Comment by scott_w | Hacker News Reader

Comment by scott_w | Hacker News Reader

For the comments questioning why the MoJ are doing this, and the reason for the costs, the information can be found in the article:

> A HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) spokesperson said: "The Royal Courts of Justice is a listed building and HMCTS are obliged to maintain its original character."

This is the why. HMCTS don't have the option to "just leave it" because they're obligated by legislation to remove the graffiti. Discussions about whether it'll bring in tourism are irrelevant to the discussion. The law requires the listed building to be maintained in its original state, so the government department follows the law.

As for the costs:

> Court staff barricaded off the area and guarded it. Attempts to clean off the mural began immediately.

> Westminster City Council will have to inspect the wall and if the removal is deemed incomplete, another cleaning method will have to be used.

> As a final option, the affected stonework may have to be removed and replaced.

> A Listed Building Consent (LBC) application has been submitted for the installation of railings across the wall that Banksy targeted.

All of this costs money, it's not just a case of putting a bit of turps on the wall and job done. It'll require experts to remove it without causing further damage.

> Discussions about whether it'll bring in tourism are irrelevant to the discussion.

No, it's not - it's very relevant. Laws are not set in stone, and the first step towards changing them is having the discussion.

> The law requires the listed building to be maintained in its original state, so the government department follows the law.

This is true, but is orthogonal to the point above.

> Laws are not set in stone, and the first step towards changing them is having the discussion.

You’re correct but missing the point entirely. I’m answering “why are the MoJ spending money on this?” Whether one should change the law is irrelevant to answering that question.

The dull blocks have no character, the artwork in contrast captures and hammers out the original character. It doesn't have to be true, nothing ever has, they just need to rubber stamp it as such.

> The dull blocks have no character

That's your opinion and irrelevant. The Grade-II classification and the requirements it imposes don't care about your opinion.

> the artwork in contrast captures and hammers out the original character.

That's your opinion and irrelevant. The Grade-II classification and the requirements it imposes don't care about your opinion.

> It doesn't have to be true, nothing ever has, they just need to rubber stamp it as such.

What on earth are you waffling on about? Speak like a human being instead of getting ChatGPT to write comments for you.

Is there a second Grade II Royal Court of Justice building on Carey Street in London? Because the Royal Court of Justice is a Grade I building, and it's on Carey Street.

I took the wording from the article:

> The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) says it has spent £50,000 trying to remove paint from the wall of the Grade II-listed building in Carey Street. A further £35,300 was spent on overtime and security costs.

I also double-checked against Historic England and I think the one you're referring to is the Law Courts (https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1...). It looks like there's a number of buildings in the law courts area between Carey Street and The Strand and each one has its own grading.

I would have to beg to disagree, my opinion is the only thing that counts. The grades are just your opinion or not even that(?)

The murals and the waffling shall continue until morale improves.

> The dull blocks have no character, the artwork in contrast captures and hammers out the original character. It doesn't have to be true, nothing ever has, they just need to rubber stamp it as such.

"If you change the law to make this legal, then it will be legal!"

*Shakes head

Reply on news.ycombinator.com