This weird attempt to try and smear Banksy only highlights that the MoJ spent an absolute fortune washing a bit of paint off a wall from an artist much loved by most people.

[farbel@mas.to]

@TheBreadmonkey They could have made a whole lot more by selling it.

[fragarach@social.vivaldi.net]

@TheBreadmonkey

They may have washed it off, but I, for one, have a t-shirt with an image of that very appropriate mural.

[thebreadmonkey@beige.party]

Hi. We destroyed a piece of art because we are in it and don't like that it points out our widespread failings. We spent an absolutely obscene amount of money doing this. Everyone now feel sorry for us please.

[duncanbourne@c.im]

@TheBreadmonkey I was rather confused by the headline. Surely Banksy's work cost the taxpayers nothing. REMOVING Banksy's work cost 150k. Surely the story is... Removing it wasn't worth it?

[bashstkid@mastodon.online]

@TheBreadmonkey Tiny in comparison with the money wasted by the MoJ trying to fight Palestine Action.
Shouldn’t the BBC be mentioning that for the balance they’re so keen on?

[bencurthoys@mastodon.social]

@TheBreadmonkey spending £150,000 on failing to clean some paint off a wall is not the flex they evidently think it is. Rather, it's prima facie evidence of gross incompetence and everyone involved should be fired.

[geofcox@climatejustice.social]

@duncanbourne

I rather think the point of the misleading headline was to, well... mislead !

@TheBreadmonkey

[akki@toot.lgbt]

@TheBreadmonkey Every day the BBC proves it's ready for its position in the future fascist regime 🫠

[bazkie@beige.party]

@TheBreadmonkey I remember a time when the BBC was a respected media institution

[erebus_amauro@ohai.social]

@TheBreadmonkey "Being a bunch of dicks with Banksy's paintings costs the taxpayers £150.000"

[englram@troet.cafe]

@TheBreadmonkey
Meanwhile, people in #Turku #Finnland ( #Suomi ) pay an entrance fee to see his art:

https://www.mystery-banksy.fi/en/

Paying a fortune to remove a probably valuable piece of art seems to be part of what the artist intended to demonstrate - unappropriate application of power.

[fourt4@mastodonapp.uk]

@bencurthoys @TheBreadmonkey can someone tell them I'd have a go for £140,000.

[torf@c.im]

@TheBreadmonkey "is likely to reignite debate over whether Banksy's work is vandalism or valuable public art"
I believe the only question that should be reignited in such case is efficiency of spending the taxpayers money.

[cyberquixote@infosec.exchange]

@TheBreadmonkey they’re butthurt and they should be because an artist is doing a better job pointing out their shortcomings than they are

[icooiey@mastodon.green]

@TheBreadmonkey Now show the amount of £ generated by tourism to see Banksy art?

[luc0x61@mastodon.gamedev.place]

@TheBreadmonkey Taxpayers are really lucky, that such a ridicule expense brings in return so fine and timely art pieces.

[akamran@indieweb.social]

@TheBreadmonkey @trending they could have CHARGED ADMISSION TO SEE IT ffs (sorry for yelling)

[quietewe@urbanists.social]

@TheBreadmonkey On a street art tour in London, we passed a Banksy piece that the city had covered with plexiglass to preserve it…because they know Banksy’s work draws valuable tourism. I wonder what’s so different about piranhas on a police box or a magister beating a protester on a court wall I just can’t figure it out

(Also, they’re including £60k for *protecting* a different piece in that £150k?? Why does a statue need a security guard?)

[dtm@mastodon.cc]

@TheBreadmonkey @eco_amandine

Read the room just a little better. We like Banksy and don’t have any faith in the MoJ.

[nickiquote@mstdn.social]

@TheBreadmonkey My Aunt Dolly woulda done it for nuffink.