not a mate at all. the dude that took the photo is peter rickards, a photographer in jamaica. i forget the exact details, but the nutjob rickards claimed some sort of money dispute, and outed banksy as revenge or some s**t. rickards has a long record of rash decisions and crazy talk. the photo first leaked years ago, but isn't supposed to be talked about much. thats all over now. i think i remember laz shutting down some website with the photo claiming some sort of copyright infringement, but maybe that was all rumor bulls**t.



i wouldn't hold your breath

been away since last wednesday so just catching up on the banksy outing.....
the second picture was in the London Evening Standard years ago. i've seen other pics of this guy aswell. it wasn't banksy then and it's not banksy now!

Here is original artical if it helps:
BANKSY’s Camp Tells Us To Cease and Desist Unveiling BANKSY

Recently we dug up some photos of world renowned graffiti artist BANKSY in Jamaica (thanks in part to a clue from an article in the New Yorker) but were ordered to take them down by a law firm in London. The whole affair is a bit sordid, but here’s the deal. We received cease and desist letters from Finers Stephens Innocent on behalf of notorious spinmeisters Meena Khera PR. They claim that Meena Khera owns the BANKSY photos, since they bought the rights from Jamaican photographer Peter Dean Rickards in June of 2006. Which seems odd considering BANKSY’s manager denied the authenticity of the photos to the New Yorker in the first place:
Steve Lazarides confirmed to the Standard that Banksy had been in Jamaica, but said that Rickards had the wrong guy.
If that’s the case then why the cease and desist blokes? Peter Dean Rickards is not allowed to disclose the deal, but as he said in the New Yorker piece, “they don’t call him BANKsy for nothing.” Anyway, this all seems a bit fruitless, since in the end, you’re still looking at a picture of BANKSY, originally published in The Evening Standard back in 2004. Due to legal jargon like ‘free speech,’ ‘fair use’ and ‘newsworthiness,’ we’re confident that we can use this cropped image without fear of being tossed into the Tower of London. So in the end, here’s BANKSY re-re-revealed again. See the collectible stencil homage we made for the revolutionary self dubbed “art terrorist” and the C+D letter with all its legal rambling after the jump.


www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/05/14/070514fa_fact_collins?currentPage=3

Says the Daily Mail:

"Given Banksy's long-standing success at covering his tracks, there is, of course, the possibility that the trail we have been following is a red herring, a complex set-up. But if it is, it must be the most elaborate such ruse ever concocted. And if it is, where is Robin Gunningham?"

Well, Daily Mail, have you looked six feet under?

www.lastingtribute.co.uk/similardeathnotices/gunningham/2334221

melf, your article relates to a 44 year old Robin born in 1960. He (or she) is going to look much different than the one born in '73.

As for this whole article, I'm kind of bummed because i would prefer if it was him that he revealed himself the way he wanted to when the time was right. If it's not him, we'll know pretty quickly because the Robin Gunningham they identified in the article will certainly be entitled to a correction. Unfortunately, I'm not holding my breath on the latter. I wonder how long it will take for the Dailymail's offices to get tagged by some fans?

I'm sure there are a multitude of people on here that can either confirm/deny the rumours, but my money is on this guy.

Never mind the Banksy exposé, what about the free Barry Manilow CD?

Errr... I think we all know who this guy is... And it aint Banksy.

This is so funny... A year's worth of journalism for this? Ha.

Fuss about nothing. Hardly scoop of the year after a years worth of investigation. Always impressed by the loyalty of those close to our man. Am sure the Mail will continue to delve and try and dish the dirt. Sort of grubby journalists they are.

Hopefully Mr B will come up with suitable retribution.

agree with dmandpenfold. who cares. it's the art that counts.

EDIT: On top of that, it appears that the sole mission of the british press is to build up heroes (as they have done with banksy) just to tear them down. Car crash tabloid journalism at its worst. At least they continue to get their facts wrong.

more importantly will maggie have a ceremony like the queen mother when she carks it???


...wtf? I mean really WTF???

It's hardly the scoop of the year by any stretch of the imagination, 30mins of work on Google would have given the sane results as this 'year in the making' article...I doubt this journalist will be winning any awards for this article!

Shame that someone who so notably shuns the limelight and chooses to remain anonymous has that privilege taken away from him so middle England’s worst paper can have an ‘exclusive’ scoop that has been reported in a few papers before. Lazy lazy journalism at it’s worst!

Will it do him any harm…not at all. Let his art do the talking

Can't you see that it is ONLY because banksy tries to remain anonymous that perpetuates this continued interest in his identity. Giving him the publicity he seeks/needs. The whole bansky anonymity thing is his finest piece of work to date, and that his why he and his agents/lawyers/managers/representatives are so desperate to keep it that way.

Without it he would just have been another pseudo-political stencil street artist.

Am I being stupid here........isn't this 3D from Massive Attack???