Discussions on graffiti

[justanotheruser]

I have always been a supporter of painting trains, legally with appropriate murals.  Stealing through the night with paint cans and painting mindless garbage is not art to me mate, and never will be.

it is either art or it isn't. the only difference is some is done legally and some illegally.

[justanotheruser]

a few days ago was at central catching a ipswich train o/b 11am`ish when i notice the front sign ~ipswich~ had been spraypainted in white to the point where it was unreadable as to where the train was going.Had some gang tag on it.

While i was a little furious @ the vandals i think i was more furious at QR for not making an effort to get it off as quick as possible.Would have taken QR all of 10 minutes max to get it off....but they obviously thought lets just keep it on there for the day and wait for the cleaners to do it tonite.LOL. Gotta love that casual laid back attitude.

personally would much rather it be that way than a delay on the train.

[red dragin]

Noticed a 12 car set making its way through the car wash Friday lunch, back 6 heavily sprayed. Front 6 either cleaned or being cleaned.

Another 9/12 car set (not sure which) going through today. Some tagging on remaining 4 cars. Was moving when I passed by.

All EMU's, no numbers as driving eastbound with the loonies that frequent the ICB.

[ozbob]

Minister for Police and Community Safety
The Honourable Jack Dempsey

Monday, May 28, 2012

The writing's on the wall for graffiti offenders

With over 380 people charged with more than 12,000 offences since its inception, the Taskforce Against Graffiti (TAG) has been highly successful in reducing and preventing graffiti across Brisbane.

Established in October 2008, the taskforce evolved out of a partnership between the Queensland Police Service and the Brisbane City Council. The group is staffed by intelligence officers and investigators from the two agencies.

Police Minister Jack Dempsey said the success of the taskforce has been attributed not only to the team's strategy of combining intelligence driven analysis with targeted policing, but the willingness of the community and industry stakeholders to help combat this growing problem.

"Graffiti is a highly visible and notorious crime. It is this high visibility and the clean up cost that results in one single act affecting so many people," Minister Dempsey said.

"It is the community's willingness to work with us and stamp this issue out that has made the taskforce so successful."

"TAG has increased our capacity to apprehend those who commit these offences and to work proactively to educate, raise awareness and reduce the incidence of graffiti across Brisbane," Commissioner of Police Bob Atkinson said.

In 2010 the two agencies conducted a graffiti forum that brought together policy makers, government and law enforcement agencies to share knowledge and develop strategies to curb this issue.
This week, the agencies will again host a Graffiti Prevention Conference which will bring together those with a vested interest in this area.

"It is hoped forums such as this allow the two agencies to build on the taskforce's successful foundations and work towards creating best practice graffiti management," Mr Atkinson said.

"The theme of this year's conference is 'the writing's on the wall' and this is certainly the case for offenders out there. Make no mistake, you are on notice.

"Graffiti is a significant problem and concern for our community and those of us in law enforcement are focused on targeting and apprehending people who engage in this criminal vandalism," Mr Atkinson said.

Lord Mayor Graham Quirk said Brisbane City Council was committed to tackling the social and financial costs attributed to illegal graffiti.

"Graffiti is an ugly stain on our city and I will continue my campaign to rid it from our suburbs," Lord Mayor Quirk said.

"That's why since 2008 my team has spent $12 million removing over half-a-million square metres of graffiti.

"I'm also committed to working with Campbell Newman and the Queensland Police to not only clean up illegal graffiti, but catch the vandals responsible for it through important programs such as TAG."

Last month the Queensland Premier Campbell Newman and Lord Mayor Graham Quirk announced a landmark deal that will see Queensland Rail sign up to the Taskforce Against Graffiti in a bid to tackle problem rail corridors.

Lord Mayor Quirk said he was also committed to delivering on his election promise to boost TAG funding by an extra $2 million over four years, as well as running other public educations such as Tag Them Back, which spells out the real impact of graffiti on local communities.

[ENDS]

[p858snake]

To rationalise graffiti as artwork is just more mindless babble.  Art may include graffiti style type works in appropriate places.  That is not what is concerning the government.  It is the mindless cr%p sprayed on various structures, objects and vehicles such as trains and buses.

Most of Banksy's work is done illegally.

[justanotheruser]

Interesting article in the sun herald today. It seems to have worked overseas and while it has not completely cut out illegal graffiti it has greatly reduced costs.  Surely something like this could also be done in the subway tunnel at central in brisbane. It is so depressing walking through there. A couple of windows with displays and a mini museum but still all very dark & depressing. How about some colour in life?  I find it entertaining that we acknowledge colour is great in the childrens hospitals all around the country and clown doctors are also helpful but when it comes to adults everything must be all bleak and bland and boring.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/graffiti-cleanups-break-the-banksy-20120728-232lx.html

[justanotheruser]

I hope there is a campaign to get rid of ugly legal pictures around the city as well! Especially indro station, sculptures between BCC & casino. Perhaps if they had a door to lock troublesome people in that would be ok!  Pictures along the freeways and pretty ugly. Lets also remove some of the artwork from museums because it is ugly too! Lets not stop lets keep the crusade going!!

[Fares_Fair]

Graffiti is vandalism, no matter how pretty or skilled it may be.

If the person wants to do so, they should ask the property owner first - if not, expect consequences.

[colinw]

I have reported vandalism/graffiti in progress more than once. In none of the cases was the police response anywhere near rapid enough to catch the offenders.

[somebody]

A lot of people with outstanding warrants were arrested after committing these offences.

[colinw]

All the ones I've called in have been graffiti, except for one time when I saw someone deliberately destroying park benches in the dog off-leash area at Wally Tate park, Kuraby. Never did see the cops turn up to that one.

You're right that they probably had other more serious priorities to attend to. That kind of pointless, mindless destruction just peeves me very deeply (as does cr%p like all the scratched windows on trains). Beats me why respect for other people, property & public infrastructure seems to be such a rarity today. Its not like it costs us anything to be well behaved & courteous. Geez, I'm starting to sound like my father.

[HappyTrainGuy]

I could care very little for graffiti. Yes, some graffiti that some mobs do every now and then are pretty good and artistic but defacing rollingstock, buildings, bridges, fences, property etc isn't the way to go about it (get involved with community programs. Put that effort into something that's better for the community. PCYC offer these programs. Local councils also offer them as does Queensland Rail http://www.queenslandrail.com.au/Community/Pages/PositivePartnership.aspx ) not to mention it's also potentially dangerous. One poor kid got zapped and severe burns while tagging a substation/relay down in Coomera/Helensvale a few years back. There have been a couple instances where people tresspassing in the corridor tagging infrastructure have tripped signals for approaching trains and a few time's people have hurt themselves falling off moving rollingstock. It's them and the ones that scratch windows, cut the seats, burn the carpet/fabric on trains, throw paint bombs, squirt paint as trains go by and scribble tags everywhere are the real low lifes.

[Golliwog]

Never found out what happened in the end, but I called one in about a guy graffitiing a wall at Grovely station. Stupidly for him, he was doing it in a stairwell where I'm pretty sure he was in view of CCTV, so I made sure I gave QR the time I saw him doing it.

I would also support having a graffiti zone as some of the ones that aren't just tags can be pretty good. Despite their efforts with the stencils in the Merivale bridge tunnel, more and more tags are turning up there. IIRC, when they first put the eagle/bird mural on the feeder building there, it wasn't graffiti-ed for quite some time, perhaps they just need to get a new one put up on it every 6-12 months or something?

[justanotheruser]

Graffiti is vandalism, no matter how pretty or skilled it may be.

If the person wants to do so, they should ask the property owner first - if not, expect consequences.

If they have permission it is not vandalism is it!

[Fares_Fair]

Graffiti is vandalism, no matter how pretty or skilled it may be.

If the person wants to do so, they should ask the property owner first - if not, expect consequences.

If they have permission it is not vandalism is it!

??

[STB]

As a Gen Yer, I find graffiti as a form of artwork.  As long as it's not a basic boring tag, I have zero problem with it.  In fact when I went to Melbourne it added a nice contrast and texture between the colourful graffiti and the boring old style Victorian homes, a contrast of the modern and the aged.  That's not to say that I would do it myself, I wouldn't, heck, I can only just draw a stick figure!

Obviously different generations will have different views on graffiti.

And yes, there are legal walls that graffiti can be done on, some of them (in Melbourne) are quite impressive if you go for a wander down one particular lane (forget exactly what it's called but it does get quite a few tourists through it) - hence another reason why I prefer Melbourne over Brisbane, less stuffier and more arty which is more my type!

Keep in mind that graffiti is more than just boring basic tags, some of it is quite elaborate and complex.  All it is at the end of the day, depending on the reason why one would do it, is that it's just street art.  Fare's Fair, google it and you might find some interesting stuff and history behind it.

[mufreight]

No matter how one tries to dress it up Graffiti is the illegal unauthorised desecration of property.
Yes some of it is very intricate but unless permission has been granted for it as legitimate street art it is every bit as much illegal as taking to someones house with an axe and there should be appropiate penalties which should include the full cost of its removal, compensation to the owners of the structure that has been defaced and full cost recovery of all costs involved in the prosocution of the offenders.
Give a couple of these grubs a bill running into six figures plus and jail time if they do not pay it and the incidence of graffiti will become smoke.   

[STB]

I wasn't trying to dress it up.  It's just how our generation sees it, and I have spoken to quite a few about it who are Gen Yers and Gen Z, and generally for the most part, as long as isn't those annoying tags, they are fully supportive of it.  Different generations, different attitudes - to be expected.

By the way, look up 'Banksy', that graffiti is worth quite a lot culturally and money wise.

Here's a couple of links, some of it is quite amazing and worth a look - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_painting

All about Banksy, which I first became aware of during the first year of my Arts degree, was spoken about during one of my Lectures on Social Enterprise - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banksy

[STB]

I thought I'd share this too.  Is this 'Urban Art' or 'Graffiti' that should be removed and the artists penalised?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zewTLOQkR0s&feature=g-user-u

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosier_Lane,_Melbourne
Hosier Lane is a bluestone cobbled vehicular and pedestrian laneway on the southern edge of the central city grid of Melbourne, Australia. Hosier lane is a much celebrated landmark in Melbourne mainly due to its sophisticated urban art.
Hosier Lane lies opposite the entrance to the Atrium at Federation Square on Flinders St, a prominent position in the city.
The lane has been noted for the quality and the often political nature of its art.[2] It features in the state-sponsored book The Melbourne Design Guide and in Tourism Victoria's Lose Yourself in Melbourne advertising campaign, leading to questions about the dichotomy of Victoria's approach to graffiti. The graffiti-covered walls and art-installations have become a popular backdrop for fashion and wedding photography.
Hosier Lane is also known for its upmarket cocktail lounges including the popular Misty and MoVida. An open air cooking session with MoVida's chef Frank Camorra on Masterchef Australia season 2 showcased the lane as a major Melbourne attraction

[Fares_Fair]

As a Gen Yer, I find graffiti as a form of artwork.  As long as it's not a basic boring tag, I have zero problem with it.  In fact when I went to Melbourne it added a nice contrast and texture between the colourful graffiti and the boring old style Victorian homes, a contrast of the modern and the aged.  That's not to say that I would do it myself, I wouldn't, heck, I can only just draw a stick figure!

Obviously different generations will have different views on graffiti.

And yes, there are legal walls that graffiti can be done on, some of them (in Melbourne) are quite impressive if you go for a wander down one particular lane (forget exactly what it's called but it does get quite a few tourists through it) - hence another reason why I prefer Melbourne over Brisbane, less stuffier and more arty which is more my type!

Keep in mind that graffiti is more than just boring basic tags, some of it is quite elaborate and complex.  All it is at the end of the day, depending on the reason why one would do it, is that it's just street art.  Fare's Fair, google it and you might find some interesting stuff and history behind it.

No matter how good or how pretty or how cultural you may think it may be, if it is done without the permission of the property owner, it is VANDALISM.
Ridiculous to justify it based upon it's 'artiness' - there's no justification for it.

Perhaps if your property - that you paid for - was on the receiving end of it, you may have a diffferent 'appreciation' of it.

It costs a fortune to remove and reinstate to a pre-vandalised state. That is no reason to ignore removing it.
I'm with mufreight 100% on this issue.

If the younger generations you refer to weren't taught the value and respect of another person's property, that still doesn't make what is wrong, right.

[Golliwog]

I agree with both of you. If it's not authorized, then everything should be done to catch and fine those responsible. However, that said I think there is a need for some areas to be designated as graffiti zones. For instance, Burnett Lane could be set aside, or the walls of the supports around the Creek/Turbot St overpasses above Central station?

[STB]

As a Gen Yer, I find graffiti as a form of artwork.  As long as it's not a basic boring tag, I have zero problem with it.  In fact when I went to Melbourne it added a nice contrast and texture between the colourful graffiti and the boring old style Victorian homes, a contrast of the modern and the aged.  That's not to say that I would do it myself, I wouldn't, heck, I can only just draw a stick figure!

Obviously different generations will have different views on graffiti.

And yes, there are legal walls that graffiti can be done on, some of them (in Melbourne) are quite impressive if you go for a wander down one particular lane (forget exactly what it's called but it does get quite a few tourists through it) - hence another reason why I prefer Melbourne over Brisbane, less stuffier and more arty which is more my type!

Keep in mind that graffiti is more than just boring basic tags, some of it is quite elaborate and complex.  All it is at the end of the day, depending on the reason why one would do it, is that it's just street art.  Fare's Fair, google it and you might find some interesting stuff and history behind it.

No matter how good or how pretty or how cultural you may think it may be, if it is done without the permission of the property owner, it is VANDALISM.
Ridiculous to justify it based upon it's 'artiness' - there's no justification for it.

Perhaps if your property - that you paid for - was on the receiving end of it, you may have a diffferent 'appreciation' of it.

It costs a fortune to remove and reinstate to a pre-vandalised state. That is no reason to ignore removing it.
I'm with mufreight 100% on this issue.

If the younger generations you refer to weren't taught the value and respect of another person's property, that still doesn't make what is wrong, right.

If it was a 'Banksy' elaborate or arty type or chalk art or a street painting (see links so you can see what I mean) I wouldn't mind.  If it was a tag, then I would mind.  Each to their own.

I also agree with Golliwog, if there was a designated lane in Brisbane where it could be done, like in Melbourne, I'd have no problems with that.  It can also become a tourist attraction as it has done in Melbourne.

[justanotheruser]

As a Gen Yer, I find graffiti as a form of artwork.  As long as it's not a basic boring tag, I have zero problem with it.  In fact when I went to Melbourne it added a nice contrast and texture between the colourful graffiti and the boring old style Victorian homes, a contrast of the modern and the aged.  That's not to say that I would do it myself, I wouldn't, heck, I can only just draw a stick figure!

Obviously different generations will have different views on graffiti.

And yes, there are legal walls that graffiti can be done on, some of them (in Melbourne) are quite impressive if you go for a wander down one particular lane (forget exactly what it's called but it does get quite a few tourists through it) - hence another reason why I prefer Melbourne over Brisbane, less stuffier and more arty which is more my type!

Keep in mind that graffiti is more than just boring basic tags, some of it is quite elaborate and complex.  All it is at the end of the day, depending on the reason why one would do it, is that it's just street art.  Fare's Fair, google it and you might find some interesting stuff and history behind it.

No matter how good or how pretty or how cultural you may think it may be, if it is done without the permission of the property owner, it is VANDALISM.
Ridiculous to justify it based upon it's 'artiness' - there's no justification for it.

Perhaps if your property - that you paid for - was on the receiving end of it, you may have a diffferent 'appreciation' of it.

It costs a fortune to remove and reinstate to a pre-vandalised state. That is no reason to ignore removing it.
I'm with mufreight 100% on this issue.

If the younger generations you refer to weren't taught the value and respect of another person's property, that still doesn't make what is wrong, right.

So you don't know what your position is either then!!!  You once again seem to make contradicting statements or at the best very confusing statements.  You say if it is done without permission it is vandalism.

Yes the older generations were taught respect so well that their attitude towards child sexual abuse was to sweep it under the carpet and move the offender to another location where they could sexually abuse other kids! So much better than more modern attitude of punish them!  Take of the rose coloured glasses for a moment so we can have a discussion.

[justanotheruser]

No matter how one tries to dress it up Graffiti is the illegal unauthorised desecration of property.
Yes some of it is very intricate but unless permission has been granted for it as legitimate street art it is every bit as much illegal as taking to someones house with an axe and there should be appropiate penalties which should include the full cost of its removal, compensation to the owners of the structure that has been defaced and full cost recovery of all costs involved in the prosocution of the offenders.
Give a couple of these grubs a bill running into six figures plus and jail time if they do not pay it and the incidence of graffiti will become smoke.   

Oh I thought you said they should be treated the same as people who commit other crimes not harsher. Can you make up your mind and let us know which one you actually mean rather than stating both.

[Fares_Fair]

As a Gen Yer, I find graffiti as a form of artwork.  As long as it's not a basic boring tag, I have zero problem with it.  In fact when I went to Melbourne it added a nice contrast and texture between the colourful graffiti and the boring old style Victorian homes, a contrast of the modern and the aged.  That's not to say that I would do it myself, I wouldn't, heck, I can only just draw a stick figure!

Obviously different generations will have different views on graffiti.

And yes, there are legal walls that graffiti can be done on, some of them (in Melbourne) are quite impressive if you go for a wander down one particular lane (forget exactly what it's called but it does get quite a few tourists through it) - hence another reason why I prefer Melbourne over Brisbane, less stuffier and more arty which is more my type!

Keep in mind that graffiti is more than just boring basic tags, some of it is quite elaborate and complex.  All it is at the end of the day, depending on the reason why one would do it, is that it's just street art.  Fare's Fair, google it and you might find some interesting stuff and history behind it.

No matter how good or how pretty or how cultural you may think it may be, if it is done without the permission of the property owner, it is VANDALISM.
Ridiculous to justify it based upon it's 'artiness' - there's no justification for it.

Perhaps if your property - that you paid for - was on the receiving end of it, you may have a diffferent 'appreciation' of it.

It costs a fortune to remove and reinstate to a pre-vandalised state. That is no reason to ignore removing it.
I'm with mufreight 100% on this issue.

If the younger generations you refer to weren't taught the value and respect of another person's property, that still doesn't make what is wrong, right.

So you don't know what your position is either then!!!  You once again seem to make contradicting statements or at the best very confusing statements.  You say if it is done without permission it is vandalism.

Yes the older generations were taught respect so well that their attitude towards child sexual abuse was to sweep it under the carpet and move the offender to another location where they could sexually abuse other kids! So much better than more modern attitude of punish them!  Take of the rose coloured glasses for a moment so we can have a discussion.

My position is pretty clear I thought.

With yourself as a seemingly stoic defender of graffiti, there's not much to say except that what do the issues you raise have to do with the subject at hand?
The original stereotypes raised were not by me.
There is no discussion required on the fact that vandalism is what it is.

I have no problem with areas being allocated for such 'artwork,' since that involves permission.

[SurfRail]

So you don't know what your position is either then!!!  You once again seem to make contradicting statements or at the best very confusing statements.  You say if it is done without permission it is vandalism.

Yes the older generations were taught respect so well that their attitude towards child sexual abuse was to sweep it under the carpet and move the offender to another location where they could sexually abuse other kids! So much better than more modern attitude of punish them!  Take of the rose coloured glasses for a moment so we can have a discussion.

Yes, if it is done without permission it bloody well is vandalism.  Nobody has a right to interfere with somebody else's property against their will without legal justification.

I am sure FF is a big boy, but that you could even vaguely suggest that respecting property rights is a value on par with encouraging kiddy fiddling frankly sickens me.

[justanotheruser]

My position is pretty clear I thought.

With yourself as a seemingly stoic defender of graffiti, there's not much to say except that what do the issues you raise have to do with the subject at hand?
The original stereotypes raised were not by me.
There is no discussion required on the fact that vandalism is what it is.

I have no problem with areas being allocated for such 'artwork,' since that involves permission.

It doesn't matter if the sterotypes were raised by you or not because you said that you agree with them. You said graffitti was vandalism. Fullstop! End of story! Then later in a different paragraph you started saying if they don't get permission consequences should be expected. If you can't see the conflict in those two statements I would suggest it is because you don't want to.
You also said that you agree with mufreight. Well mufreight made contradicting statements so in context if you agree with mufreight then obviously you are also confused as to what your position is. Not hard to work out.

As for the other topic I mentioned I simply pointed out that your claim of respect by your generation for other people can easily be questioned by what is acknowledged as fact by governments, religious groups and other NGO's all over the world who have made apologies for the behaviour and treatment and failure to deal with it properly. But hey perhaps your right and everyone else the world over is wrong! So can you stop claiming your generation is superior to all others and actually have a discussion.

I have advocated allowing graffitti style art done legally several times on these boards but feel free to ignore the legally part seem as it seems to suit you! I have suggested not spending money on cleaning graffitti that has already been done. That however is not the same as defending illegal activity.

[justanotheruser]

So you don't know what your position is either then!!!  You once again seem to make contradicting statements or at the best very confusing statements.  You say if it is done without permission it is vandalism.

Yes the older generations were taught respect so well that their attitude towards child sexual abuse was to sweep it under the carpet and move the offender to another location where they could sexually abuse other kids! So much better than more modern attitude of punish them!  Take of the rose coloured glasses for a moment so we can have a discussion.

Yes, if it is done without permission it bloody well is vandalism.  Nobody has a right to interfere with somebody else's property against their will without legal justification.

I am sure FF is a big boy, but that you could even vaguely suggest that respecting property rights is a value on par with encouraging kiddy fiddling frankly sickens me.

well if you want to avoid getting upset then don't make silly assumptions like I was comparing the two. Simple! Problem solved! What was advocated by one person and to which FF said he agrees with is that people who vandalise property with graffitti should be treated harsher than child abusers. They are advocating that graffitti 'artists' should be punished three times while child abusers only get punished once. Sounds like a real good position!   By the way I never suggested that if it was done without permission then it wasn't vandalism.

[colinw]

This is getting a bit out of hand. May I suggest a chill pill, otherwise thread clean up & locking may have to occur ...

[somebody]

This is getting a bit out of hand. May I suggest a chill pill, otherwise thread clean up & locking may have to occur ...

Concur.

[mufreight]

No matter how one tries to dress it up Graffiti is the illegal unauthorised desecration of property.
Yes some of it is very intricate but unless permission has been granted for it as legitimate street art it is every bit as much illegal as taking to someones house with an axe and there should be appropiate penalties which should include the full cost of its removal, compensation to the owners of the structure that has been defaced and full cost recovery of all costs involved in the prosocution of the offenders.
Give a couple of these grubs a bill running into six figures plus and jail time if they do not pay it and the incidence of graffiti will become smoke.   

Oh I thought you said they should be treated the same as people who commit other crimes not harsher. Can you make up your mind and let us know which one you actually mean rather than stating both.

As the consequences of their desecration is bourne by the community at large it is not unreasonable that those who chose to vandalise public and private property should be held financialy responsible for their actions.
No different to making those who place their own lives and those of others at risk by failing to observe the law at level crossings and for whatever justification drive into or through boom gates or fail to stop at other open level crossings.
The graffiti apologists should consider not only the consequent costs but the considerable risks that their illegal actions place them in.
Legitimate street art has its place, it is legal and publicly sanctioned, vastly different to graffiti and there is no double standard in this position on the subject.

[ozbob]

Premier
The Honourable Campbell Newman
04/08/2012

Newman, Quirk cleaning up graffitied railways

Premier Campbell Newman and Brisbane Lord Mayor Graham Quirk have heralded the start of a landmark partnership to tackle graffiti on the city's vandalised rail corridors.

The $500,000 partnership involves Queensland Rail joining Brisbane City Council and Queensland Police in their joint Taskforce Against Graffiti after years of refusal under the previous Bligh Labor Government.

The new TAG partnership now means a greater co-ordination of graffiti removal and enforcement between the three organisations. This includes a greater focus on removing graffiti from the properties backing on to rail corridors, not just railway lines and stations.

Premier Campbell Newman, who joined the Lord Mayor to help graffiti cleanup teams at Park Road train station today, said the partnership was a key part of his government's tough stance on graffiti.

"This was something I campaigned for when I was Lord Mayor and it's great to see it finally happening as a result of the strong working partnership between our two governments," Mr Newman said.

"By working together, Queensland Rail and Brisbane City Council can better utilise their workers to clean more graffiti off private buildings, rather than working in isolation.

"It's just unfortunate it's taken this long because of Labor's petty games and desperation to put politics ahead of community safety."

The Taskforce Against Graffiti was originally established in 2008 as a partnership between Brisbane City Council and the Queensland Police Service to increase intelligence sharing between the two organisations in a bid to reduce graffiti by tackling the problem head on and arresting offenders, rather than just removing it.

Lord Mayor Graham Quirk said this new strategic partnership with Queensland Rail was a key election promise of his and believed it was essential to dealing with the city's graffiti-covered rail corridors, including the properties lining them.

"As Lord Mayor I am determined to stamp out this ugly scourge and since the start of TAG we've removed almost 600,000 square meters of graffiti and charged 407 vandals with more than 13,000 offences," Cr Quirk said.

"However the former Bligh Labor Government's refusal to include Queensland Rail in TAG meant both organisations had to work in isolation and ultimately left our rail corridors exposed. It was like fighting with one arm behind your back.

"The Premier and I are both big believers in the broken window theory and this partnership sends a strong message to graffiti vandals that we're united and will not tolerate this city's rail corridors being vandalised."

Mr Newman said Queensland Rail painted over approximately 300,000 square metres of graffitied railway property surfaces along the City Network corridor in 2011/12, and approximately 12,000 square metres of private property walls abutting the corridor.

==============================================================

[ozbob]

@girlclumsy twitter.com/beeso/status/2...

— beeso (@beeso) August 4, 2012

[justanotheruser]

No matter how one tries to dress it up Graffiti is the illegal unauthorised desecration of property.
Yes some of it is very intricate but unless permission has been granted for it as legitimate street art it is every bit as much illegal as taking to someones house with an axe and there should be appropiate penalties which should include the full cost of its removal, compensation to the owners of the structure that has been defaced and full cost recovery of all costs involved in the prosocution of the offenders.
Give a couple of these grubs a bill running into six figures plus and jail time if they do not pay it and the incidence of graffiti will become smoke.   

Oh I thought you said they should be treated the same as people who commit other crimes not harsher. Can you make up your mind and let us know which one you actually mean rather than stating both.

As the consequences of their desecration is bourne by the community at large it is not unreasonable that those who chose to vandalise public and private property should be held financialy responsible for their actions.
No different to making those who place their own lives and those of others at risk by failing to observe the law at level crossings and for whatever justification drive into or through boom gates or fail to stop at other open level crossings.
The graffiti apologists should consider not only the consequent costs but the considerable risks that their illegal actions place them in.
Legitimate street art has its place, it is legal and publicly sanctioned, vastly different to graffiti and there is no double standard in this position on the subject.

The problem is that graffitti is the style of art not just the name of illegal street art. If you have different definitions then best to share them up front so we all know.

I have no problem if vandals are made to pay for what they have done (although can be very difficult and possibly more expensive then enforcing) as well as punishing them provided the same is done for all criminals. However no criminal was ever made to pay for my counselling after an armed hold up. He was punished through the courts and my employer had to pay. Sorry but I think murder and child abuse are worse than vandalism and that if we don't make them pay financial expenses then we should not make vandals pay financially if they will be jailed as well like you propose. Even community service when court ordered is decided by the court where you perform that.  So you are still it seems proposing different treatment of criminals depending on their crime and not in a healthy way in my opinion. If you were proposing same treatment across the board then no problem. I do understand what is probably the main reason you hold the views you do but still am just hoping for well thought out discussion.

[somebody]

I don't see why vandals shouldn't be made to pay to repair the damage they cause where that can be done.

[justanotheruser]

I don't see why vandals shouldn't be made to pay to repair the damage they cause where that can be done.

Except that was not the suggestion that was made. You need to actually read what was said. The suggestion made was to treat them harsher than people who commit abuse crimes or violent crimes. That is what I'm saying is an issue. It shows how screwed up some priorities are. If we treated them the same as others that is fine but harsher shows screwed up values. What was suggested was they pay to have it fixed. They also pay compensation to owners of the property. They also pay all costs associated with prosecution. A person who commits a armed hold-up or child abuse does not have to pay all these costs. Do you really consider illegal graffitti to be worse than those crimes?

[somebody]

A person who commits a armed hold-up or child abuse does not have to pay all these costs.

Perhaps that is because the costs of incarceration for such crimes make the costs you are referring to not really worth worrying about, and also there is unlikely to be a capacity to pay.  The latter point probably applies to vandals too.

[Derwan]

A person who commits a armed hold-up or child abuse does not have to pay all these costs.

Actually the victims of these crimes can apply for criminal compensation.  Until a few years ago, the offender could claim he/she couldn't afford it and an ex gratia payment would be made by the government to the victim.

Under changed laws, the offender now has to pay the compensation even if an ex gratia payment had already been paid (i.e. it's retrospective).  The debt is collected via SPER and the offender can enter a payment plan if the amount is significant.

There is no reason why this couldn't occur with vandalism, with restitution amounts being recovered by SPER.  (Offenders probably already have SPER debts anyway.  It'd just get added to their accounts.)

[justanotheruser]

A person who commits a armed hold-up or child abuse does not have to pay all these costs.

Actually the victims of these crimes can apply for criminal compensation.  Until a few years ago, the offender could claim he/she couldn't afford it and an ex gratia payment would be made by the government to the victim.

Under changed laws, the offender now has to pay the compensation even if an ex gratia payment had already been paid (i.e. it's retrospective).  The debt is collected via SPER and the offender can enter a payment plan if the amount is significant.

There is no reason why this couldn't occur with vandalism, with restitution amounts being recovered by SPER.  (Offenders probably already have SPER debts anyway.  It'd just get added to their accounts.)

very easy to avoid SPER stuff if you want. "Borrow this and that from your mates" and they can't take anything. Sure they can take some of your pay if you get a job. Stuff all really.  As pointed out the cost of incarceration would not be included in that. The cost of prosecution is most certainly not included in compensation. So the original suggestion is still to treat vandals worse than muderers, violent ciminals & and perpetrators of abuse crimes.

[mufreight]

A person who commits a armed hold-up or child abuse does not have to pay all these costs.

Actually the victims of these crimes can apply for criminal compensation.  Until a few years ago, the offender could claim he/she couldn't afford it and an ex gratia payment would be made by the government to the victim.

Under changed laws, the offender now has to pay the compensation even if an ex gratia payment had already been paid (i.e. it's retrospective).  The debt is collected via SPER and the offender can enter a payment plan if the amount is significant.

There is no reason why this couldn't occur with vandalism, with restitution amounts being recovered by SPER.  (Offenders probably already have SPER debts anyway.  It'd just get added to their accounts.)

very easy to avoid SPER stuff if you want. "Borrow this and that from your mates" and they can't take anything. Sure they can take some of your pay if you get a job. Stuff all really.  As pointed out the cost of incarceration would not be included in that. The cost of prosecution is most certainly not included in compensation. So the original suggestion is still to treat vandals worse than muderers, violent ciminals & and perpetrators of abuse crimes.

One way to make these half smart vandals pay is quite simply jail time, let them cut out the SPER penalty at about $4.20 per day on jail wages which they would get sick of in short time.
Now lets see a $40.000.oo grafiti clean up bill and cort costs of another $5.000.oo would add up to a nice holiday of something like 2 1/2 years, no grog, no surfing, no dope, no freedom and terrible food.  Might be just about enough to reprogram the thought process and generate a sense responsibility for their actions.