GRAFFITI everywhere

Paying more for goods and services because of graffiti

We live in a democracy and if the majority of the population vote to pay for a certain service the the minority have to go along with it.

Could graffiti be said to be anti-democratic because a minority forces the majority to pay for its removal?

Researching the cost of graffiti

Do a little research on the web and you will soon discover that staggering amounts of money are being spent in removing graffiti. The money spent by councils on graffiti removal that is unsightly, offensive or dangerous could have helped pay for more hospital staff, better schools, better stocked libraries and playgrounds instead.

Councils have the right to demand that graffiti is removed from street furniture and public transport within a certain period of time. If nothing is dome to remove the graffiti, the council will organise its removal and bill the owner. Is that fair and just?

The Antisocial Behaviour Act 2003 gives councils the legal power to tackle graffiti problems and keep our streets graffiti free. They are also able to impose fines on anyone caught daubing walls with graffiti.

Urban activity

Graffiti is also known as street art or urban art. There does not appear to be a rural equivalent.

• Is this down to there being fewer walls to paint in the countryside and villages, or because everyone knows everyone else in smaller communities and the culprits would soon be caught?
• Are there other reasons why graffiti flourishes in cities and towns?
• Is it because people have greater and easier access to paint in urban areas?
• Are rural areas more community minded?