I agree with that, dodgy signature but tyre looks credible

The letter left with the artwork is an interesting development.  Content definitely sounds like MRB.
Role model for kids..... yes he must be much worse than footballers, politicians who lie and vacuous musicians for sure. Very dangerous.

Lets give kids some credit shall we.

Should the kids be encouraged to add to the piece, as mentioned within his letter?

Great with people saying "it looks like a Stik", "it looks like a Dran" for an artist that worked in those styles years before both.

That is clear now, thank you.

Love this work - and the location / content sure to get people talking.

It's definitely by Banksy 10000%

Give a rest you hypocrite .............


Bit late to the party were you FR..........


Why are your comments always so bloomin pleasant towards the forum masses.

Just saying no worries

would be much better if the eyes were googly.

The reference to "a wonderful gesture" is beside the point, as there's no dispute about the gesture. Nor is there much dispute about the artwork itself.

The sole area of contention, for me at least, is placement.

As to your question of where the harm is, the potential harm has already been expressed.

With this piece, the theme, humour and multitude of possible interpretations are best appreciated by adolescents and adults. I believe they're ill-suited for a five- or six-year-old, hence my discomfort with the location.

The work sends out a confusing message to those in their early childhood — a message probably at odds with what most will previously have had drummed into them. And this also assumes a best-case scenario every single time: that each child viewing the mural (positioned in the heart of their educational environment at primary school) has thus far consistently benefitted from the guidance of responsible parents and teachers. That assumption is completely naive of course.

If the above concern is dismissed as hysteria, then our ideas of what is in the best interest of impressionable children are quite different. 

Even using your example of video games, there are sound arguments that many are more suitable for teenagers and adults than for primary school children whose notions of right and wrong have yet to fully develop. I wouldn't allow a five-year-old to play video games where players are rewarded for killing or maiming other characters, even clearly fictional characters. [For comparable reasons, I wouldn't allow a five-year-old to watch pornography either, whether that be be violent and highly-degrading pornography or simply "normal" pornography.]

The general stance you've put forward is flawed in my opinion because it fails to take degree into account — in the form of different age groups and their very different levels of vulnerability. A five-year-old cannot be compared to a 12-year-old, who cannot be compared to a 16-year-old.

Yours is a position of principle, but the very same "broadening their knowledge and interest in art" argument could be made in favour of any artwork. This would include far more extreme imagery. For example, cartoony depictions of muggings, blindings or decapitations. Presumably, you wouldn't be fully comfortable with that kind of subject matter being painted on a primary school wall, regardless of whether it could be described as valid social commentary.

If you were to call my attitude one of cocooning, that would be fair. However, I prefer to describe it as allowing children the time to be children, and sheltering them from the constant pressures to grow up too quickly. Among other things, it means doing one's best to resist the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood. And in this particular instance, it means attempting to limit the exposure of very young children — remember we're talking about kids as young as five here — to so-called real-world issues. They'll have plenty of time to think about those things later in their lives.

Oh yeah I see it now, it's a joke


Lol very funny, I'm pissing myself, it's the way you tell em



Seriously no worries, you