Pete G
|
Re: Graffiti at WKLB.
Mar 29, 2005, 17:38
|
With the amount of rain we are having the insides of WKLB will be nice and clean when it stops.
Mind you the floor will be in even more of a mess.
I see scribblings on the stones quite often. I once saw "Jesus is Victor" written across the top cap stone.
sigh
PeteG
|
LancsLass
|
Re: Graffiti at WKLB.
Mar 29, 2005, 23:00
|
|
whats all the fuss about? its done in chalk
|
FourWinds
|
Re: Graffiti at WKLB.
Mar 30, 2005, 06:50
|
Because chalk doesn't desolve in water and so will not wash off (even if done in a place where it's exposed to the elements). Removing it necessitates an abrasive procedure. Also, it's alkaline and disturbs the natural balance in which the resident lichens thrive. Also, it looks bloody ugly and other folks don't want to have their experiences at the stones ruined by someone's doodles, which makes it a very, very selfish act and the perp a very selfish and inconsiderate person - just like leaving assorted offerings and candles (i.e. litter!) at sites.
That's what's wrong with it. I'm sure there's otherreasons that make it wrong too, but any one of the above should be enough in its own right.
|
nigelswift
|
Swastikas
Mar 30, 2005, 07:54
|
Mike,
Nothing to do with marking stones.
You're big on swastikas. Backwards facing ancient ones that mean peace. You spend a lot of time explaining those aren't Nazi symbols, but good ones.
But tell me, what if a lot of people find it offensive, simply because they are put in mind of the Nazi symbol? In that case, is it really necessary to keep flaunting and promoting it? It's only a pattern after all. It's the concept of peace that matters. You could use the ban the bomb symbol instead, for instance, and get the message out much more clearly and cause offence to no-one.
Looked at like this, maybe, your mission to foist your idea that the backwards facing swastika should be "reclaimed" is actually a rather fascist act and the backwards facing swastika, like all symbols, has now changed in meaning?
|
LancsLass
|
Re: Graffiti at WKLB.
Mar 31, 2005, 12:52
|
quote:Because chalk doesn't desolve in water and so will not wash off (even if done in a place where it's exposed to the elements). Removing it necessitates an abrasive procedure.
You talk absolute rot Mr Fourwinds chalk washes away quite easily with a little water over a short time it does not need to disolve to do this and i never said it was right just seems to be a lot of fuss over nothing!
|
rocknicker
|
Re: Graffiti at WKLB.
Mar 31, 2005, 13:20
|
|
the action of actually rubbing a bit of stone over another causes some abrasion, even if it's soft.
|
Littlestone
|
Re: Graffiti at WKLB.
Mar 31, 2005, 13:57
|
You're kinda both right (you and FW).
A lot depends on the support (the surface to which a pigment or paint is applied such as canvas, paper, silk etc ). Chalk on a blackboard is going to wash off fairly easily because the blackboard's relatively smooth. Chalk on a sarsen stone is going to be more difficult to remove because it's been deposited in the micro cavities of a much rougher surface.
Fortunately chalk has little or no binder (an oil or animal protein etc which is used to bond the pigment together to form a paint) so solvents would not generally be required.
|
FourWinds
|
Re: Graffiti at WKLB.
Mar 31, 2005, 16:34
|
>> You talk absolute rot Mr Fourwinds chalk washes away quite easily
I didn't say it doesn't wash away did I? I might do, but may I refer you to this:
http://www.brewingtechniques.com/library/backissues/issue2.3/miller.html
"Carbonate and bicarbonate differ, however, in that bicarbonates are considerably more soluble than carbonates. <b>Calcium carbonate (chalk), for example, is only slightly soluble in neutral (pH 7) water </b>; calcium bicarbonate is considerably more soluble."
You see it doesn't desolve, but particles of it will get carried in the water. If it's on a rough rock surface then it gets stuck in the surface and can not get washed away, beacause sufficient water can't get behind it to lift it up and carry it away.
School chalk isn't actually pure chalk (or even actually chalk at all in some cases) and has bits added to it to make it disolve in water.
So, next time you say someone's talking rot make sure that they are, otherwise your amazing lack of knowledge might be noticed by a few people :-)
|
treaclechops
|
Re: Graffiti at WKLB.
Mar 31, 2005, 21:13
|
<i>'Though - is it something anyone can class as criminal? Or preventable?'</i>
This has raised an interesting discussion in our house. Kate says that to be classed as Criminal Damage, there would have to be a monetary value to putting the damage right, e.g. professional cleaning.
However, as it is unlikely the damage is permanent and would cost money to put right, this is probably not Criminal Damage. Also worth noting is that any defence solicitor worth their salt would point out that hordes of visitors brushing against the stones in the confined space would probably cause more damage than one person and a piece of chalk.
As everyone seems fairly affronted by the nature of the vandalism, <b>IF</b> you knew who the perpertrator was, Kate suggests you would probably be better to pursue them under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, which states:-
<i>"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he -
(a) uses threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harrassment, alarm or distress thereby."</i>
This applies because it was a swastika symbol, and the 'damage' is irrelevant.
But to be honest, too much agitation over this could possibly result in the site being closed to all comers . . . it was a stupid act, and shouldn't have been committed, but it would be sad if the minority caused the majority to be excluded. Those bloody tea-lights probably do more harm from smoke damage than any one person with a piece of chalk.
treaclechops & the Arresting Kate x
|
Hob
|
Re: Graffiti at WKLB.
Mar 31, 2005, 22:11
|
>to be classed as Criminal Damage, there would have to be a monetary value to putting the >damage right, e.g. professional cleaning.
Would that hold if the damage couldn't be put right by chucking money at it?
<sound of lone brain cell desperately trying to fire>
|
