'F*** Barclays – brilliantly terrible graffiti' blog discussion

Paul_Herring

whosforachat wrote: »

I do not understand why some people have a problem with swearing. What is wrong with it?

Probably this. Or something like it.

Second paragraph:

Ban this, eliminate that, censor the other thing — it's all done in the name of protecting children. Not, heaven forbid, because anyone wants to force their morality and sensibility on the rest of us. Perish the thought.

yorkshirekev

Without wishing to be too dismissive. To those people complaining about the use of this particular world I would like to say the following:

Please could you obtain one (or all of the following)

- A life
- A sense of perspective
- A device to remove the bug that crawled into a intimate crevice upon your person
- A sense of humour
- An industrial quantity of alcohol

Take your pick

sabretoothtigger

Paul_Herring wrote: »

Not quite, it was foreign sovereign wealth funds.

I consider that private money and privately invested at risk, they already made a profit from it as did anyone who bought barclays shares at the same time.
Theres no support in that article for political interference or to be critical of barclays especially though they are still bankers

Mrssapphire

What a GRAND idea and execution:T. I also wish I could meet this person who used such a protest! F*** is just great.

As for using the word F*** to protest I think that those of you who don't like the word publicly displayed are also doing your own bit for keeping it a taboo word not to be used in polite company.

I do feel a sense of powerlessness when I have anything to do with banking and financial institutions. I find the organisations that work from a 'one size fits all' philosophy are impossible to have a two sided dialogue with - and I am buying their service!

On another note I HATE the advertising Barlcays have in their windows. I see signs saying "Some of the loveliest people in . . . come in here" Makes me want to vomit at their disengenuous chuminess - got to worth a F*** here and there!

andy12345

barrow_matt wrote: »

To be fair though Barclays are one of the few banks that didn't have to be bailed out by the Tax Payer.

Still funny though

Not on topic, but, it's important not to forget that Barclays took out the offer of quantitative easing, which is where they swap their mortgage debts for hard cash all paid for by the taxpayer, via the bank of england.

In case anyone wonders how much easing has been taken by the banks, apparently so far, it is...........£2,300billion aka £2,300,000,000,000. That sounds far too high though.
LINK
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2010/09/04/quantitative-easing-will-not-be-enough-this-time-qe2-requires-we-spend-it-into-the-economy/

The total quantitative easing for all banks must surely be approximately £230B in total ie one decimal point less?

Of course, I expect some on here to have all the data at hand. If so, please englighten me.

muffin_man

Paul_Herring wrote: »

I do believe that some of the people objecting are objecting to the string of characters "F***" Martin, not just the word it's a proxy for:

Norman_Castle wrote:

Its the use of F*** in the title and then a photograph showing the word in full on this site that bothers me.

Clearly society is doomed, DOOMED I SAY!!!, when a few stars can generate such apoplexy.

You may be right on your first point, but in this instance, the point Norman Castle was clearly making was not regarding the use of the censored word in the title, but the fact that the censored title led to an uncensored photo without any warning...the censored title implied that the post itself would be censored as well.

Indeed, if you 'View All' on the blog, rather than just individual posts, you could be scrolling through the posts completely unaware when you come across that picture.

It really would have been so simple to blur the word out in the photo in the main blog post and have a link to the uncensored photo for those who choose to look at it.

Paul_Herring

muffin_man wrote: »

You may be right on your first point, but in this instance, the point Norman Castle was clearly making was not regarding the use of the censored word in the title,

Oh yes he was. The hint is the use of the word and in:

Its the use of F*** in the title and then a photograph showing the word in full on this site that bothers me.

He finds both offensive, not just the latter as you imply.

Oneday77

I need to try out one of these bikes
It would match My FCUK glasses from Specsavers, FCUK boxers from Debenhams and my FCUK T-Shirt from Matalan.

Get a grip people, there is so many more offensive things about. Look at the child labour for the Commonwealth games preparation.
Taking a cheap pot shot at a company that pays out bonuses to some staff bigger than other people's mortgages is fair game.

redglass_2

The whole point about 'taboo' words is that they are taboo - they vary from language to language and culture to culture, but it is always the word that's taboo, not the thing it represents ('engage in sexual intercourse' is not a taboo expression even though it means exactly the same as f***). To complain about them being used is pointless, and to complain about people being 'prudish' is equally pointless - they exist to be used for the purpose of offence, and for people to get offended. That's what taboo words are all about, getting people to look like this :eek: and this :mad:

Admittedly there are times when you don't want that reaction.

I saw a lovely van in Norfolk during the summer. It had a professionally painted side panel reading: DEFRA SUCKS, BUT THEY AIN'T NO FISHERMAN'S FRIEND. Certainly brightened up my day...

melancholly

this made me chuckle.... first the graffiti (i like small scale acts like this!) and then the reaction on here! i will be looking out for any embellished bikes with interest!