I wonder how many others out there would be as willing to protect the rights of the state over the people? There are plenty of instances where art is first to go out the window, books are burned, images not sanctioned by the state are banned, really, the history is all out there.

I am British, I was born in London, not America, I don’t know your society as well as you, but I do know my society, I know we live in fear of the state, we do what we are told because we are not the sort to ’cause a fuss’. If the government enforces ID cards we take it, if they want a national genetic database we take it, if they want to bug our phones and read our mail we take it – and right where the sun don’t shine.

We, the British have on average 14 CCTV cameras per citizen, (scrap that – per subject of the Queen) – we live in an Orwellian Britain, we have no bill of rights – more than a dozen people meeting in public is by law treated as civil unrest. Banksy is one of the few with the cahunas to stand up to the oppressive, dictatorial state we the British now live in. This isn’t a nanny state, this is an unelected dictatorship. No a plutocracy with a sci-fi movie fixation for mind control, crowd control, state control. If this was anywhere but the backyard of Westminster – The Houses of Parliament – The Seat of Power – it would’ve been ignored – or even celebrated. Across Europe great graffito art is praised and even commissioned, here we bleach it.

There will be more there the week after, but it will jsut be your usual tagging and graffiti that cannot be described as anything but vandalism. this is a one in a century chance, a difference, and for those who run the show, they must realise that if there is no way for the people to vent their frustration we return to late-seventies and eighties. They didn’t protest with art then, they simply burned the city down. Crowd control, state control, can only work so far, if we are talking art, art that is of great social and historical significance for the British youth (at the very least), then no I can’t agree with you, the government control all responses, positives pass through the filter, negatives are bleached away and ignored for time immemorial.

I most am surprised that a citizen of the USA would support our jaded political system, well there you go, you learn something every day, I hope you have too.

However, it is the governing council’s and the building owner’s right to remove the piece. First of all, it is not Banksy’s property. As f2point4 states, there is no threshold that delineates determine what creations are beyond reproach of the property owners and what remains as high art. What I’m basically saying is that we should fight for the mural to remain, but not for the reason stated in the article – that the government should remain apart from the art world. It is because Banksy has a valid point.

Most importantly, however, is that my opinion that Banksy’s art is and should remain rebellious, unconventional, and unsanctioned. I’m sure Banksy knew that most of his artwork was done illegally. I’m also sure he’s very pleased that the art world has accepted him and that even some government councils are participating in the positive discussion of his art. I’m sure he also accepts that many people will not be happy with his unsanctioned pieces and label it as vandalism. In short, Banksy knew that in his art philosophy there would be casualties. While his message is still worth fighting for, the truth is that considering his works to be beyond the scope of any property owner would rid them of their inherent rebellious value and of their underlying messages. Banksy’s work is supposed to be clandestine and unauthorized. While I encourage it, I cannot say that once he paints something it is no one’s right to remove it. Let him work in his own way and get his message across to those who appreciate it. Fight for the acceptance and message of his work, but not for the British government to stay out of the art world when Banksy brought his art unto them. The artist forced the public (both the audience and the government) to respond, so let’s encourage a positive response – rather than no response at all as a gag order on government decisions about art.

If this was your usual tagging-style graffiti then fair enough, but let’s say I left Damien Hirst’s ‘Shark’ in your garden (assuming the weather kept it cool), would you

1) Call The Saatchi Gallery and try and flog it for all its worth

or

2)Call the local council and get them to dump it at the local landfill?

Councils across the country (obviously barring Westminster by the looks of it) are cash-strapped as it is without wasting money on bleaching famous art works off their walls.

It may cost a hefty sum to replace the bricks but I’m more than certain there are at least a dozen major galleries in the world prepared to front the cost, especially if they’d end up nabbing a few original Banksy’s for their collection?

On the most basic premise, asides art, asides taste, top-down government is a lumbering awkward affair. No one knew about the meeting or the decision until the newspapers picked up on it, that’s too late for democracy as far as I’m concerned.

Still, I do appreciate your input (honest!), it’s nice to know that someone who’s not from Westminster Council managed to read this post.

The fact that elected councillors had made this decision only serves to prove my point that much further. Those who represent the people must represent their culture as much as their immediate and short-term needs.

Well there we have it folks, that’s British democracy in action. I wonder if the meeting had garnered the coverage that the decision had would we really be in this position?

I’m sure one quick word to The Times a few weeks before the meeting would have resulted in a full house. The plain fact is that Banksy’s art (which it is art) doesn’t belong to Westminster Council or its residents, but to Britain and in turn the world.

However for the lone voice of reason at the meeting, I commend you for your actions and only hope that more like you will be in the position to argue for something greater than local bylaws in the future, something more worthwhile than generations can look back on and appreciate, instead of the over-regulated ‘nimbyism’ of the so-called moral majority. Banksy’s works fetch hundreds of thousands of pounds at auction, no councillor can argue financially, morally, artistically or otherwise that this is the right decision.

I have to seriously consider emigrating from this awful grey and narrow-minded land, I can’t continue to suffocate in a country that puts planning laws before cultural advancement and intellectual enquiry. There is no hope for Britain, it has lost its soul.

If art is of no consequence to the people of Westminster, perhaps they and their councillors could imagine how many roads could have been cleaned, street lights repaired, and even council officials wages paid from the proceeds of a sale of original Banksy artworks. In this time of recession and cut-backs, logic, however sullying its effect, should prevail.

Art is art. No councillor has the right to dictate what is art and what is not. I doubt that the people of Westminster elected art critics, maybe next time they should.

Also the political content of the mural is not a consideration we could take into account in planning law. This may seem odd but the law often is. Read the report to the committee for what the issues were.