This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
In reply to Trevers:
If anything I would describe it as anti-rascist! Surely it's poking fun at the anti-immigration message, not supporting it.
If anything I would describe it as anti-rascist! Surely it's poking fun at the anti-immigration message, not supporting it.
In reply to Trevers:
Brains are probably addled by endless diversity courses. If you're told to look for racsim everywhere you'll find it everywhere.
Brains are probably addled by endless diversity courses. If you're told to look for racsim everywhere you'll find it everywhere.
In reply to Postmanpat:
Tired cliche that was never really accurate in the past and certainly isn't now. The reality probably is that a junior member of staff made a mistake. A bit like happened at Sainsburys this week.
> Brains are probably addled by endless diversity courses. If you're told to look for racsim everywhere you'll find it everywhere.
Tired cliche that was never really accurate in the past and certainly isn't now. The reality probably is that a junior member of staff made a mistake. A bit like happened at Sainsburys this week.
In reply to The New NickB:
Somebody "accidentally" made a complaint?
> Tired cliche that was never really accurate in the past and certainly isn't now. The reality probably is that a junior member of staff made a mistake. A bit like happened at Sainsburys this week.
Somebody "accidentally" made a complaint?
In reply to Trevers:
According to that link, the complaint was that it was "offensive" and "racist"; the agreement seems to have been that it could be seen as offensive (no mention of racist).
Offensive to xenophobes? And pigeon-fanciers, possibly.
According to that link, the complaint was that it was "offensive" and "racist"; the agreement seems to have been that it could be seen as offensive (no mention of racist).
Offensive to xenophobes? And pigeon-fanciers, possibly.
In reply to The New NickB:
Wot, no diversity courses? I'm outraged
> Tired cliche that was never really accurate in the past and certainly isn't now. The reality probably is that a junior member of staff made a mistake. A bit like happened at Sainsburys this week.
Wot, no diversity courses? I'm outraged
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Mistake isn't a synonym for accidentally, but you know that. What's more, it is the person responding to the complaint that we are talking about, not the person making it, but you know that.
> Somebody "accidentally" made a complaint?
Mistake isn't a synonym for accidentally, but you know that. What's more, it is the person responding to the complaint that we are talking about, not the person making it, but you know that.
In reply to Postmanpat:
Would I right in thinking the "more exotic-looking bird" is, in fact, a swallow?
Would I right in thinking the "more exotic-looking bird" is, in fact, a swallow?
In reply to Postmanpat:
One very short one in 15 years in my case.
> Wot, no diversity courses? I'm outraged
One very short one in 15 years in my case.
In reply to MG:
Yes, a bird that of course has it's origins in Africa and famous long distance migrants.
> Would I right in thinking the "more exotic-looking bird" is, in fact, a swallow?
Yes, a bird that of course has it's origins in Africa and famous long distance migrants.
In reply to The New NickB:
You're undertrained then
> One very short one in 15 years in my case.
You're undertrained then
Post edited at 09:08
In reply to Alyson:
Errm, well yes, I think that's it
> If anything I would describe it as anti-rascist! Surely it's poking fun at the anti-immigration message, not supporting it.
Errm, well yes, I think that's it
In reply to The New NickB:
Actually, if you look in a thesaurus, you'll find "by mistake" is a synonym for "accidentally", happy to help as ever.
Wrong side of the bed this morning dear?
> Mistake isn't a synonym for accidentally, but you know that. What's more, it is the person responding to the complaint that we are talking about, not the person making it, but you know that.
Actually, if you look in a thesaurus, you'll find "by mistake" is a synonym for "accidentally", happy to help as ever.
Wrong side of the bed this morning dear?
In reply to MG:
I'm sure you are. I'm very light thanks, but actually your comment did make me think a bit more about the choice of a swallow, it is very interesting for a number of reasons, or maybe I'm just over thinking it.
> Yes, I am aware of that. Lighten up.
I'm sure you are. I'm very light thanks, but actually your comment did make me think a bit more about the choice of a swallow, it is very interesting for a number of reasons, or maybe I'm just over thinking it.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
But I didn't write "by mistake". Glad I could clear that up for you.
I'm sure I'm having a better day than you.
> Actually, if you look in a thesaurus, you'll find "by mistake" is a synonym for "accidentally", happy to help as ever.
But I didn't write "by mistake". Glad I could clear that up for you.
> Wrong side of the bed this morning dear?
I'm sure I'm having a better day than you.
In reply to The New NickB:
Oh, if someone makes a mistake they don't do that by mistake? Well, if you say so.
You certainly seem to be.
> But I didn't write "by mistake". Glad I could clear that up for you.
Oh, if someone makes a mistake they don't do that by mistake? Well, if you say so.
> I'm sure I'm having a better day than you.
You certainly seem to be.
In reply to Alyson:
I rather think the complaint was lodged by someone who thought its' obviously anti-racist, pro-immigration message was what was offensive about it.
I rather think the complaint was lodged by someone who thought its' obviously anti-racist, pro-immigration message was what was offensive about it.
In reply to MG:
African or European?
> Would I right in thinking the "more exotic-looking bird" is, in fact, a swallow?
African or European?
In reply to Sir Chasm:
The meanings of words are contextual, it is very clear to anyone but a complete idiot, which you are not, that in this context mistake is a synonym for poor judgement.
Well you got that right, so there is hope yet.
> Oh, if someone makes a mistake they don't do that by mistake? Well, if you say so.
The meanings of words are contextual, it is very clear to anyone but a complete idiot, which you are not, that in this context mistake is a synonym for poor judgement.
> You certainly seem to be.
Well you got that right, so there is hope yet.
In reply to MG:
While it has a forked tail it is the wrong colour for a swallow, which would have a red face and white breast.
Nerd out.
> Would I right in thinking the "more exotic-looking bird" is, in fact, a swallow?
While it has a forked tail it is the wrong colour for a swallow, which would have a red face and white breast.
Nerd out.
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
The most offensive things to me are a) pigeons don't eat worms and b) no bird with a long forked tail is going to be eating worms either.
It is ornithologically unsound and I would have painted over it for that reason.
> I rather think the complaint was lodged by someone who thought its' obviously anti-racist, pro-immigration message was what was offensive about it.
The most offensive things to me are a) pigeons don't eat worms and b) no bird with a long forked tail is going to be eating worms either.
It is ornithologically unsound and I would have painted over it for that reason.
In reply to Sir Chasm:
NickB is right here.
Someone conflated 'made a mistake' with accidentally. An accident is something that was not intended, in the first instance.
I.E. "I accidentally tripped over a brick. I never meant to trip over the brick, it was an accident."
A mistake can be made purposely and with sound mind.
I.E. "I took down the offensive picture. At the time I thought it was offensive therefore I removed it. In hindsight, taking down the picture was a mistake."
NickB is right here.
Someone conflated 'made a mistake' with accidentally. An accident is something that was not intended, in the first instance.
I.E. "I accidentally tripped over a brick. I never meant to trip over the brick, it was an accident."
A mistake can be made purposely and with sound mind.
I.E. "I took down the offensive picture. At the time I thought it was offensive therefore I removed it. In hindsight, taking down the picture was a mistake."
In reply to Trevers:
It's graffiti. It may be clever/arty/valuable but just because the criminal damage was done by Banksy doesn't mean the property owner can't just paint over it.
It's graffiti. It may be clever/arty/valuable but just because the criminal damage was done by Banksy doesn't mean the property owner can't just paint over it.
In reply to Alyson:
I think it might be an artistic swallow. Pigeons aren't black and grey either. Not sure if artistic swallows are migratory though.
I think it might be an artistic swallow. Pigeons aren't black and grey either. Not sure if artistic swallows are migratory though.
In reply to off-duty:
And said graffiti was probably worth considerably more than the building which it adorned.
Bet the council wished it saved and sold the art now.
> It's graffiti. It may be clever/arty/valuable but just because the criminal damage was done by Banksy doesn't mean the property owner can't just paint over it.
And said graffiti was probably worth considerably more than the building which it adorned.
Bet the council wished it saved and sold the art now.
In reply to The Lemming:
It did actually put the Council in a very difficult situation, the image makes a very clear political statement during an election campaign on what is presumably a council building.
With the benefit of hindsight, maybe a sign or something over it until after the election would have been the best option.
It did actually put the Council in a very difficult situation, the image makes a very clear political statement during an election campaign on what is presumably a council building.
With the benefit of hindsight, maybe a sign or something over it until after the election would have been the best option.
In reply to The Lemming:
Unlikely, given what I've seen within councils, it almost seems they think money grows on trees.
> Bet the council wished it saved and sold the art now.
Unlikely, given what I've seen within councils, it almost seems they think money grows on trees.
In reply to Alyson:
Well, that IS interesting. I didn't know that pigeons demonstrated with placards either, but presumably that bit's OK?
Well, that IS interesting. I didn't know that pigeons demonstrated with placards either, but presumably that bit's OK?
You are all overlooking the best bit. The picture with caption "...Banksy (not pictured)"
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Pigeons would carry placards given half a chance. You only have to look at them to know that.
Pigeons would carry placards given half a chance. You only have to look at them to know that.
In reply to winhill:
Beat me to it.
The worst bit has to be the statement from the communications director:
"We would obviously welcome an appropriate Banksy original on any of our seafronts and would be delighted if he returned in the future."
You had one you dumb schmuck & you painted over it.
What do you think an appropriate Banksy for Clacton would be? A statement on the futility of living in a run down 19th century town full of decaying souls living their terminal days in despair?
Yeah - I'm sure they'd like that one too.
> African or European?
Beat me to it.
The worst bit has to be the statement from the communications director:
"We would obviously welcome an appropriate Banksy original on any of our seafronts and would be delighted if he returned in the future."
You had one you dumb schmuck & you painted over it.
What do you think an appropriate Banksy for Clacton would be? A statement on the futility of living in a run down 19th century town full of decaying souls living their terminal days in despair?
Yeah - I'm sure they'd like that one too.
In reply to zebidee:
You have promoted him, so he must be doing something right
> Beat me to it.
> The worst bit has to be the statement from the communications director:
You have promoted him, so he must be doing something right
In reply to off-duty:
Actually Banksy always checks with the relevant parties before doing his art work and because most house owners know a Banksy painting will add another 20k to their house, they are usually up for it and so is the council. Its not graffiti its street art and there is a world of difference.
Banksy has done a lot of left wing political art work in a humerus messages.
What I see in this picture is a bunch of angry bigger birds showing bigotry to a dainty colourful bird. Seeing anything offensive in that picture is just hypocrisy.
Actually Banksy always checks with the relevant parties before doing his art work and because most house owners know a Banksy painting will add another 20k to their house, they are usually up for it and so is the council. Its not graffiti its street art and there is a world of difference.
Banksy has done a lot of left wing political art work in a humerus messages.
What I see in this picture is a bunch of angry bigger birds showing bigotry to a dainty colourful bird. Seeing anything offensive in that picture is just hypocrisy.
In reply to DaCat:
He deserves some elbow room?
I'm not sure it's hypocrisy, part of the image contains elements that on a stand alone basis could be offensive, when you read the whole it requires a nuanced reading to put those singular images into context.
There'd be an argument there that the muslamic raygun types may not understand the nuance and also that the people under discussion, immigrants, also may not understand the nuance and the humour.
That may unusefully limit discourse to the lowest common denominator but it's not hypocritical.
> Banksy has done a lot of left wing political art work in a humerus messages.
He deserves some elbow room?
> What I see in this picture is a bunch of angry bigger birds showing bigotry to a dainty colourful bird. Seeing anything offensive in that picture is just hypocrisy.
I'm not sure it's hypocrisy, part of the image contains elements that on a stand alone basis could be offensive, when you read the whole it requires a nuanced reading to put those singular images into context.
There'd be an argument there that the muslamic raygun types may not understand the nuance and also that the people under discussion, immigrants, also may not understand the nuance and the humour.
That may unusefully limit discourse to the lowest common denominator but it's not hypocritical.
In reply to The New NickB:
Is it fully laden though?
> Yes, a bird that of course has it's origins in Africa and famous long distance migrants.
Is it fully laden though?
In reply to Trevers:
Council official #1: What? A pigeon carrying a placard?
Banksy: It could grip it by the pole!
...
Council official #2: Wait a minute! Supposing two pigeons carried it together?
Council official #1: No, they'd have to have it on a line.
Council official #2: Well, simple! They'd just use a strand of creeper!
Council official #1: What, held under the dorsal guiding feathers?
Council official #2: Well, why not?
Council official #1: What? A pigeon carrying a placard?
Banksy: It could grip it by the pole!
...
Council official #2: Wait a minute! Supposing two pigeons carried it together?
Council official #1: No, they'd have to have it on a line.
Council official #2: Well, simple! They'd just use a strand of creeper!
Council official #1: What, held under the dorsal guiding feathers?
Council official #2: Well, why not?
In reply to DaCat:
I have never heard that. You are suggesting that Banksy told the council he was going to paint the stencil and they gave him permission and then removed it anyway?
It is graffiti - it's just clever/artistic/political - or more importantly probably, valuable.
I've seen some pretty funny graffiti in toilets cubicles. Doesn't make it art though.
I'm not sure that it's "hypocrisy", especially when we don't know who made the complaint.
> Actually Banksy always checks with the relevant parties before doing his art work and because most house owners know a Banksy painting will add another 20k to their house, they are usually up for it and so is the council. Its not graffiti its street art and there is a world of
difference.I have never heard that. You are suggesting that Banksy told the council he was going to paint the stencil and they gave him permission and then removed it anyway?
It is graffiti - it's just clever/artistic/political - or more importantly probably, valuable.
> Banksy has done a lot of left wing political art work in a humerus messages.
I've seen some pretty funny graffiti in toilets cubicles. Doesn't make it art though.
> What I see in this picture is a bunch of angry bigger birds showing bigotry to a dainty colourful bird. Seeing anything offensive in that picture is just hypocrisy.
I'm not sure that it's "hypocrisy", especially when we don't know who made the complaint.
Post edited at 12:46
In reply to Trevers:
"Banksy has done a lot of left wing political art work in a humerus messages"
No 'arm done then
"Banksy has done a lot of left wing political art work in a humerus messages"
No 'arm done then
Post edited at 13:18
In reply to off-duty:
Yeah, the last Supper is just painted on a wall; clever, artistic and political. Can't be art though, it's painted on a wall.
Yeah, the last Supper is just painted on a wall; clever, artistic and political. Can't be art though, it's painted on a wall.
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I could have phrased that better.
Trying to point out that there isn't some magical dividing line between graffiti and "street art". It's very hard to decide where the line should be drawn, and ultimately and unfortunately, the fact that the art is carried out as graffiti doesn't give the artist, or the artwork, any "extra" rights not to be removed.
> Yeah, the last Supper is just painted on a wall; clever, artistic and political. Can't be art though, it's painted on a wall.
I could have phrased that better.
Trying to point out that there isn't some magical dividing line between graffiti and "street art". It's very hard to decide where the line should be drawn, and ultimately and unfortunately, the fact that the art is carried out as graffiti doesn't give the artist, or the artwork, any "extra" rights not to be removed.
In reply to off-duty:
But in the case of this artist a bit of common sense could have been applied!
Am I right in having the impression that some posters here haven't yet realised that this painting was making an anti-racist comment? If so there may be a job for them on the council 8-)
> the fact that the art is carried out as graffiti doesn't give the artist, or the artwork, any "extra" rights not to be removed.
But in the case of this artist a bit of common sense could have been applied!
Am I right in having the impression that some posters here haven't yet realised that this painting was making an anti-racist comment? If so there may be a job for them on the council 8-)
In reply to Alyson:
>The most offensive things to me are a) pigeons don't eat worms and b) no bird with a long forked tail is going to be eating worms either
But isn't that part of Banksy's comment - that fears about immigrants are often unfounded beliefs of people with no real involvement in the issue ??
Not to mention the fact that most Swallows, despite migrating from Africa, would have been born here in the first place?
>The most offensive things to me are a) pigeons don't eat worms and b) no bird with a long forked tail is going to be eating worms either
But isn't that part of Banksy's comment - that fears about immigrants are often unfounded beliefs of people with no real involvement in the issue ??
Not to mention the fact that most Swallows, despite migrating from Africa, would have been born here in the first place?
In reply to Blue Straggler:
Indeed - how is it possible for the BBC to state is is 'not Banksy' pictured given the possibility that that could indeed be Bansky?
Indeed - how is it possible for the BBC to state is is 'not Banksy' pictured given the possibility that that could indeed be Bansky?
In reply to Bruce Hooker:
Who hasn't realised, I'm not sure I have spotted anyone, but I am happy to be corrected.
> But in the case of this artist a bit of common sense could have been applied!
> Am I right in having the impression that some posters here haven't yet realised that this painting was making an anti-racist comment? If so there may be a job for them on the council 8-)
Who hasn't realised, I'm not sure I have spotted anyone, but I am happy to be corrected.
In reply to The New NickB:
I'm no expert on birds but aren't Swallows famously born in the UK and travel to Africa for the winter?
Seems to me the Pigeons are complaining about returning holidaymakers. A strange stand to take in a town whose main economic activity (amazingly) is tourism.
> Yes, a bird that of course has it's origins in Africa and famous long distance migrants.
I'm no expert on birds but aren't Swallows famously born in the UK and travel to Africa for the winter?
Seems to me the Pigeons are complaining about returning holidaymakers. A strange stand to take in a town whose main economic activity (amazingly) is tourism.
In reply to NathanP:
I'm no expert either, but by origins I mean as a species. This is probably where my over thinking on the subject started.
> I'm no expert on birds but aren't Swallows famously born in the UK and travel to Africa for the winter?
I'm no expert either, but by origins I mean as a species. This is probably where my over thinking on the subject started.
In reply to The New NickB:
Wrong as ever;
Note that; "by staff who agreed"? Is it a junior member of staff agreeing with himself?
Or could it be a consequence of the plethora of courses on "diversity awareness" organised by Tendring District Council. (easily found online.)
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> [...]
>
> Tired cliche that was never really accurate in the past and certainly isn't now. The reality probably is that a junior member of staff made a mistake. A bit like happened at Sainsburys this week.
>
> [...]
>
> Tired cliche that was never really accurate in the past and certainly isn't now. The reality probably is that a junior member of staff made a mistake. A bit like happened at Sainsburys this week.
Wrong as ever;
> Nigel Brown, communications manager for the council, said: "The site was inspected by staff who agreed that it could be seen as offensive and it was removed this morning in line with our policy to remove this type of material within 48 hours.
Note that; "by staff who agreed"? Is it a junior member of staff agreeing with himself?
Or could it be a consequence of the plethora of courses on "diversity awareness" organised by Tendring District Council. (easily found online.)
In reply to MG:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/24/monk-parakeets-parrots-u...
> (In reply to Postmanpat)
>
> Would I right in thinking the "more exotic-looking bird" is, in fact, a swallow?
>
> Would I right in thinking the "more exotic-looking bird" is, in fact, a swallow?
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/24/monk-parakeets-parrots-u...
In reply to Trevers:
Definitely doesn't look like a Monk parakeet, nor a Ring-necked parakeet (which is a more numerous 'alien' species), but it does (as well as looking swallowish) look a bit like a Budgie (not widely free-living in the UK, but known in the US simply as a 'parakeet').
Definitely doesn't look like a Monk parakeet, nor a Ring-necked parakeet (which is a more numerous 'alien' species), but it does (as well as looking swallowish) look a bit like a Budgie (not widely free-living in the UK, but known in the US simply as a 'parakeet').
Post edited at 02:32
In reply to winhill:
Interesting hypothesis. This........
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2351767/BBC-shelved-report-showing-...
..........shows that the BBC had the same concerns. That the terminally thick could not be relied upon to understand the irony.
Interesting hypothesis. This........
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2351767/BBC-shelved-report-showing-...
..........shows that the BBC had the same concerns. That the terminally thick could not be relied upon to understand the irony.
In reply to stroppygob:
Why would that be? I'm starting to feel this is a bit personal.
A complaint was made, the identity of the complainant was not clear, but probably a member of the public, a member of Council staff was despatched to have a look and if they agreed with the complaint that it was offensive, clean it off. This would certainly be a junior member of staff. It appears that Tendring District Council have a commitment to clean away offensive graffiti within 48 hours. Do you honestly think they send a team of managers to every piece of graffiti or do you think it is more likely to be a man in a van.
So to make it nice and simple for you "by staff who agreed (with the complainant)".
I'm sure they exist, likely a legal requirement, I could check, but I'm not sure what you have found online, perhaps you can expand.
> Wrong as ever;
Why would that be? I'm starting to feel this is a bit personal.
> Note that; "by staff who agreed"? Is it a junior member of staff agreeing with himself?
A complaint was made, the identity of the complainant was not clear, but probably a member of the public, a member of Council staff was despatched to have a look and if they agreed with the complaint that it was offensive, clean it off. This would certainly be a junior member of staff. It appears that Tendring District Council have a commitment to clean away offensive graffiti within 48 hours. Do you honestly think they send a team of managers to every piece of graffiti or do you think it is more likely to be a man in a van.
So to make it nice and simple for you "by staff who agreed (with the complainant)".
> Or could it be a consequence of the plethora of courses on "diversity awareness" organised by Tendring District Council. (easily found online.)
I'm sure they exist, likely a legal requirement, I could check, but I'm not sure what you have found online, perhaps you can expand.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...