Preserving the art of Banksy in Southampton (From This is Hampshire)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
Preserving the art of Banksy in Southampton
10:08am Thursday 16th December 2010 in News
WHEN Banksy’s Southampton graffiti was whitewashed, the disappointment spread beyond the city’s artistic community.
video/106705/
What should have been an inspiration and focal point for the city was now a cultural embarrassment.
But the vandalism of the graffiti has started a serious debate about whether or not Banksy’s work is art or an eyesore.
To give people the chance to see the image and also continue the discussion, a local advertising company is taking Banksy to the city centre today.
Using bikes with full-sized billboards, LowRyders Advertising will be displaying a giant poster of the mural and asking shoppers and workers the question: “Banksy in Southampton: art or graffiti?”
The picture of the mural was donated by the Daily Echo. We are preserving the Banksy image digitally.
His work will be on display at Guildhall Square from midday and then move to outside The Marlands at 1pm. From 5pm the bikes will be outside the Bargate and at various traffic junctions around the area over the coming days.
Comments(51)
stmarysmush
says...
10:39am Thu 16 Dec 10
Rudie
says...
11:14am Thu 16 Dec 10
Let the middle class art community cry about it, the people that know graffiti are used to having there efforts ignored, rubbished and rubbed out.
The art community in Southampton should get creative, not idolise someone that attempts to defy idolisation!
Scrutinizer
says...
12:19pm Thu 16 Dec 10
iff, sniff, it was another publicity stunt job! 'Never'!
SpittingFire
says...
1:07pm Thu 16 Dec 10
.
"The picture of the mural was donated by the Daily Echo. We are preserving the Banksy image digitally. " Nice to blow your own trumpet however...
.
There is more than one picture of this image available, just look at Flickr. You arn't the only saviours you claim in preserving the artwork digitally at all.
.
Just look at the first way you covered this story, based on monetary value and if the Council had ownership of it, nothing on the context of the artwork itself. And as a letter to the paper proved, that the Echo was wrong to state that public art was property of the Council.
.
Nice to see you try and backtrack Mr Murray, and jump on the Banksy bandwagon.
.
Really your photographer should be taking the credit for this picture too.
SpittingFire
says...
1:18pm Thu 16 Dec 10
StEmmosfire wrote:You are spot on StEmmosfire. This event is an attempt at opportunism. Whilst it's nice to gage the public interest, this lot in their actions also totally contradict many of the messages that Banksy puts out in his artwork. Just look at the adverts along the bottom of the Banksy picture on that billboard. This is disappointing indeed.
Right... Ok I like Banksy's work. But if you want to enjoy it go on the website of buy the book. If you really want to see art or get cultured this city has a great art gallery with fantastic paintings. Just go and visit. I'm sure the gallery could put up a large print of the work there before it was whitewashed.
freemantlegirl2
says...
1:22pm Thu 16 Dec 10
stmarysmush wrote:Firstly it was NOT a city wall, it was the wall of a homeowner who was happy to have it there
Glorifing graffiti cant be a good thing. If his work is so sort after let him paint all the inside walls of the civic centre.....then they would be protected and people could walk in there and admire them if they want. Personally catch him and lock him up with any other person defacing out city walls.
SEcondly, it's hardly terrible vandalism it's art with a message although I appreciate 'art' is subjective to individuals.
Thirdly, this is DEFINITELY a Banksy piece, it's on his website.
Four, if it's not harming you and others like it, appreciate the message, appreciate Banksy and it was on a private wall then what harm is it doing? god there are some complete killjoys around this city, how close Banksy is when it comes to predicting their futures! a lack of imagination, pride in their city, appreciation of others' views......
freemantlegirl2
says...
1:30pm Thu 16 Dec 10
He can't get work anywhere else so he comes to the Echo and what is his connection with Southampton and surrounding areas exactly?
Jim Davidson's views on politics - hmmmmm absolutely fascinating...
SpittingFire
says...
1:30pm Thu 16 Dec 10
Rudie wrote:Yes Rudie, in another Echo report after the whitewashing, the owner of the property that the art was on had always planned to sell if off anyway. Saying it was like having a suitcase stuffed full with 20k left outside his house and for someone to only take it away from him overnight. Kicking himself he was, at not covering the piece in time.
Banksy is all good but this piece was rubbish. I like that it was whitewashed, wouldn't be my style though.
Let the middle class art community cry about it, the people that know graffiti are used to having there efforts ignored, rubbished and rubbed out.
The art community in Southampton should get creative, not idolise someone that attempts to defy idolisation!
.
So in that respect it was better to have this artwork come and go. Then to have it in the hands of opportunists. However in this report, we see others having a go instead!
SpittingFire
says...
1:32pm Thu 16 Dec 10
freemantlegirl2 wrote:FREEMANTLE GIRL! WE ARE ON THE SAME LINES ON THAT COLUMN! I tried to post a comment but the Echo then shut the comment posting off...
and while I'm on my soapbox WHAT ON EARTH is the Echo thinking having Jim Davidson as a columnist???? they really are plunging to a complete low and I guess from the lack of 'comment' column that they have predicted already that this loser won't be popular.....
He can't get work anywhere else so he comes to the Echo and what is his connection with Southampton and surrounding areas exactly?
Jim Davidson's views on politics - hmmmmm absolutely fascinating...
SpittingFire
says...
1:38pm Thu 16 Dec 10
freemantlegirl2 wrote:I had written up a great piece slanging that news exactly the same as what you've said here. Only to find that it lost and I couldn't put it in with the comments section withdrawn. The very idea of having such a column, to have it slopped in with the hard-work that the reporters put into the news side of the paper, is an absolute insult to them and to the public.
and while I'm on my soapbox WHAT ON EARTH is the Echo thinking having Jim Davidson as a columnist???? they really are plunging to a complete low and I guess from the lack of 'comment' column that they have predicted already that this loser won't be popular.....
He can't get work anywhere else so he comes to the Echo and what is his connection with Southampton and surrounding areas exactly?
Jim Davidson's views on politics - hmmmmm absolutely fascinating...
.
Why on earth has Ian Murray decided to employ this man, is unbelievable. It shows that Murray is now deliberate taking the mickey out of his newspaper, it's hardworking reporters, and its public that reads it. Disgraceful.
freemantlegirl2
says...
1:42pm Thu 16 Dec 10
SpittingFire wrote:I agree 100%. Whilst I don't believe in censorship this is just a joke. This guy is a perpetrator of racism, domestic violence and whilst he has given up alcohol - if people want to read his trash they can buy his book/DVD or whatever... why have it on our local paper.
freemantlegirl2 wrote:I had written up a great piece slanging that news exactly the same as what you've said here. Only to find that it lost and I couldn't put it in with the comments section withdrawn. The very idea of having such a column, to have it slopped in with the hard-work that the reporters put into the news side of the paper, is an absolute insult to them and to the public.
and while I'm on my soapbox WHAT ON EARTH is the Echo thinking having Jim Davidson as a columnist???? they really are plunging to a complete low and I guess from the lack of 'comment' column that they have predicted already that this loser won't be popular.....
He can't get work anywhere else so he comes to the Echo and what is his connection with Southampton and surrounding areas exactly?
Jim Davidson's views on politics - hmmmmm absolutely fascinating...
.
Why on earth has Ian Murray decided to employ this man, is unbelievable. It shows that Murray is now deliberate taking the mickey out of his newspaper, it's hardworking reporters, and its public that reads it. Disgraceful.
When I see Ian I shall be asking him those very questions!!! absolutely idiotic move - whoever, the owners or Ian made it....
What next? Dylan from the Magic Roundabout's views on drugs??? lol
SpittingFire
says...
1:56pm Thu 16 Dec 10
freemantlegirl2 wrote:Did you see the first entry online? About his wives, and his blatant attempt at self-promotion? What a load of utter cr*p To have this man "on the team" with his self-opinionated grumblings inflicted into print, for someone somewhere to feel it's worth going into this newspaper, is a disgrace.
SpittingFire wrote:I agree 100%. Whilst I don't believe in censorship this is just a joke. This guy is a perpetrator of racism, domestic violence and whilst he has given up alcohol - if people want to read his trash they can buy his book/DVD or whatever... why have it on our local paper.
freemantlegirl2 wrote:I had written up a great piece slanging that news exactly the same as what you've said here. Only to find that it lost and I couldn't put it in with the comments section withdrawn. The very idea of having such a column, to have it slopped in with the hard-work that the reporters put into the news side of the paper, is an absolute insult to them and to the public.
and while I'm on my soapbox WHAT ON EARTH is the Echo thinking having Jim Davidson as a columnist???? they really are plunging to a complete low and I guess from the lack of 'comment' column that they have predicted already that this loser won't be popular.....
He can't get work anywhere else so he comes to the Echo and what is his connection with Southampton and surrounding areas exactly?
Jim Davidson's views on politics - hmmmmm absolutely fascinating...
.
Why on earth has Ian Murray decided to employ this man, is unbelievable. It shows that Murray is now deliberate taking the mickey out of his newspaper, it's hardworking reporters, and its public that reads it. Disgraceful.
When I see Ian I shall be asking him those very questions!!! absolutely idiotic move - whoever, the owners or Ian made it....
What next? Dylan from the Magic Roundabout's views on drugs??? lol
SpittingFire
says...
1:57pm Thu 16 Dec 10
freemantlegirl2
says...
2:02pm Thu 16 Dec 10
SpittingFire wrote:Agreed, and that IS censorship!!
It's also such a trick that you and I freemantlegirl can't actually discuss this issue on that actual news story itself, as we've been prohibited!
No, wouldn't read it SF as I'm just not interested in his bitter, self-important ramblings of someone who's a showbiz dropout of his own making.... pathetic... I read something from one of his wives once and it was very shocking...... he obviously hasn't changed that much if he's still bleating on about how hard his lot is....
SpittingFire
says...
2:15pm Thu 16 Dec 10
freemantlegirl2 wrote:Yes absolutely. Why on earth someone took the decision to remove the comment entry option there I would really like to know. A deliberate attempt to mask the public reaction to this new addition to the paper. Because this addition is downright ludicrous!
SpittingFire wrote:Agreed, and that IS censorship!!
It's also such a trick that you and I freemantlegirl can't actually discuss this issue on that actual news story itself, as we've been prohibited!
No, wouldn't read it SF as I'm just not interested in his bitter, self-important ramblings of someone who's a showbiz dropout of his own making.... pathetic... I read something from one of his wives once and it was very shocking...... he obviously hasn't changed that much if he's still bleating on about how hard his lot is....
.
Yes, I agree I was so horrified when first seeing that he was writing a column here, I had to read on for why, and there is a snippet of the content there.
.
It will be the LAST and ONLY time I get drawn into reading such trash again. I shall boycott purchasing the paper on a Thursday now too. It is so nice to see that someone else here shares my view on this.
.
There are staff working very hard to give us a quality newspaper but this sort of addition and censorship of the public reaction, just flies in the face of it all.
southy
says...
2:26pm Thu 16 Dec 10
SpittingFire wrote:read the signs, not just this news paper but all those that who help murdock to control the news on what you hear read and see in the news media, its working on a old idea of mass control and to push people ideas to the far right more than it is.
freemantlegirl2 wrote:Yes absolutely. Why on earth someone took the decision to remove the comment entry option there I would really like to know. A deliberate attempt to mask the public reaction to this new addition to the paper. Because this addition is downright ludicrous!
SpittingFire wrote:Agreed, and that IS censorship!!
It's also such a trick that you and I freemantlegirl can't actually discuss this issue on that actual news story itself, as we've been prohibited!
No, wouldn't read it SF as I'm just not interested in his bitter, self-important ramblings of someone who's a showbiz dropout of his own making.... pathetic... I read something from one of his wives once and it was very shocking...... he obviously hasn't changed that much if he's still bleating on about how hard his lot is....
.
Yes, I agree I was so horrified when first seeing that he was writing a column here, I had to read on for why, and there is a snippet of the content there.
.
It will be the LAST and ONLY time I get drawn into reading such trash again. I shall boycott purchasing the paper on a Thursday now too. It is so nice to see that someone else here shares my view on this.
.
There are staff working very hard to give us a quality newspaper but this sort of addition and censorship of the public reaction, just flies in the face of it all.
SpittingFire
says...
2:29pm Thu 16 Dec 10
southy wrote:Is Gannett part of Merdoch's empire? I could not establish that fact Southy. But I certainly have tried to research it.
SpittingFire wrote:read the signs, not just this news paper but all those that who help murdock to control the news on what you hear read and see in the news media, its working on a old idea of mass control and to push people ideas to the far right more than it is.
freemantlegirl2 wrote:Yes absolutely. Why on earth someone took the decision to remove the comment entry option there I would really like to know. A deliberate attempt to mask the public reaction to this new addition to the paper. Because this addition is downright ludicrous!
SpittingFire wrote:Agreed, and that IS censorship!!
It's also such a trick that you and I freemantlegirl can't actually discuss this issue on that actual news story itself, as we've been prohibited!
No, wouldn't read it SF as I'm just not interested in his bitter, self-important ramblings of someone who's a showbiz dropout of his own making.... pathetic... I read something from one of his wives once and it was very shocking...... he obviously hasn't changed that much if he's still bleating on about how hard his lot is....
.
Yes, I agree I was so horrified when first seeing that he was writing a column here, I had to read on for why, and there is a snippet of the content there.
.
It will be the LAST and ONLY time I get drawn into reading such trash again. I shall boycott purchasing the paper on a Thursday now too. It is so nice to see that someone else here shares my view on this.
.
There are staff working very hard to give us a quality newspaper but this sort of addition and censorship of the public reaction, just flies in the face of it all.
SOULJACKER
says...
2:34pm Thu 16 Dec 10
Nick, Nick!
SpittingFire
says...
2:35pm Thu 16 Dec 10
SpittingFire
says...
2:41pm Thu 16 Dec 10
SOULJACKER wrote:Yeah souljacker, it's criminal!
Jim Davidson, class!
Nick, Nick!
southy
says...
2:43pm Thu 16 Dec 10
SpittingFire wrote:dont think they are, the connection is the news agency that is owned by murdoch, where news papers tv news and radio news get most of there news from, news is controlled by right wing capitalist.
southy wrote:Is Gannett part of Merdoch's empire? I could not establish that fact Southy. But I certainly have tried to research it.
SpittingFire wrote:read the signs, not just this news paper but all those that who help murdock to control the news on what you hear read and see in the news media, its working on a old idea of mass control and to push people ideas to the far right more than it is.
freemantlegirl2 wrote:Yes absolutely. Why on earth someone took the decision to remove the comment entry option there I would really like to know. A deliberate attempt to mask the public reaction to this new addition to the paper. Because this addition is downright ludicrous!
SpittingFire wrote:Agreed, and that IS censorship!!
It's also such a trick that you and I freemantlegirl can't actually discuss this issue on that actual news story itself, as we've been prohibited!
No, wouldn't read it SF as I'm just not interested in his bitter, self-important ramblings of someone who's a showbiz dropout of his own making.... pathetic... I read something from one of his wives once and it was very shocking...... he obviously hasn't changed that much if he's still bleating on about how hard his lot is....
.
Yes, I agree I was so horrified when first seeing that he was writing a column here, I had to read on for why, and there is a snippet of the content there.
.
It will be the LAST and ONLY time I get drawn into reading such trash again. I shall boycott purchasing the paper on a Thursday now too. It is so nice to see that someone else here shares my view on this.
.
There are staff working very hard to give us a quality newspaper but this sort of addition and censorship of the public reaction, just flies in the face of it all.
money talks.
SpittingFire
says...
2:54pm Thu 16 Dec 10
southy wrote:Not them all though, surely Southy!
SpittingFire wrote:dont think they are, the connection is the news agency that is owned by murdoch, where news papers tv news and radio news get most of there news from, news is controlled by right wing capitalist.
southy wrote:Is Gannett part of Merdoch's empire? I could not establish that fact Southy. But I certainly have tried to research it.
SpittingFire wrote:read the signs, not just this news paper but all those that who help murdock to control the news on what you hear read and see in the news media, its working on a old idea of mass control and to push people ideas to the far right more than it is.
freemantlegirl2 wrote:Yes absolutely. Why on earth someone took the decision to remove the comment entry option there I would really like to know. A deliberate attempt to mask the public reaction to this new addition to the paper. Because this addition is downright ludicrous!
SpittingFire wrote:Agreed, and that IS censorship!!
It's also such a trick that you and I freemantlegirl can't actually discuss this issue on that actual news story itself, as we've been prohibited!
No, wouldn't read it SF as I'm just not interested in his bitter, self-important ramblings of someone who's a showbiz dropout of his own making.... pathetic... I read something from one of his wives once and it was very shocking...... he obviously hasn't changed that much if he's still bleating on about how hard his lot is....
.
Yes, I agree I was so horrified when first seeing that he was writing a column here, I had to read on for why, and there is a snippet of the content there.
.
It will be the LAST and ONLY time I get drawn into reading such trash again. I shall boycott purchasing the paper on a Thursday now too. It is so nice to see that someone else here shares my view on this.
.
There are staff working very hard to give us a quality newspaper but this sort of addition and censorship of the public reaction, just flies in the face of it all.
money talks.
southy
says...
3:11pm Thu 16 Dec 10
SpittingFire wrote:99% of them are, there only one english news paper that will not deal with news agency. and thats the daily morning star,
southy wrote:Not them all though, surely Southy!
SpittingFire wrote:dont think they are, the connection is the news agency that is owned by murdoch, where news papers tv news and radio news get most of there news from, news is controlled by right wing capitalist.
southy wrote:Is Gannett part of Merdoch's empire? I could not establish that fact Southy. But I certainly have tried to research it.
SpittingFire wrote:read the signs, not just this news paper but all those that who help murdock to control the news on what you hear read and see in the news media, its working on a old idea of mass control and to push people ideas to the far right more than it is.
freemantlegirl2 wrote:Yes absolutely. Why on earth someone took the decision to remove the comment entry option there I would really like to know. A deliberate attempt to mask the public reaction to this new addition to the paper. Because this addition is downright ludicrous!
SpittingFire wrote:Agreed, and that IS censorship!!
It's also such a trick that you and I freemantlegirl can't actually discuss this issue on that actual news story itself, as we've been prohibited!
No, wouldn't read it SF as I'm just not interested in his bitter, self-important ramblings of someone who's a showbiz dropout of his own making.... pathetic... I read something from one of his wives once and it was very shocking...... he obviously hasn't changed that much if he's still bleating on about how hard his lot is....
.
Yes, I agree I was so horrified when first seeing that he was writing a column here, I had to read on for why, and there is a snippet of the content there.
.
It will be the LAST and ONLY time I get drawn into reading such trash again. I shall boycott purchasing the paper on a Thursday now too. It is so nice to see that someone else here shares my view on this.
.
There are staff working very hard to give us a quality newspaper but this sort of addition and censorship of the public reaction, just flies in the face of it all.
money talks.
(note daily morning star and not the daily star) and if you want to read this news paper you have to ask your news paper agent shop to get it in for you. the echo often prints stories from the sky news who are part of the murdoch news angency.
SpittingFire
says...
3:33pm Thu 16 Dec 10
.
This Echo get their stuff off of the newswires that would be of local interest, from the likes of the Press Association. They arn't copying Sky News, as Sky get their stuff from there too!
.
Murdoch's empire, The Sun, The Times, Sky etc. translates the wires how they see fit. And I know of their bias yes.
.
southy
says...
4:13pm Thu 16 Dec 10
SpittingFire wrote:heck yea, he owns the biggest news a agency there is and supply,s other news agency,s with there news, they even supply associated newspapers, with there news stories, whitch press association gets there news from.
Oh Southy! I know where Sky's at. It's part of Murdoch's media conglomerate, the News Corp. I don't know if he secretly has his hands inside the news agencies aswell that send out the newswires.
.
This Echo get their stuff off of the newswires that would be of local interest, from the likes of the Press Association. They arn't copying Sky News, as Sky get their stuff from there too!
.
Murdoch's empire, The Sun, The Times, Sky etc. translates the wires how they see fit. And I know of their bias yes.
.
look at also what his son james is up to, he wants to control what you hear and read and see on the internet, they all ready supply yahoo and msn news and control on what articles you can post on.
SpittingFire
says...
4:54pm Thu 16 Dec 10
.
The yahoo and MSN news stuff is rubbish, so don't worry. I don't read any of that.
.
On posting to articles, I would say you have a decent degree of freedom on this site to be able to work in your own cause from the back of the news stories because I get where you're coming from, and what you actively promote.
.
However, when I mention my disappointment that our political editior Matt Smith has done a cut 'n' paste job on his write-up yesterday from one of his collegues articles on that same subject, but altered with a word here and there to cover the latest news story, my comments are censored and completely wiped out.
southy
says...
5:32pm Thu 16 Dec 10
well matt smith is not really a political editior, he dont really have a clue about politics, like many on here money is more his game, made me smile with the jim davidson being a once a week writter, the thing is its to well known that davidson is very racist, good comedian and i can see him being a good political writter, a dangerous one maybe, he to extreme right wing.
southy
says...
5:34pm Thu 16 Dec 10
SpittingFire
says...
6:20pm Thu 16 Dec 10
southy wrote:Well you see Southy, unlike yourself I was not around to see this transformation and Thatcher's reign either. I wasn't even born until well into the 80's so I have only retrospective material to go on of that time. I've read a bit on it though but unlike yourself I lack the experience or expertise on such matters as I've not actually lived through it.
nothing secret about it. it was all done in the open, but its been a slow process so no one would take mach notice, and think nothing off it, this all started back in the 80's remember wapping that,s where it all started off for us here in the uk. the moving of news by the sun group from fleet street to wapping. but yes most national and international news is tailored way before media out lets get it.
well matt smith is not really a political editior, he dont really have a clue about politics, like many on here money is more his game, made me smile with the jim davidson being a once a week writter, the thing is its to well known that davidson is very racist, good comedian and i can see him being a good political writter, a dangerous one maybe, he to extreme right wing.
.
"money is more his game" you do make me laugh with that one southy! It would seem so. When our political reporter is out campaigning for better pay and then comes back and gives us a repeat version of someone else's work well, it is unfornate for us the readers indeed. I would ask whether that sort of reporting is really worthy of a pay rise.
.
And don't let that Davidson make you smile southy. Don't encouage the bloke. As just as you've said, none of it's going to be good or worth reading! How the hell has that man got himself into this paper is what I'd like to know!
SOULJACKER
says...
9:42pm Thu 16 Dec 10
SpittingFire wrote:Sorry, I really must bow my head in complete & utter shame, but you have to admit, this lot go on about some complete & utter rubbish.
SOULJACKER wrote:Yeah souljacker, it's criminal!
Jim Davidson, class!
Nick, Nick!
They are negative about everything written, nothing is ever good or well done:-)
Condor Man
says...
10:38pm Thu 16 Dec 10
Scrutinizer
says...
1:19am Fri 17 Dec 10
Condor Man wrote:Well if the Echo had provided a public comment facility somewhere on their web site to comment on someone as controversial as Jim Davidson, and especially as he is writing for them, then they wouldn't get comments on this story page (and possibly others) relating to him. I've looked everywhere on their web site, including searching via his name, and they just have not done so. That is not acceptable to some of us Daily Echo web site readers. Yes, I'm afraid it's just too bad, but it's primarily and simply down to the Echo's unacceptable lack of provision to comment on him. And I'm about to comment further in another comment after this one! But in the meantime, did you hear the one about the washed up 'comedian' who couldn't get his own column space anywhere, until the Daily Echo offered him a chance to hang himself out to dry?
How did a post about Banksy become a debate on Rupert Murdoch and Jim Davidson?
Scrutinizer
says...
1:34am Fri 17 Dec 10
southy
says...
1:46am Fri 17 Dec 10
SpittingFire wrote:you do realise that a few of the jorno's crossed the picket line, not all went on strike, and those that did cross the picket line got paid extra.
southy wrote:Well you see Southy, unlike yourself I was not around to see this transformation and Thatcher's reign either. I wasn't even born until well into the 80's so I have only retrospective material to go on of that time. I've read a bit on it though but unlike yourself I lack the experience or expertise on such matters as I've not actually lived through it.
nothing secret about it. it was all done in the open, but its been a slow process so no one would take mach notice, and think nothing off it, this all started back in the 80's remember wapping that,s where it all started off for us here in the uk. the moving of news by the sun group from fleet street to wapping. but yes most national and international news is tailored way before media out lets get it.
well matt smith is not really a political editior, he dont really have a clue about politics, like many on here money is more his game, made me smile with the jim davidson being a once a week writter, the thing is its to well known that davidson is very racist, good comedian and i can see him being a good political writter, a dangerous one maybe, he to extreme right wing.
.
"money is more his game" you do make me laugh with that one southy! It would seem so. When our political reporter is out campaigning for better pay and then comes back and gives us a repeat version of someone else's work well, it is unfornate for us the readers indeed. I would ask whether that sort of reporting is really worthy of a pay rise.
.
And don't let that Davidson make you smile southy. Don't encouage the bloke. As just as you've said, none of it's going to be good or worth reading! How the hell has that man got himself into this paper is what I'd like to know!
SpittingFire
says...
7:41am Fri 17 Dec 10
Scrutinizer wrote:ABSOLUTELY SPOT ON FREEMANTLEGIRL!
Condor Man wrote:Well if the Echo had provided a public comment facility somewhere on their web site to comment on someone as controversial as Jim Davidson, and especially as he is writing for them, then they wouldn't get comments on this story page (and possibly others) relating to him. I've looked everywhere on their web site, including searching via his name, and they just have not done so. That is not acceptable to some of us Daily Echo web site readers. Yes, I'm afraid it's just too bad, but it's primarily and simply down to the Echo's unacceptable lack of provision to comment on him. And I'm about to comment further in another comment after this one! But in the meantime, did you hear the one about the washed up 'comedian' who couldn't get his own column space anywhere, until the Daily Echo offered him a chance to hang himself out to dry?
How did a post about Banksy become a debate on Rupert Murdoch and Jim Davidson?
SpittingFire
says...
7:52am Fri 17 Dec 10
Scrutinizer wrote:Spot on as well Scrutinizer. Add to the fact that the comment option was open when I went on that story and as I put my comment through, I then realised that the option was suddenly closed and my comment was not displayed. How P!ssed off was I at wasting my time in typing it up only to find that I could not air my view.
Yes, freemantlegirl2, I comletely agree with you on this one. And as I commented previously on here, if the Echo had provided a public comment facility somewhere on their web site to comment on someone as controversial as Jim Davidson, and especially as he is writing for them, then they wouldn't get comments on this story page (and possibly others) relating to him. Would they? I like a good mix of different views on politics etc, I really do, but having this guy at the Echo, is as you say; "plunging to a complete low" and really scraping the barrel while they're at it too! In fact I have now decided I am not going to buy the echo so long as he is with them.
.
I thoroughly commend you that you will no longer buy your copy of the Echo until he is gone. I said I will boycott it on a Thursday for the same reason. But with this and Murray's part in the gross negligence over the Spitfire competition and add to that our Matt Smith, Journalist of the Year 2009 copy job on Wednesday, I'm sad to say that I'm sorely tempted as you are, to boycott purchasing this paper until this man (JD) is out of here.
SpittingFire
says...
7:59am Fri 17 Dec 10
southy wrote:Of course Southy. But I know that our political reporter was not one of those, because I can see the guy in the picket line photos!
SpittingFire wrote:you do realise that a few of the jorno's crossed the picket line, not all went on strike, and those that did cross the picket line got paid extra.
southy wrote:Well you see Southy, unlike yourself I was not around to see this transformation and Thatcher's reign either. I wasn't even born until well into the 80's so I have only retrospective material to go on of that time. I've read a bit on it though but unlike yourself I lack the experience or expertise on such matters as I've not actually lived through it.
nothing secret about it. it was all done in the open, but its been a slow process so no one would take mach notice, and think nothing off it, this all started back in the 80's remember wapping that,s where it all started off for us here in the uk. the moving of news by the sun group from fleet street to wapping. but yes most national and international news is tailored way before media out lets get it.
well matt smith is not really a political editior, he dont really have a clue about politics, like many on here money is more his game, made me smile with the jim davidson being a once a week writter, the thing is its to well known that davidson is very racist, good comedian and i can see him being a good political writter, a dangerous one maybe, he to extreme right wing.
.
"money is more his game" you do make me laugh with that one southy! It would seem so. When our political reporter is out campaigning for better pay and then comes back and gives us a repeat version of someone else's work well, it is unfornate for us the readers indeed. I would ask whether that sort of reporting is really worthy of a pay rise.
.
And don't let that Davidson make you smile southy. Don't encouage the bloke. As just as you've said, none of it's going to be good or worth reading! How the hell has that man got himself into this paper is what I'd like to know!
.
I did not know that the scabs got paid extra, where on earth did you get that one from southy?!
.
If that is true. I am going to be so furious... I can't tell you... with what I already know of the management here... I honestly don't think I can take much more.
SpittingFire
says...
8:29am Fri 17 Dec 10
Scrutinizer wrote:Just think how much page space is that man is going to take up, I ask you! I mean of all the possible more worthy things that could have gone in that space... an insult, it most certainly is.
Condor Man wrote:Well if the Echo had provided a public comment facility somewhere on their web site to comment on someone as controversial as Jim Davidson, and especially as he is writing for them, then they wouldn't get comments on this story page (and possibly others) relating to him. I've looked everywhere on their web site, including searching via his name, and they just have not done so. That is not acceptable to some of us Daily Echo web site readers. Yes, I'm afraid it's just too bad, but it's primarily and simply down to the Echo's unacceptable lack of provision to comment on him. And I'm about to comment further in another comment after this one! But in the meantime, did you hear the one about the washed up 'comedian' who couldn't get his own column space anywhere, until the Daily Echo offered him a chance to hang himself out to dry?
How did a post about Banksy become a debate on Rupert Murdoch and Jim Davidson?
.
To employ that man, to pay him for this job, I do believe this is an attempt at vengeance from the Echo establishment for their NUJ Journo's campaign for fair pay.
.
To see that the Echo would much rather shell out on this controversial has-been than pay their journo's a bit more fairly, AND not to mention the total disregard for its readership in all this too... to hell with the readers I hear Murray cry! It is pretty obvious what's going on here.
.
DISGRACE!
SpittingFire
says...
8:39am Fri 17 Dec 10
Condor Man wrote:Well, I was going on about the Banksy, then Freemantlegirl piped up about the JD thing, which I had just moments before saw red about myself. I found amazing to see that someone else had unearthed this horror at the same time, the lack of comment section etc... and it escalated from there.
How did a post about Banksy become a debate on Rupert Murdoch and Jim Davidson?
.
Then southy, in true Southy style came in and offered his resolution to the JD thing, taking on the wider picture: the real deal about the press...
St Retford
says...
10:06am Fri 17 Dec 10
.
*Sad face*
Avery T Decanary
says...
10:09am Fri 17 Dec 10
St Retford
says...
10:22am Fri 17 Dec 10
SaintsBiker
says...
10:38am Fri 17 Dec 10
SaintsBiker
says...
10:40am Fri 17 Dec 10
SpittingFire
says...
11:53am Fri 17 Dec 10
St Retford wrote:Well said St Retford! Do you know what I love. I love the fact that someone somewhere has featured this Banksy story, yesterday's story that fell down quite a bit off the list yesterday anyway, very well indeed on the homepage of the Echo today.
I slag off Jim Davidson because he is a racist, homophobic, sexist, small-minded and, obove all, unfunny little git. Furthermore, I would like to know how many reporters' salaries could have been paid out of the money he's getting for his awful column which serves neither to entertain nor inform.
.
And do you know what else I've found... I've found an Echo interview with Davidson by Paula Thompson from 2008. I really didn't want to bother myself with reading it, but it does show you the attitudes of this man.
.
Also, I find it hilarious! Just read what he says here:
"When I’m called racist or sexist I just ignore it. If I see an article in the Telegraph or something, saying I’m racist that’s when I’ll worry, but people usually get their opinion from some fat bird’s newspaper column"
.
WHO'S THAT FAT BIRD NOW THEN! TO QUOTE FREEMANTLEGIRL EARLIER, WHO'S THAT FAT BIRD WHO'S GONNA HANG THEMSELVES OUT TO DRY!
.
http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/leisure/stage
/stageinterviews/371
4748.Offensive__Who_
me_/
.
What a joke!
SpittingFire
says...
12:13pm Fri 17 Dec 10
Avery T Decanary wrote:We've been pointing out that we cannot air our views on the withdrawal of the comment section on the relevant story.
I can’t believe some of the hypocrisy on here. On the one hand we have Banksy, some people call it vandalism, others call it art – and they slag off the people who say its vandalism. Presumably its freedom of expression. Then these same people slag off Jim Davidson, in all probability because he does not conform to their idea of being socially correct. Personally I can take him or leave, but the bottom line is he is extremely popular (like Banksy), he does an incredible amount of work for no pay for Service personnel and service charities, but because he does not conform to your ideals, he is slagged off.
.
We've been asking ourselves how can it be possible that a self-opinionated column by such a controversial figure can get put into this newspaper.
.
We've been questioning why someone somewhere feels this the quality content that should go into our Daily Echo.
.
It is a waste of page space. What a waste of money, to pay him for the privilege. We see in his first column for example, the blatant self-promotion of this man, and that he is such a narcissist. Who cares where he got his wives from, the local public certainly don't.
.
Is it graffiti or is it art?
.
Jim Davidson's scrawls will certainly defecate our Daily Echo, you can certainly be assured of that.
SpittingFire
says...
12:19pm Fri 17 Dec 10
SaintsBiker wrote:Mr Sidhu, the owner of the wall (and property) was quoted in the paper saying that he wanted to sell it off until it was destroyed. So if that had happened, if he had his way, it may well never have stayed in Southampton in the end anyway.
Its ribbish, get rid of all this stuff. It just encourages other to spray paint evrywhere. The Council are stupid to now say its a draw to the city, why not do something with it when it appeared. Its was only good art when linked to the sray paint bloke
.
Far better in that respect that the fortune of this artwork has turned out the way it has.
SpittingFire
says...
12:53pm Fri 17 Dec 10
.
Is it graffiti or is it art?
.
Here's a nice wiki quote on what graffiti is: "Sometimes graffiti expresses social and political messages and a whole genre of artistic expression is based upon spray paint graffiti styles."
.
Is it graffiti or is it art? The answer is obvious. As Banksy is well respected in the art world, pretty clear his work is both.
.
jimbobbo
says...
2:01pm Fri 17 Dec 10
Scrutinizer wrote:You obviously aren't familiar with Banksy's secret operation then?
I disagree with graffiti anyway, but Banksy (assuming it can be proved that it actually was his effort) is surely exposing himself to prosecution by doing this kind of thing? Oh, sorry, but it was 'worth' many thousands of pounds and involves pretentious, self- important, arty-**** people, doesn't it?! Anyway, how the idiot owner of that wall never imagined that that work of 'art' would not be improved...er...I mean (not really!) spoilt (!) as soon as it was done, is beyond belief...unless...sn
iff, sniff, it was another publicity stunt job! 'Never'!
Amusedonlooker
says...
5:10pm Fri 17 Dec 10
Gives a bit more character to dull run-down places.
StEmmosfire says...
10:16am Thu 16 Dec 10