Monday, 18 February 2013

Great Wall of Ramsgate pictures damaged


I have just picked up the news from Facebook that the paintings on the Great Wall of Ramsgate have been defaced by someone with a paint roller.

This link take you to pictures of the pictures before they were defaced http://www.michaelsbookshop.com/411/id7.htm

I would guess that this is a reaction to the anti Royal Sands graffiti that appeared on part of the wall where there are no pictures. 

27 comments:

  1. Very sad, though it's perhaps surprising that they've lasted this long without being vandalised. Having said that, graffiti seems to be on the decline in most places (certainly 5 to 10 years ago there was much more of it around here in Westbrook).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They have had some very minor damage over the past three years. However, on the whole the display has been respected by young and admired by many. I visited the scene of destruction this evening to find an elderly lady crying at the scene before her. Assuming she was an artist I tried to comfort her with words of support. Turned out she walked along there everyday just to look at the pictures, because they made her smile! She wasn't an artist, just someone affected by this mindless act.

      Delete
  2. Well done, Ian Driver, for his encouragement of the graffiti vandals was always going to end in tears. The idea that such criminals, for criminal it is, could be trusted to confine their activities to a blank piece of wall was flawed from the outset. Wonder if he will cough up out of his own pocket to make good the damage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This could just as easily be someone who doesn't like Ian's campaigning and is therefore trying to make him look bad.

      Delete
    2. ... and the fact that they've used a roller makes me suspect that it's someone in the building trade rather than "only" a random vandal.

      Delete
    3. Peter, please, anyone can buy a roller in any one of a dozen shops in Thanet so why a builder. As for discrediting the Driver campaign, well you may be right, but it was always a very stupid thing for a councillor to do to encourage graffiti, a criminal damage activity, in the first place. You cannot control the mob once you let them loose.

      Delete
    4. There are a couple of pictures on facebook and I will try to get some that I can publish here tomorrow, large Rs applied with a paint roller nothing at all like the graffiti one would associate with protestors or the existing graffiti.

      The usual vandal with a spray can yes, with a tin of paint and a roller does seem a bit unlikely, not easy to pin on the youf of today really.

      Delete
    5. Tom I would take a deep breath on this one and think about it, given say the political left or a mindless vandal considering a bit of graffiti and going into a shop in Ramsgate that sold paint. Spray can or tin of paint, roller and possibly a roller tray, and then what sort of political activist or yob would chose white paint.

      Delete
    6. Let's hope there was CCTV or witnesses so that we find out.

      Delete
    7. I didn't realise there were still a dozen shops in Thanet....

      Delete
    8. Ross you would definitely get cheap paint brushes in the £ shop and 99p shop probably spray paint too, although I don’t know. Wilkinsons and Ye Old Lock Shop, would sell rollers, tins of paint and spray paint.

      Strange really I get a certain amount of graffiti on the book shop, back and front, mostly spray, occasionally brush or felt tip, never roller, the roller is the favourite tool for covering it up.

      Delete
    9. Add Harringtons, Wickes, B & Q, Homebase, Asda and a few builders merchants and it ain't too difficult to get a roller. Still does not change the fact that it is pretty irresponsible for a district councillor to encourage graffiti and he can hardly be exonerated from all blame when some vandal takes it too far.

      Delete
  3. What a card you are, Peter, how can anyone make Driver look any worse than he already does.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Look like they managed to 8.44, you don’t know anyone who doesn’t like Driver and keeps a paint roller in their van do you?

      Delete
    2. Which of several thousand do you want me to name, Anon.

      Delete
  4. It's a sabotage campaign against the good work of the friends of ramsgate seafront group who publicly condemn this act of vandalism. It's a campaign to make this group look bad. Hopefully the CCTV will detect who the culprit was and get them arrested. A sad day for Ramsgate indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Given that this is only a building site hoarding would it be reasonable to anticipate the same level of hysteria when (if) ) work is finally completed and the thing is torn down?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What's stopping the paintings being preserved?

      Delete
    2. Cost probably!

      Delete
    3. Of course, there is the argument that if the whole project had been managed correctly from the beginning then the wall would never have appeared in the first place....

      Delete
    4. Ross M,

      Precisely.

      But I have nothing but contempt for the vandal who vented their spite on the innocous work of a someone who was just seeking to cheer our life. Not doubt the vandal imagines themself to be some sort hard hitting activist. Which is risible.

      Delete
    5. Tim having looked at the various sets of plans, which went through different stages, starting with about an acre of corrugated tin roof, through a period where the developers agent promised sedum, which would have been some sort of plant roof like the new windfarm building at the port. The latest plans seem to be about an acre of corrugated grey rubber next to the bandstand area in front of Wellington Crescent.

      At one time the developer was going to produce some mock up pictures of what this would look like and consult with local people, the council planning department also promised that the pictures on the council’s planning website which are mock ups relating to the first set, tin roof plans, would be replaced with some that related to the latest plans.

      All of this came to nothing.

      Visually the difference between this and most other large developments is the roof is visible from above and it looks as though it is going to be about an acre of corrugated rubber.

      My guess is that when people see this in front of the listed buildings conservation area and public park, instead of a view of the sea and the beach there will be some hysteria and associated reactions.

      Delete
    6. Michael,

      The building must not be allowed go higher than the cliff top. I will join any protest to prevent this; and I would take part in any civil action.

      Delete
    7. John I assume you appreciate that the Labour cabinet, without the inclusion of full council in the decision process have already agreed that the development can go ahead if SFP can provide proof of funding.

      The current plans that the developer has started building the foundations to, are for a building that will extend above the cliff top for part of the length of the building, these plans and the survey showing the height of the cliff are all on the council’s planning website.

      The changes made under the previous administration didn’t stop the building from extending above the cliff top, they only reduce the amount it stands above the cliff top from 3 metres, down to about 1.5 although I would say the drawings have a tolerance of about 0.5 metres either way.

      Delete
    8. Michael,

      No, I did not know this. So the Labour administration has approved something that the majority of us would have rejected, had we known about it.

      This development has all the hallmarks of a squalid debacle which has been forced upon us by incompetent but venal pygmy politicians.

      This has been a shabby affair from the outset. I pray that one day the lid will be blown off. It seems that our only hope is for TDC to atone by getting rid of SFP and starting afresh with a proper grown up developer.

      If this building is to stand above the cliff top then it will offer an ideal canvas for graffiti. Which will appeal to at least one councillor.

      Delete
  6. Never mind all the political squabbling, this is just a very sad act carried by a moronic idiot that has despoiled something that gave a lot of people pleasure. The artwork was far more meaningful (and in some cases of a higher quality, I would argue) than much of that on display at the Turner and it is a real loss.

    ReplyDelete

Please note comments that may be libellous, comments that may be construed as offensive, anonymous derogatory comments about real people, comments baiting internet trolls, comments saying that an anonymous comment was made by a named real person, boring comments and spam comments, comments in CAPs will be deleted. Playground stuff like calling real people by their time stamp or surname alone, referring to groups as gangs, old duffers and so on will result in deletion. Comment that may be construed as offensive to minority groups is not allowed here either, so think before you write it, remember that the internet is a public place, that it is very difficult to be truly anonymous and that everyone who uses it leaves a trail of some sort. Also note the facility to leave anonymous comment will be turned of during periods when I am unable to monitor comment, this will not affect people commenting who are signed on to their blogger accounts. When things are particularly difficult on the commercial spam front I may turn comment moderation on for periods.

If you feel that someone has left a comment that is offensive and directed at you personally please email me (link on the sidebar) asking to have it removed, you will need to tell which post and the date and timestamp of the offending comment. Please do not reply to the offending comment as I will assume you continuing the dialogue as meaning that you want the comments left there.