London based, right age, receding hairline, interest in Banksy, likes hanging around auction houses and street corners, that guy's almost certainly on this forum.

Banksy events - Onlookers - same, same?
Pics come from the video (mentioned underneath) and from footage of DmDoodle
What do you think?

For those who are curious - as of lunch time today the monkeys are still untouched at Brick Lane.

I was out of London last week and have appreciated the live updates from people so I know whether I should make the trek out to see them.

This exchange is of interest to me.

Primarily for the subject matter.

But also because you yourself have often come across as a genuine and fun character. As far as I'm concerned, you're an asset to the forum.


__________


For the following purpose, relevant back‑and‑forth communications between members have been brought together.

While the length may be tiresome, as a regular user of the forum's New Posts facility, I always prefer single, standalone posts that encompass entire conversations. It dispenses with any need to scroll back to previous pages for context.

I also took the liberty of correcting the quoting, to more accurately distinguish your comments from what sevrin posted on 8 August.


__________


Those are great doodles by Dran. Very nice of the artist to oblige. And, for you, fun souvenirs of a memorable opening event in 2015.

That said, the doodles are beside the point.

They cloud the main topic being discussed, which relates to theft.


__________


As a momentary aside, it is worth emphasising that I am an advocate for online privacy.



My general position re. privacy


Message boards have usernames for a reason, offering people an expectation of anonymity, or at least relative anonymity.

Now, if somebody wishes to publicly disclose their identity here, whether in part or in full, that is their own call to make.

But it's not up to anyone else to out them.

There are some individuals who, for example, engage in petty spats with other members and publicly refer to them by their real first names — in a display of "I know who you are", passive‑aggressive one‑upmanship. These people are clowns. They have crossed the line.



Exceptions to the rule


(i)  Public figures in art dealing

Such individuals should in my view be transparent in their business dealings. Simply as a matter of professionalism. It's the most basic demonstration of good faith.

I would be wary of any auction house representative, gallerist or private dealer who is not forthcoming about both their identity and status. This is clearly relevant information which, in fairness, should be volunteered to any prospective buyer or seller they engage with.

When a dealer fails to proactively disclose their dealer status, what does that say about their honesty or integrity?



(ii)  Fraudsters, scammers and thieves

Through their own actions, these individuals have forfeited their right to anonymity.

If hiding behind online usernames, it is in the public interest for their real identities to be disclosed. This helps to safeguard the wider community of collectors from being cheated or misled.

In addition, shining a spotlight on regular or occasional fraudsters, scammers and thieves serves as a helpful deterrent to others, who might be weighing up the risk/reward ratio of a side hustle in scumbaggery.


__________


Yes its Me , as a known, convicted thief and parasite, falls within the above exception (ii).

And given in particular his shameless recidivism, I believe it is for the greater good that he be repeatedly exposed and scorned for the unscrupulous choices he continues to make.

Admittedly, it seems doubtful that such exposure will ever change the ways of Yes its Me . But in case anyone else is looking to emulate his behaviour, they will think twice if they see it carries a real risk of being publicly named.


__________


The "Leave my boy Leon out of this" comment reminded me of a recurring problem, especially with online communications:

People will quite often argue past each other — oblivious that (a) they are talking about slightly different things, and (b) perhaps more common ground exists between them than they actually realise.



It sounds like you feel Leon Lawrence is being unfairly treated.

For my own clarity, would you deny that Lawrence is a thief and parasite?

Or is it more a case that you do accept he's a thief and parasite, but wish to convey he also has redeeming qualities (e.g. good storyteller, likes his art, loves his sneakers) — qualities that you believe outweigh his persistent thievery and parasitism?

Popped over to see the piranhas in their new temporary habitat...




Double barriers and a security guard nearby.
Wish I had the opportunity to see it in its original location, but again, this is better than not seeing it at all.

lol amazing. what mag is this from?

This exchange is of interest to me.

Primarily for the subject matter.

But also because you yourself have often come across as a genuine and fun character. As far as I'm concerned, you're an asset to the forum.


__________


For the following purpose, relevant back‑and‑forth communications between members have been brought together.

While the length may be tiresome, as a regular user of the forum's New Posts facility, I always prefer single, standalone posts that encompass entire conversations. It dispenses with any need to scroll back to previous pages for context.

I also took the liberty of correcting the quoting, to more accurately distinguish your comments from what sevrin posted on 8 August.


__________


Those are great doodles by Dran. Very nice of the artist to oblige. And, for you, fun souvenirs of a memorable opening event in 2015.

That said, the doodles are beside the point.

They cloud the main topic being discussed, which relates to theft.


__________


As a momentary aside, it is worth emphasising that I am an advocate for online privacy.



My general position re. privacy


Message boards have usernames for a reason, offering people an expectation of anonymity, or at least relative anonymity.

Now, if somebody wishes to publicly disclose their identity here, whether in part or in full, that is their own call to make.

But it's not up to anyone else to out them.

There are some individuals who, for example, engage in petty spats with other members and publicly refer to them by their real first names — in a display of "I know who you are", passive‑aggressive one‑upmanship. These people are clowns. They have crossed the line.



Exceptions to the rule


(i)  Public figures in art dealing

Such individuals should in my view be transparent in their business dealings. Simply as a matter of professionalism. It's the most basic demonstration of good faith.

I would be wary of any auction house representative, gallerist or private dealer who is not forthcoming about both their identity and status. This is clearly relevant information which, in fairness, should be volunteered to any prospective buyer or seller they engage with.

When a dealer fails to proactively disclose their dealer status, what does that say about their honesty or integrity?



(ii)  Fraudsters, scammers and thieves

Through their own actions, these individuals have forfeited their right to anonymity.

If hiding behind online usernames, it is in the public interest for their real identities to be disclosed. This helps to safeguard the wider community of collectors from being cheated or misled.

In addition, shining a spotlight on regular or occasional fraudsters, scammers and thieves serves as a helpful deterrent to others, who might be weighing up the risk/reward ratio of a side hustle in scumbaggery.


__________


Yes its Me , as a known, convicted thief and parasite, falls within the above exception (ii).

And given in particular his shameless recidivism, I believe it is for the greater good that he be repeatedly exposed and scorned for the unscrupulous choices he continues to make.

Admittedly, it seems doubtful that such exposure will ever change the ways of Yes its Me . But in case anyone else is looking to emulate his behaviour, they will think twice if they see it carries a real risk of being publicly named.


__________


The "Leave my boy Leon out of this" comment reminded me of a recurring problem, especially with online communications:

People will quite often argue past each other — oblivious that (a) they are talking about slightly different things, and (b) perhaps more common ground exists between them than they actually realise.



It sounds like you feel Leon Lawrence is being unfairly treated.

For my own clarity, would you deny that Lawrence is a thief and parasite?

Or is it more a case that you do accept he's a thief and parasite, but wish to convey he also has redeeming qualities (e.g. good storyteller, likes his art, loves his sneakers) — qualities that you believe outweigh his persistent thievery and parasitism?