http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-writings-on-the-wall--regrettably-20110828-1jgj9.html
Is the thought expressed in this link too harsh?
No!
We should avoid the Nanny state nonsense,forget the brutality claims in high sentences .
We demand a nanny state, live in one by popular demand.
Police and just about every public servant works to protect us.
Why are our busses trains bridges and walls covered with the efforts of social misfits.
Now the defense will come hurtling at me.
Talk,and some times true, of the fine works of art some do leave, with building owners even paying for it.
Notice however even those are tainted by the efforts of fools who can not resist.

We have some one charged with removing it and its gone the next day.
Our war memorial suffered last time poor writing worse spelling than mine.
And a challenge, the post code of the thugs doing it.
Seen elderly folks fences covered because they dared to say no.
Or a welcome to town/country artistic paid for and welcomed mural defaced in hours.
If its our kids we say give them a chance if its others we say give them time in prison.
Is harshness a deterrent? then is softness just promoting More?

Hey Belly,
I agree with you regarding the graffiti, it costs business owners and tax-payers big big money to have it removed., let alone trains, and goodness knows what else. Is there an excuse? no, I don't believe that there is.
Any graffiti artist caught by the authorities, should be dragged around the cities for a month, with a security person, and made to scrub it all off. If these twerps are so good at art, why don't they go out and find a job in the commercial art field?. A couple of big strong walls in places away from the public eye should be built, let the 'artists' fill it up, and clean it off again later, but then of course, it would take the thrill of illegal graffiti wouldn't it.?
Cheers my friend,
NSB

Belly:

You do not mention why this subject prompted your interest. My own opinion is firstly, I imagine the age group that indulge in Graffiti would be adolescents. Assuming that to be true, Graffiti is simply an outlet to them towards self-expression through art (of a type). No harm in artistic expression unless the “canvas” is taken from an unwilling donor: In which case the artist transgresses the barrier between right and wrong, to which a penalty applies; but illegally painted art does not necessarily bring universal condemnation!

Looking out the window of an electric train commuting through the suburbs of Sydney for example, one observes a vast array of graffiti in some of the most remarkable positions, most of which would be illegally placed. So it does appear that more than the artistic adornment of graffiti lies behind the endeavour. In the above example, placing the art in a dangerous but secure location ensures the long term existence of the art, to a large degree; indicating the importance of the work to the artist.

Under what heading would you classify the painting of murals on walls for example? To some amongst us, it’s graffiti. To me, its artistic adornment, usually of a previously boring wall. But I think the practise of spray painting “signature tags” which would probably account for most peoples description of graffiti, would rate low-down the list in the expression of artistic talent.

Cont:

Belly: Cont..

Just as the Labor party, in spite of their unpopularity, are still considered a political party, so too would “signature tag” artists rate in popularity. Another question is raised then, is it unfair to cast graffiti artists into categories? Under the law, no; since all unapproved art is labelled graffiti regardless of the quality, and is subject to the same penalty, (whatever that may be). Maybe then, the law should change to accept graffiti art considered appealing by consensus of the general public as legal; in other words, is not subject to complaint from the public, and all other art not considered so, be subject to penalty, if that art fails the public approval test, and if judged unsightly or offensive.

Belly, I'm with you on this one.

My opinion is we only have ourselves to blame for allowing the cane to be banished from our schools, because along with the cane, also went discipline.

Kids that do not respect even their parents will have no respect for anyone, or anything for that matter.

We faught hard against these changes but unfortunately, like many battles, we lost out to the do-gooders

Put simply, kids today, even big kids in their early 20's are untouchable, and they know it.

They cry foul, and all he'll breaks loose, even in the confines of their own home.

What chance do we have.