The court, or the judge, were only "bearing in mind" the value at which he was attempting to sell property stolen from the Hesperia hotel.

The case brought by the Crown Prosecution Service was against private property belonging to and stolen from the Hesperia hotel.

He should have been charged with a crime. He even should have been charged with stealing something valuable. But what he stole of value, he stole from the public, not a private company.

In the same vein, rich gallery owners should probably be charged with possession of stolen property when they remove a piece of street art that was intended for the public. 

There's a movement towards treating street art as part of our cultural heritage to prevent individuals from claiming it as their own. There's a moral and legal argument to be made there. 

What's also interesting is that the idea of graffiti holding intrinsic value is relatively new. In the eyes of the law, it's considered vandalism. Which is why insurance companies won't pay on a claim if you report vandalism of your vandalism. And it's why raggers aren't arrested and prosecuted for anything other than simple vandalism. So it seems odd that in this one particular case, he was prosecuted based on the value of the art.

Lower income individuals face higher prosecution rates and receive harsher penalties than wealthier individuals when charged with the same crime. Likewise, racial minorities are prosecuted more often and receive harsher sentences when charged with the same crime. In this case, he was treated differently than every other case I've seen of street art theft or vandalism. That might be coincidental. Or it might not.

Stealing a bast print.

Poor taste Leon

Who I met a couple of times..
And so few here..

Sorry randomname but your initial post was ridiculous. He damaged and stole off private property then got caught, convicted and sentenced based on this crime AND previous other crimes. The hotel probably wouldn't have brought a case against him if he hadn't a) valued it so high and b) advertised it publicly, especially so soon. Basically, he's a dumb thief. Backed up by the fact that he walked out of PE's gallery with a Bast print rolled up under his coat thinking he could get away with it.

Yep. To imply he's almost a victim of a racist system is just stupid and an ignorant thing to say. I don't care if he's white, black or purple - he's a stupid lowlife thief who stole something and - don't forget - tried to treat us all like mugs by selling his stolen goods to us.

I'd say he got off very lightly given his past crimes too.

hi this is leon lawrence

to address pure evil.

i didn't try and steal anything from pure evil gallery and he has any cctv cameras he'll see that he has the wrong black guy.

he never chased me or did i ever conceil anything under my jacket, he saw me around the corner while i was out shopping and accused me, i have called him to tell him this but he didn't accept what i told him.

I’ve had a lot of bad stigma from this banksy thing and I’ve done my best to redeem myself.i actually know pure evil and i have given a number of donations to charity actions such as the Robbo charity auction in 2011 and other causes since
i also know a lot of forum members who I’ve bought art from . The banksy this was years ago. i now collect art that I’ve paid for.


Sperm alarm

i know for a fact a lot of the people on this forum have street pieces of art in their house, the hypocracy over it is crazy.

i had the chance to take the sperm alarm and i took it. if i didnt i gaurentee you someone else would have.

paying the hotel to let me remove it would have been ok?? they didn't pay banksy to produce the piece nor would they give the artist any profits.

Just ignore him mate. He's probably just someone who's bored and trolling.

If I'm wrong and this is the real guy then he can just f*** off as we're not interested in hearing his cr*p.

Despite the one lone voice on this thread implying that he was only prosecuted because of his skin colour the rest of us are not that stupid to believe that and aren't interested in his pathetic excuses.

The point on value is this is the first case I've seen in the U.S. or England where a court has considered the market value of graffiti when prosecuting someone for theft or vandalism. The judge clearly stated that value was a factor in determining his sentence. The reason behind that discrepancy is up for debate.

As for racial discrimination in law, I believe it's very much real. 

Black people are six times more likely to be arrested than white people for drug offences and 11 times more likely to be imprisoned, according to new research claiming to show the racial bias of the criminal justice system.

Professor Alex Stevens, of the school of social policy, sociology and social research at the University of Kent, said his analysis of recent Ministry of Justice data highlighted disturbing trends. He said: "The disparity in arrest and imprisonment rates for drug offences between white and black people in England and Wales is even greater than has been calculated for the US."

His analysis, contained in his new book Drugs, Crime and Public Health, found that fewer than two in 1,000 white people were arrested for drug offences in 2007 to 2008, compared with more than 10 in 1,000 black people. In terms of imprisonment, the rates varied from 0.1 in 1,000 white people to 1.1 in 1,000 black people, meaning that black people in England and Wales are 6.1 times more likely to be arrested and 11.4 times more likely to be jailed. for drug offences than white people. Black people were also 9.2 times more likely to be stopped and searched for drug offences.

Stewart added: "This differential enforcement of drug laws contributes substantially to the over-representation of black people in prison in England and Wales." He said around a quarter of the people serving sentences for drug offences were of African or Caribbean origin, although only 2.2% of the population aged over 10 are categorised as belonging to that ethnic group. The research found that Asian people were two times more likely to be arrested and 3.1 times more likely to be imprisoned than white people for drug offences.

Explaining the "apparent discrimination" by attributing higher levels of drug taking between ethnic groups was wrong, Stewart said, referring to research from the British Crime Survey that suggested black people are no more likely than white people to report using illicit drugs, and that black people have a lower rate of use of class A substances.

www.theguardian.com/society/2010/oct/31/race-bias-drug-arrests-claim

That said, the main point is that wealthy gallery owners are committing essentially the same offense. Stealing artwork intended for public display for their own personal gain. But that our legal systems currently condones that theft. 

Why have you deleted your post history?

Calm down doc..
Why so much hate??

I haven't done medicine to be able to diagnose a certain level of anger in your posts..

Chill doc

Best to ignore him. He's a bit of a troll. 

Says the man who made rape jokes on the WCP thread which got deleted by the mods.

You're a classy guy eh.

It seems every time someone doesn't agree with your point of view you brand them a troll. I guess that makes us all trolls as nobody else agrees with the ridiculous statement you made early on here.

Now please stick to the topic and stop the abuse.