whose greater good?  Who decides?  See, this is where being able to think critically comes in handy.




			
				detective-boy said:
			
		

> It is pointless debating any of this with you because your argument inevitably leads to total anarchy.  Which is fine.  But (a) it won't happen and (b) if it does, it won't last (not even as long as Communism)



Your knowledge of political theory and history is also sorely lacking.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 11, 2007)

maomao said:
			
		

> Shall we tell this to the taggers then? They obviously didn't know it was illegal or they wouldn't have done it. Once you point it out I'm sure they'll stop.



I do hope so. That'd be awfully good of them!


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 11, 2007)

Blagsta, what's the essential cornerstone of your thinking about how we should live? I don't mean it as a challenge, just interested.

For me, for example, it's not a lot more complicated than a "do as you would be done by" and a bit of Mill.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 11, 2007)

I believe that ordinary people should have control over their own lives, workplaces and communities.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 11, 2007)

Aye, but what about how people live together - how the conflicts are managed and resolved?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 11, 2007)

What about it?


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 11, 2007)

Well, what's your starting point for how you think people should live within a society?


----------



## Roadkill (Feb 12, 2007)

Louloubelle said:
			
		

> or even
> 
> don't drive racing cars, don't climb everest, don't try to walk on a tightrope across the grand canyon, don't dangle from the wing of a flying aircraft
> 
> ...



Can't accept that.  Driving racing cars, mountain climbing, hang-gliding ... they're all sports.  They're all legal, and they certainly don't involve deliberately vandalising someone else's property.

Don't try and dignify tagging by comparing it to sports.  It's just vandalism.  In fact, I'd agree with monkeynuts: the arson comparison is much more apt.  

Now that DOES NOT (before I get jumped upon) mean that the taggers deserved to get killed, but the fact is that they took the risk and, uinfortunately, they paid the price.  Hard luck for them and their families, and hard luck for the poor old train driver who will now be having to deal with the fact that he's killed two people.

The taggers are primarily responsible for the accident: if they hadn't chosen to do what they did, it would never have happened.  However, if Bob Crow is right it seems that LU didn't handle the situation properly either, in that they didn't order the train to slow down and maybe even pressuring the driver to change his statement.  An enquiry seems to me to be a good idea, if only to clear the driver's conscience.


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 12, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Whose greater good?  Who decides?  See, this is where being able to think critically comes in handy.


I am more than capable of critical thinking, thank you.  So you can stuff your arrogant "We have already established..." bollocks right up your arse.

Clearly you would have a difficulty with *anything* decided by anyone but you.  So, in that respect, it's a waste of time discussing anything with you.  You will always simply defer to this sort of shite: "Yeah, but *who* decides".

I, for one, don't want to live in a world where you (or any other single person) decides.  And I am smart enough to realise that as soon as you get more than one person trying to agree on everything, there will be disagreements and some level of compromise and acceptance that you may not always get _your_ way is inevitable.  And with 60m plus, that level is liely to be pretty high.

But you're clearly not.  So why not move to Nirvana then?


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 12, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Well, what's your starting point for how you think people should live within a society?


As far as I can see it's dead simple:  You wanna do something, just run it by Blagsta first ...


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 12, 2007)

Roadkill said:
			
		

> if Bob Crow is right


I guess there's a first time for everything!


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 12, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> I guess there's a first time for everything!


Even when he had my pay rise at heart I still thought he was a twat


----------



## exosculate (Feb 12, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> I guess there's a first time for everything!




What a surprise ex-copper in anti-trade union shocker.


----------



## exosculate (Feb 12, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Even when he had my pay rise at heart I still thought he was a twat




Blimey its the back slapping society.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 12, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> Blimey its the back slapping society.



Err no, just someone who felt that he wasn't the most positive influence in industrial relations between us and management, and possibly not the best person to represent our interests...


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 12, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> I am more than capable of critical thinking, thank you.  So you can stuff your arrogant "We have already established..." bollocks right up your arse.
> 
> Clearly you would have a difficulty with *anything* decided by anyone but you.  So, in that respect, it's a waste of time discussing anything with you.  You will always simply defer to this sort of shite: "Yeah, but *who* decides".
> 
> ...



Got anything of substance to post?

Thought not.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 12, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Well, what's your starting point for how you think people should live within a society?



That's up to people to decide for themselves.


----------



## exosculate (Feb 12, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Err no, just someone who felt that he wasn't the most positive influence in industrial relations between us and management, and possibly not the best person to represent our interests...




Fair enough, I think DB's position comes from a darker place though.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 12, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> As far as I can see it's dead simple:  You wanna do something, just run it by Blagsta first ...



Have you actually got anything to add?  Or are you just going to make snide comments based on what you imagine I wrote (as opposed to what I actually wrote)?


----------



## exosculate (Feb 12, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Have you actually got anything to add?  Or are you just going to make snide comments based on what you imagine I wrote (as opposed to what I actually wrote)?




If you were a high court Judge, an Archbishop or a Royal, you'd get far more respect from DB. He doesn't recognise your authority.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 12, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> If you were a high court Judge, an Archbishop or a Royal, you'd get far more respect from DB. He doesn't recognise your authority.



db yesterday


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 12, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> That's up to people to decide for themselves.



I wouldn't suggest otherwise.

But what about you?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 12, 2007)

What about me?


----------



## exosculate (Feb 12, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> db yesterday




Yeah I was thinking of that.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 12, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> What about me?






			
				Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Well, what's your starting point for how you think people should live within a society?



Same question

"That's up to people to decide for themselves" is an answer as to how people in general should think about things. What I was asking was how *you* have decided for *yourself*, specifically as to what principles to adopt in reaching a compromise between what you want to do and what others would rather you didn't.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 12, 2007)

I've already answered you.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 12, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I've already answered you.



Check my clarification


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 12, 2007)

I don't understand what you're asking.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 12, 2007)

What you have decided for yourself as to how you should live and act in society? (Presumably uou believe this is the way that others should also act, otherwise your own "values"... aren't particularly valuable). In particular, how you do you decide whether or not to take a course of action that what you want to, but which others in society would rather you didn't?

Come on... you are far from stupid and I don't express myself _that_ unclearly


----------



## exosculate (Feb 12, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> What you have decided for yourself as to how you should live and act in society? (Presumably uou believe this is the way that others should also act, otherwise your own "values"... aren't particularly valuable). In particular, how you do you decide whether or not to take a course of action that what you want to, but which others in society would rather you didn't?
> 
> Come on... you are far from stupid and I don't express myself _that_ unclearly




Have you read that book - _The Wisdom of Crowds_?


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 12, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> What you have decided for yourself as to how you should live and act in society?



I've already answered you - do unto others is a good starting point.




			
				Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> In particular, how you do you decide whether or not to take a course of action that what you want to, but which others in society would rather you didn't?



That's not a question I can answer in the abstract.


----------



## untethered (Feb 12, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I've already answered you - do unto others is a good starting point.



This has serious limitations.

If my neighbour wants to play loud popular music late into the night and partake of narcotics with a large circle of casual acquaintances, I might not be pleased at the imposition that places upon me even if he is generous enough to extend to me the same freedoms.

So it's a starting point, but not an ending point.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 12, 2007)

Yes, that's what I said - it's a starting point.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 12, 2007)

untethered said:
			
		

> This has serious limitations.
> 
> If my neighbour wants to play loud popular music late into the night and partake of narcotics with a large circle of casual acquaintances, I might not be pleased at the imposition that places upon me even if he is generous enough to extend to me the same freedoms.
> 
> So it's a starting point, but not an ending point.



Erm... isn't it do unto others as _you would have them_ do unto you, rather than as they do, do? 

Blagsta - I'm not sure you did express that before - ?


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 12, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> Have you read that book - _The Wisdom of Crowds_?



No, do you recommend it?


----------



## exosculate (Feb 12, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> No, do you recommend it?




Very much, a good read about group v's individual decision making etc. Only about £6.99


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 12, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Blagsta - I'm not sure you did express that before - ?



Express what?


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 12, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Express what?



Like talking to my bloody Grandpa....

THE IDEA OF "DO UNTO OTHERS", MATE 

For all your undoubted strengths you sometimes seem to struggle at following references...


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 12, 2007)

Are you drunk or something?

I already expressed that if you care to read.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 12, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Are you drunk or something?
> 
> I already expressed that if you care to read.



I KNOW

Fucking hell, you are hard work sometimes...

You wrote... "I've already answered you - do unto others is a good starting point"

And I wrote that I didn't think you had actually put "do unto others" previously, i.e. before that post - unless I missed it


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 12, 2007)

You asked me a question and I answered it.

What's the problem?


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 12, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> You asked me a question and I answered it.
> 
> What's the problem?



No problem at all, its just that I though you had actually introduced the answer straight after saying "I've already answered you"!

Forget about it, anyway. Just crossed wires


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 12, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> What a surprise ex-copper in anti-trade union shocker.


I have no problem with Trade Unions _per se_.  It's just that I think Bob Crow is a twat - strikes first, asks questions later.  He's taking the piss out of you, me and every other Londoner most of the time.

(And, before you ask, I think the Police Federation are largely pretty shite as well - I think he and they are throwbacks to same age to be honest ...)


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 12, 2007)

exosculate said:
			
		

> He doesn't recognise your authority.


Oh fuck off with your "He doesn't respect your authority" whinging bollocks.

*What* authority do any of us have as individuals as opposed to people in positions apoointed by society.

How the fuck do you suggest *everyone* gets to decide on everything, all the fucking time?  And even if you could, how the fuck do you think that everyone would agree with you?  Jesus fucking Christ, criticise what we have by all means but suggest a realistic alternative.


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 12, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> db yesterday


That'll be "substance" then will it? 

Twat.


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 12, 2007)

Monkeynuts said:
			
		

> Like talking to my bloody Grandpa....


Clearly a trolling cunt.  I'd blank the twat if I were you ...


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 12, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> That'll be "substance" then will it?
> 
> Twat.



No, that was a joke, you humourless prick.


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 12, 2007)

detective-boy said:
			
		

> Clearly a trolling cunt.  I'd blank the twat if I were you ...



I suggest you read a bit further, eh?


----------



## likesfish (Feb 13, 2007)

so the taggers will be happy for me to come round and spray paint a portait of detective boy on there house will they?


----------



## Giles (Feb 13, 2007)

The way to look at what happened to the two unfortunate "taggers" is to "think of it as evolution in action". 

Except this doesn't quite work because one of the idiots managed to pass his genes on shortly before going out on his ill-fated vandalism / art mission. Oh well......

Giles..


----------



## Blagsta (Feb 13, 2007)

Nice.


----------



## Monkeynuts (Feb 13, 2007)

For some reason the image that comes to mind is something like this:





...running over a few proles


----------



## detective-boy (Feb 13, 2007)

likesfish said:
			
		

> so the taggers will be happy for me to come round and spray paint a portait of detective boy on there house will they?


Hope they've got a fucking big gable end ...


----------

