The street artist’s latest work appeared at the Royal Courts of Justice in London on Monday and was immediately covered up by Metropolitan Police officers.

The force is now investigating the graffiti, which is on an external wall of the Queen’s Building, as potential “criminal damage”.

It means Banksy, who has remained anonymous for more than 25 years, could finally be unmasked as he would be required to publicly disclose his name if brought to court.

The artwork, which shows a protester holding a white picket sign spattered with red paint, has now been concealed by large sheets of black plastic and two metal barriers.

Less than 24 hours after it first appeared on the Grade I-listed building, HM Courts and Tribunals (HMCTS) confirmed it would be removed.

  • katy ✨@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    1191·
    4 days ago

    how dare he besmirch the good name of the royal courts who stripped away rights from the british public to protest genocide

    • HumanPenguin@feddit.ukEnglish
      256·
      4 days ago

      Just to be clear.

      Court do not make laws. Parliament dose. At best they interpret laws. And even then only when questionable interpretation or contradictory laws exist.

      Parliament created the laws. The met enforced them. CPS decide if they go to court. From there only a jury has any nullification rights. Judges etc are required to rule based on the multiple laws created.

      • hector@lemmy.today
        5·
        3 days ago

        Their judges have made a number of decisions ensuring guilty verdicts of those accused for protesting. Climate, environmental, and anti genocide so far.

        One of which forbade the accused from telling their motivation after high profile acquittals on protesters they were tring to imprison for a decade or more.

        The courts of the uk are not bystanders they are active belligerants in taking away the ancient rights of English Common Law.

        The English had freedom of expression to a large degree centuries before the rest of the continent. Banned books were openly sold for instance. They were allowed to criticize their leaders to a higher degree.

        • HumanPenguin@feddit.ukEnglish
          31·
          3 days ago

          How many protesters accused of supporting PA. Have actually been to court so far.

          Honest question. As so for I’ve not seen any in the news. But may have missed a few.

          I have seem the police and CPS release a lot soon after arrest. Makeing me wonder if the CPS is confident on the courts accepting the proscription.

          I can see lawyers using both Starmers case during Blares government and ECHR free speech requirements to challenge the validity of the law.

          PS you really do not want to go back to a time when Judges acted on their own political motives.

          That opens up the court system to a fuck more injustice then it dose justice. We already see way to much prejudicial sentencing and interpretation of evidence. Historical claims womens dressed in a way that encouraged rape. Current Valuing of policemans statements over non police and racial prejudice is valuation of evidence.

          Start adding an expectation for judges to judge the moral validity of laws. And it is very unlikely to go in a positive direction.

  • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    691·
    4 days ago

    The artwork, which shows a protester holding a white picket sign spattered with red paint

    They just omit the judge bludgeoning the protester with his gavel, thus CAUSING the “red paint” on the sign?

    I guess they’re afraid that an informed public might applaud the accuracy of Banksy’s message or something like that 🤦

  • Maeve@kbin.earth
    261·
    4 days ago

    They’ve been trying to get banksey Banks ever since I recall hearing of banksey Banksy. May s/he ever be anonymous.

  • Fredselfish@lemmy.world
    20·
    4 days ago

    What do they rhink they demand the person who they don’t know to appear he will have to show himself? They that dumb?

  • huf [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    23·
    4 days ago

    wont we all be surprised when it turns out this is banksy:

    (also, hilarious that i couldnt remember his name, googled “monocle tory politician” and he was the first hit)

  • DancingBear@midwest.social
    41·
    3 days ago

    Isn’t the painting worth more than the building now if that is a banksy? Would be dumb of them to just wash it off.

    • addie@feddit.uk
      10·
      3 days ago

      Many of Banksy’s works are on random walls somewhere, in which case they would be worth more than the building they’re attached to, but the law courts is an enormous grade 1 listed Victorian building in the middle of the Strand in London, filled up with expensive shit. It is worth a few quid by itself.

      • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        3 days ago

        No wonder they tried to remove it, it’s on a grade 1 listed building.

        Are people thinking that because a wealthy and well-known artist paints on a grade 1 building, we should make an exception for him?

        • Timecircleline@sh.itjust.works
          61·
          3 days ago

          I think it’s more that people agree with the sentiment depicted and so are seeing the reaction to it as another example of people in power ignoring the situation in Gaza.

          That being said, Banksy must have known that it had to be painted over, given the historical value of the building, adding another layer to the artwork itself. It’s clever, and now a new piece of it’s 150 year history imo

      • DancingBear@midwest.social
        1·
        3 days ago

        I’m sure the building could use a renovation / restoration…. Could have saved the taxpayers a big chunk of a billion dollars…. Or waist a few thousand dollars of tax payer money destroying it…