18th May 2010.

 

Diamond Bus Company Limited Dennis Dart SLF (SFD322BR1WGW13003) / Plaxton Pointer 2 (9910.7HLB0420) B41F 433 - T445EBD.

 

New to Home James, Totton April 1999.

 

Station Street, Birmingham, West Midlands.

 

Wearing the Black Diamond livery but deviod of any markings 433 is seen operating in Birmingham City Centre on service 424.

 

Image Copyright D.J.Ralley 2010.

 

Don't forget to check out previous photo's.

 

via Playground Markings UK bit.ly/1NE92IF

Playground Games in Carmarthenshire | Recreational Area Markings #Playground #Markings #Games #Carmarthenshire bit.ly/1NE92ID

So it said on the tin..

Thank you to my gorgeous friend for these heels.

Perfect afternoon working attire. 💜💜

Sitting down and flicking my heel. ‍♀️‍♀️

 

My soul is of a woman, my heart is to, you taken me on this journey, for that, I love you.

Old crosses and mysterious standing stones are dotted around the North York Moors, often to be found beside ancient moorland tracks which criss-cross over the high, exposed ridges. This one indicates a track to Pickering and Malton. Underneath, a hand is inscribed pointing the way.

via Playground Markings UK bit.ly/1N4VxGY

Playground Surfacing daily is out! bit.ly/1iOvGWE #playflooring Stories via @apiplay @Rubber_Flooring @PlaygroundFloor

there are shadows on this photograph

via Playground Markings UK bit.ly/1NpviFO

Playground Games in Buckinghamshire | Recreational Area Markings #Playground #Markings #Games #Buckinghamshire bit.ly/1PuFTnN

Survey marking

Disneyland, Anaheim, CA

Copyright © 2018 Elizabeth Root Blackmer. All rights reserved.

via Playground Markings UK bit.ly/1Zkqlr5

"FDA approves Promacta to treat pediatric patients with chronic immune thrombocytopenic purpura"

via Outdoor Surface Painting outdoorsurfacepainting.tumblr.com/post/150207804511

Just Pinned to Tennis Court Markings: Floor Marking in Highland...

MCAS Yuma.

WTI 2-24.

4-19-24.

Photo by: Ned Harris.

 

Note: This aircraft recently deployed aboard the USS America (LHA-6).

Nene Park

 

Tombstone and plaque marking the grave of Sir George William Ross (1841 - 1914), fifth premier of the Province of Ontario (1899 - 1905). Also buried there is Catherine Boston Ross, his second wife, who died in 1902. Mount Pleasant Cemetery, Toronto, Canada. Winter afternoon, 2021. Pentax K1 II.

 

A short description of his life and career may be found at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_William_Ross

 

From www.biographi.ca/en/bio/ross_george_william_14E.html

 

ROSS, Sir GEORGE WILLIAM, educator and politician; b. 18 Sept. 1841 near Nairn in Middlesex County, Upper Canada, son of James Ross and Ellen McKinnon; m. first 1862 Christina Campbell (d. 1872), and they had three daughters and two sons; m. secondly 17 Nov. 1875 Catherine Boston (d. 1902) in Lobo Township, Ont., and they had a son and three daughters; m. thirdly 8 May 1907 Mildred Margaret Peel in Toronto; d. there 7 March 1914.

 

In 1831 James Ross, a shoemaker in Tain, Scotland, immigrated to Upper Canada with his wife, their four children, and two nieces. He purchased land in Middlesex in what would become East Williams Township. Born in 1841, the third son among eight children, George W. Ross perceived perhaps that his father’s moderate success was unlikely to advantage him and all his siblings. Or, experiencing the struggle of pioneer farming, he may have concluded that he was unsuited for agricultural life. He left in his teens to obtain an education and teach.

 

After acquiring a third-class certificate in 1857, Ross began teaching in the log school where he had been a pupil. Two years later he qualified for a second-class certificate. In 1866 he mounted what he termed a “public ‘crusade’” against the system of local superintendents, who, he argued, were lax in visiting schools and advising teachers. Instead, he advocated a county superintendency. Ross left teaching in 1867, when he bought the Strathroy Age from William Fisher Luxton*. Eking out a living, he sold it in 1868 or 1869 and purchased a partnership in the Seaforth Expositor, which he retained for an even shorter time. In 1868 he was made school superintendent for East Williams, and the next year he entered the Toronto Normal School. After he obtained a first-class provincial certificate in 1871, he was appointed inspector for east Lambton County. Ross also studied law, starting in the early 1870s, and in 1883 he would receive an llb from Albert College in Belleville.

 

From 1876 to 1880 Ross served on the Department of Education’s central committee of examiners. Originally established to certify teachers, it had been assigned administrative and policy duties by Adam Crooks*, Ontario’s first minister of education. Ross chaired its subcommittee on model schools and assumed responsibility for them as provincial inspector and for preparing the model school syllabus. Conservative critics accused the central committee of authorizing textbooks and work-books that its members had written, Ross’s contribution being a book of dictation exercises.

 

Despite its brevity, Ross’s newspaper work had confirmed his interest in politics. He was nominated to run for the House of Commons in 1867, and in the provincial election of 1871 he campaigned in Middlesex West for Alexander Mackenzie*, at the time an mp and the federal Liberals’ unofficial leader. Recruited to contest Middlesex West in the dominion election of 1872, Ross hesitated. He was inclined to the provincial legislature, where he felt he stood the best chance to rise. He also worried about his county inspectorship, since Egerton Ryerson*, Ontario’s chief superintendent of education, had questioned the propriety of his candidacy and had urged Mackenzie to have him resign. Once he was elected, however, any conflict of interest was forgotten.

 

The life of a backbencher held little appeal for Ross, who rarely participated in debate. When he did speak, on the Pacific railway or on tariff policy, he merely reiterated his party’s positions, though he did so with skill. On prohibition he was more creative. In 1873 he served on, and in 1874 chaired, a select committee which favoured prohibition, but he astutely recognized the damage that could be done to any party advocating restrictions that exceeded those required by public sentiment. Although he moved a resolution in 1875 in support of prohibition, in 1877 he opposed a similar motion on the grounds that “steady work” outside parliament would advance the cause more effectively. He therefore defended Richard William Scott’s Canada Temperance Act of 1878, which allowed for local option.

 

Ross sat in the commons for 11 years. His election in 1882 was successfully protested in October 1883. Rather than try to regain his seat, Ross accepted the invitation of Oliver Mowat*, premier of Ontario, to join his cabinet as minister of education. He was elected for Middlesex West at a by-election on 14 Dec. 1883. Mowat’s first choice had been George Monro Grant*, the principal of Queen’s College in Kingston, but Grant had insisted that education be removed from the political realm and Mowat did not want education to revert to the sort of bureaucratic fiefdom that had existed under Ryerson. In Ross, Mowat found a minister who was acceptable to the teaching profession and could carry a marginal riding, and who could administer a department in ways that would extend state authority.

 

Ross’s predecessor, Crooks, had made some progress in wresting control from the department’s bureaucracy, though ill health and the recalcitrance of his deputy, John George Hodgins, impaired his effectiveness. Among Ross’s first initiatives was a new set of internal regulations in April 1884, which diminished Hodgins’s authority by giving the minister responsibility for personnel, purchasing, reports, and correspondence that was not strictly internal. His Public Schools and High Schools acts of 1885 stipulated formal ministerial control and legislative approval for all regulations pertaining to schools and teachers. The talent that would be drawn to the department was remarkable – among the influential educationists recruited were John Millar* and John Seath. Though it included men of different political persuasions and many with difficult personalities, Seath for instance, they accepted ministerial responsibility.

 

Secure within the management of his department, Ross proceeded to create the Liberal alternative to Ryerson’s model. For Ryerson free public schools constituted a total system. Those destined to go on would prepare for university and the professions in the tuition-charging high schools. Ross, on the other hand, argued that an integrated system, from kindergarten (introduced in 1883 with Crooks’s support) to university, provided “the great stairway of learning” necessary for meritocratic rise.

 

Each step, Ross maintained, was worthy of attainment but it should also qualify a student for the next step. Under this system, departmental examinations at all levels took on greater significance as accreditation. Ross applauded the growing desire among students who had no intention of going further to take entrance and leaving exams. As he maintained, “Every certificate granted has a commercial value.” He reported with pride that in 1893 his department had issued nearly 750,000 examination papers for various levels of certification. The objection that uncontrolled certification might produce more teachers, lawyers, or doctors than could be gainfully employed offended him as an élitist response. “I am not prepared to admit that the son of the farmer or mechanic should be restrained in his aspirations,” he retorted.

 

Implementing the “educational ladder” meant overcoming institutional self-interest, especially among the universities. In claiming the state’s authority to qualify students for entry into the universities and the professions, Ross sought to introduce common matriculation requirements, components of which the department recognized for the non-professional or academic certification of teachers. Treating the University of Toronto as the provincial university, in the regulations of 1885 he tied the high-school course of study to the matriculation examinations of that institution. He then persuaded it to accept exams for second- and first-class teaching certificates as the equivalent of junior and senior matriculation. He thus acquired for his department the right to judge through its own examinations, not those set and marked by university officials, whether provincial educational standards were being met.

 

In an earlier move to exert control, in 1884, Ross had entered discussions on university federation. Originally suggested by William Mulock*, vice-chancellor of the University of Toronto, as a way to enhance its claims for greater funding, federation was seen by Ross as a way to diminish the sectarian nature of Ontario’s universities; he made it clear that the state would not support denominational teaching. He therefore translated the proposal into legislation in 1887. Federated denominational institutions, if located in Toronto, could draw upon the provincial university for instruction in arts, while providing training in theology and other subjects judged central to a religious education. The sciences and professional training would be reserved to the University of Toronto. In return, the colleges would not grant degrees in areas other than theology. Wycliffe College accepted federation in 1889, Knox College and Victoria University [see Nathanael Burwash] the next year, but St Michael’s College negotiated special terms and Trinity, Queen’s, and Toronto Baptist College (chartered as McMaster University in 1887 over Ross’s opposition) all refused.

 

Ross’s desire for an integrated system was complicated by provisions for minority education. The separate schools and bilingual education drew sharp criticism from the Conservatives, whose English-only policy was reinforced by Protestant reaction in the late 1880s and 1890s to the Jesuit estates question [see D’Alton McCarthy*; François-Eugène-Alfred Évanturel*]. Ross none the less accepted the constitutional right of Catholic parents to separate schools. His policy, he argued repeatedly, was “to promote efficiency” in the separate system, improve its fiscal base, and make it functionally more like the public system. For this reason he amended legislation in 1886 to facilitate the allocation to the separate schools of taxes paid by Catholic tenants and corporations with Catholic shareholders. Other changes made the school year conform to that of the public system and gave separate-school trustees comparable responsibilities. Maintaining that Catholics were overlooked when municipal councils made appointments, Ross obtained legislation in 1885 which permitted separate-school trustees to appoint a Catholic to the local high-school board. Ross offered only what had been given to public trustees.

 

Critics also ignored public-school practice when they denounced Ross and Mowat for not extending the secret ballot to the election of separate-school trustees. Though permitted since 1885 when requested by public-school electors, the ballot was by no means widely used. As anti-Catholics vented their anger over the lack of democratic electoral practice, pressure built on the church, which reluctantly acquiesced in 1894. Ross’s critics tried to make the case that there had been collusion between Liberals and Catholics, but he had, in fact, adopted a course of moderation. He opposed Catholic demands, such as the appointment of a deputy minister for separate schools, that were not compatible with greater state authority. He insisted too on authorizing the texts to be used in separate schools, making teachers meet the certification standards of the public system, and inspecting the schools.

 

To its list of complaints about minority education, the Protestant opposition added bilingual instruction. French-language schools dominated debate in the legislature in the spring of 1889 and were a central issue in the election of 1890. But Ross refused to end French-language instruction. When he spoke in March 1889 of the requirement for education to “assimilate the people and the languages of other nationalities,” he did not necessarily anticipate a unilingual nationalism. If the use of a foreign tongue was made “a stigma . . . which precludes . . . the full privileges of citizenship,” he reminded Ontarians, then immigrants would find Canada inhospitable. Since the “Anglo-Saxon race” would remain dominant in Canada, he confidently believed, linguistic unity was not essential for a patriotic citizenry. Still, stressing the much-used argument that the language of the state was English, Ross had made the study of English and teaching in English, as much as possible, mandatory in 1885; if taught exclusively, French or (in such areas as Waterloo County) German could breed sectarian and unpatriotic values. Publicly, for political reasons, Ross emphasized that French-speaking parents wanted their children to learn English. It was far more difficult to explain how their equally strong desire to have their children learn to read and write in French could be accommodated in the curriculum. He therefore attributed the slow progress in English through the late 1880s to a lack of bilingual teachers and texts.

 

An inquiry in 1889 took the actual measure of French-language instruction. It discovered readers with Catholic content in the public schools and reported that religious instruction – Catholic in the French-language public schools and both Catholic and Protestant in the German public schools – was being given during regular hours, contrary to regulations. As well, history texts in French public and separate schools were found “written in a spirit unfriendly to the British Empire and to the development of a patriotism embracing the whole Dominion of Canada.” In reaction, Ross reminded trustees and inspectors about the regulations concerning religious instruction and authorized the introduction of the English-French readers used in the Maritimes. A model school to train French-speaking teachers, authorized in 1886, was finally opened in 1890 at Plantagenet, in Prescott County.

 

A second inquiry, in 1893, assured Ross that English teaching and students’ proficiency had improved in both public and separate schools. The controversy over religious instruction and the enforcement of regulations pertaining to it, however, had sparked the shift of 27 schools in Prescott and Russell counties from the public to the separate system. Though Ross no doubt regretted this shift, he could take encouragement in the demands of some Catholic parents for educational improvement, as exemplified by the request of the Ottawa separate-school trustees for an investigation of their schools. The inquiry of 1893 also led to an evaluation of teaching by the religious orders, and strengthened the demands of Catholic parents that teaching brothers and sisters accept the process of certification prescribed for lay teachers.

 

Though Ross resisted church influence, he saw religious instruction as a necessary part of moral education. He quickly learned, however, that sectarianism and theological difference could frustrate the introduction into the classroom of anything aimed at promoting a “common Christianity.” In December 1884 he made religious instruction obligatory in the form of opening and closing prayers and the reading of Scripture. The so-called Ross Bible program, however, proved offensive to many Protestants and Catholics. Seeking accord, Ross accepted suggestions from the Catholic archbishop of Toronto, John Joseph Lynch*, and from a Protestant committee. But other bishops – James Joseph Carbery of Hamilton, James Vincent Cleary* of Kingston, and John Walsh* of London – did not share Lynch’s view. Moreover, the anti-Catholic Toronto Daily Mail [see Christopher William Bunting*] objected even to the consultation with Lynch and denounced the scriptural extracts as mutilations. Although Ross argued that the readings facilitated rather than distorted students’ understanding, concessions had to be made. Critics were privately conciliated, objectionable parts of the readings were revised, the actual Bible was permitted as an alternative, the exemption of Catholic children and teachers was guaranteed, and a compromise with the offended bishops was quietly negotiated by Ross’s cabinet colleague Christopher Finlay Fraser*. Despite this backtracking, Ross remained committed, as he put it in 1887, to making Christianity “the basis of our school system.”

 

Religious instruction was not the only approach to moral education. Ross believed that the most effective means were indirect: students picked up values and influences from their surroundings and from lessons in school. Thus, authorized readers contained selections that would appeal to a child’s “moral and religious nature.” Discipline in school should mirror the family. Regulations therefore obliged teachers to exercise the discipline of a “judicious parent” and, through example, instruction, and authority, “imbue every pupil with respect for those moral obligations which underlie a well formed character.” To promote civic service, in 1885 Ross introduced Arbor Day, on which children planted trees, cleaned up the school grounds, and shaped an environment that symbolized the ideal for society.

 

In 1896 Ross asked his public-school inspectors about the outcome of state education, namely the policies of the Department of Education over 20 years and the compulsory attendance laws of 1871 and 1891. Had the moral standing of teachers and students improved? The consensus was positive, but some questioned whether improvement had penetrated to the true, inner characters of individuals. Though surveillance of both children and teachers was more effective, attendance remained irregular; only 50 per cent of school-age children attended in 1887. Aware perhaps of the limits of moral education, Ross introduced more punitive disciplinary measures. In 1891, for instance, police commissions or school trustees were enabled to appoint truant officers. In his report of 1898 Ross speculated that even more rigorous measures were needed.

 

Much of what Ross accomplished as minister of education had been started by his predecessors. The assertion of ministerial responsibility, the enforcement of school attendance, the attachment of secondary and post-secondary education to the public system, the professional training of teachers, and the preparation of textbooks under departmental supervision completed a generation of school promotion in Ontario. To these major achievements Ross added a number of specific measures that extended departmental and ministerial authority: compelling through order in council in 1884 the admission of women to the University of Toronto [see Sir Daniel Wilson*], supporting kindergartens and developing specialized training for their teachers, introducing temperance education on an optional basis in 1885, encouraging manual training and domestic science, and promoting technical and adult education. But Ross’s most important contribution was administrative. Amendments shortened the legislation covering education and gave him the authority to use departmental regulations to make the educational ladder operate more efficiently as a system of accreditation.

 

Ontario’s schools had provided Ross in his youth with a way out of country life and limited prospects. As industrialization and urbanization transformed the province, he was satisfied that others too could demonstrate strength of character – for him the prerequisite for success – by meeting the challenges set, evaluated, and certified by the Department of Education. Conservative leader James Pliny Whitney, however, judged that Ross’s concern with accreditation had impaired the ability of elementary schools to provide adequate training for the children of the “poorer classes,” at the same time as departmental parsimony had left the secondary system and the University of Toronto underfunded. Perceiving a weakness in Liberal policy, from 1897 Whitney shifted opposition criticism to these areas, away from minority rights. As well, Ross’s refinement of Ontario’s educational system was receiving mixed assessments at meetings of the Dominion Educational Association and other professional bodies. Within the system his call for more coercive discipline implicitly questioned the effectiveness of the system in forming character among students. Ross responded eloquently, if defensively, reminding critics that the Ontario model had been adopted by other provinces. “I think we have gone about as far as we need to go,” he concluded in 1899. No doubt too he took satisfaction in having his accomplishments acknowledged by honorary degrees from the University of St Andrews in Scotland (1888), Victoria (1892), and the University of Toronto (1894); similar honours would be granted by McMaster (1902) and Queen’s (1903).

 

As minister, Ross had involved himself steadily in the administrative minutiae of his department, and his assertion of authority was often quite abrasive. He could be tenacious and mean-minded once he had embarked on a course of action. His campaign against Hodgins, himself a difficult man to work with, revealed this unpleasant side of Ross’s character. He not only marginalized Hodgins, afraid perhaps of the political repercussions of dismissing him, but also found ways to insult him and in the end Hodgins resigned in 1890. In another instance Ross engaged Professor Eugene Emil Felix Richard Haanel in a nasty and unnecessarily prolonged dispute over the latter’s loss of his position at Victoria when it federated with the University of Toronto. Similarly, Ross’s relations with G. M. Grant and William Mulock, both strong-willed men, were strained as they battled about questions of ministerial authority over universities. Mulock denounced Ross for acting like “a Bismarck or Mentchikoff, but not a representative of the free people of Canada.”

 

With the retirement on 20 Oct. 1899 of Arthur Sturgis Hardy*, premier since 1896, Ross as senior minister became premier and provincial treasurer. He faced a difficult situation. Under Hardy the strength of the Liberals had seriously declined, even though the province was in good shape economically. The extension of Ontario’s northern boundaries, the assertion of provincial rights over crown lands, and the development of resources had produced a revenue base which allowed the government to build a surplus. The opening of northern Ontario promised a revival of the pioneering era that had sustained Liberalism under Mowat. At the same time Ontario’s schools aimed at instilling in the province’s youth the self-discipline, individualism, and civic morality that Liberalism had associated with the farmer and the artisan. But Ontario had changed: it was increasingly urban and the urban population was concentrating in the largest centres. Ross nevertheless moved to focus his government’s attention on the north – “New Ontario” – and on the resource sector.

 

In the first year of his administration Ross commissioned an extensive survey of northern Ontario. It lauded the potential of the northeast’s Great Clay Belt as a new frontier for settlement. The premier subsequently delivered promotional speeches, wrote to British newspapers encouraging immigration, pressed the federal government to direct agricultural immigrants to the north, and set up a bureau of colonization. To attract capital, his government continued to distribute generously rights to exploit resources and offered subsidies for rail construction. Pulpwood-cutting concessions were sold privately, not at public auction as demanded by the Conservatives. Mining properties could be held on terms suited to the financial means and speculative interest of the investor, and in 1900 the government eliminated royalty payments. That it should undertake the construction, in 1903, and later the operation of the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway did not necessarily contradict its rejection of public enterprise in other sectors: the line was analogous to government-built colonization roads and drew enthusiastic support in the north and from Toronto business.

 

The stimulation of manufacturing proved more difficult. In 1900 Ross extended the manufacturing condition imposed on pine by the Hardy government to require that spruce pulpwood cut on crown land be processed in Canada. Though several pulp-and-paper companies attempted to establish operations, the recession of 1903 and the American tariff on Canadian pulp, paper, and newsprint contributed to their collapse. Changes to the Mines Act, also in 1900, levied fees on nickel ore that would be remitted if it was refined in Canada. Interested American capitalists appealed for federal disallowance, charging that the province had no authority to regulate trade. Though Liberal Prime Minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier agreed, he hesitated for political reasons to disallow the legislation, preferring to have Minister of Justice David Mills* communicate only the grounds upon which it might be set aside. Ross angrily proposed submitting the matter to the courts, but he soon had second thoughts: unlike trees cut on crown land, ore was extracted from private property and the courts could rule against the province. As well, he may have concluded that Attorney General John Morison Gibson*, who was also the solicitor for a syndicate promoting a smelter in Hamilton, had exaggerated the viability of nickel refining in Canada [see Andrew Trew Wood*]. Ross never referred the act to the courts nor did he request the lieutenant governor’s assent.

 

Pride of place in Ross’s industrial ambitions for the north was held by Francis Hector Clergue*’s complex of hydroelectric, railway, chemical, pulp-and-paper, and iron and steel companies at Sault Ste Marie. Having showered the enterprise with bonuses, Ross felt obliged to step in when Clergue failed to pay his workers and creditors in September 1903. Militiamen were sent from Toronto to control demonstrations and on 1 October Ross guaranteed the overdue wages of Clergue’s umbrella company. In March 1904 the government loaned $2 million to a reorganized corporation. Challenged by Conservative leader J. P Whitney, who warned that the province could end up taking it over, Ross rejected the prospect. The government could always sell the property. For Ross, the responsibility of the liberal state was only to create a climate within which individual initiative could thrive.

 

Ross similarly rejected provincial ownership of a utility to generate and transmit hydroelectricity from Niagara Falls. He saw no reason to assume public debt for a service which could be enjoyed only by a small portion of the population. Preferable were franchises that could generate public revenue. Rights at Niagara had initially been assigned in 1892; in 1900 the government signed a second agreement, with an American syndicate. Three years later a third franchise was granted, to the Electrical Development Company, controlled by Toronto entrepreneurs William Mackenzie*, Frederic Nicholls*, and Henry Mill Pellatt*. Despite pressure from manufacturers and municipal reformers, Ross refused to reserve sites for a power plant owned by a municipal co-operative, although legislation in 1903 did allow for a municipal commission to undertake transmission at its own expense. A charge of corporate influence seemed plausible because Ross at the time was president of Manufacturers’ Life Insurance Company, which was interested in the stock of Electrical Development and on whose board Mackenzie and Pellatt also served, and J. M. Gibson was involved in another power company. Ross did nothing to allay suspicions when, in the dying days of his government, he granted the remaining generating sites to Electrical Development. The popular appeal of the public-power movement [see Sir Adam Beck*] clearly baffled Ross, and in subsequent speeches and writings he attempted with little success to grapple with the challenge of a new conception of the state.

 

The mining and hydroelectric questions do not reveal Ross at his best. He may have allowed others, especially Gibson, too much latitude in determining the course of policy. When he could choose his associates and maintain discipline through ministerial authority, as he had done in the Department of Education, he functioned well. But, as the first among equals, he was at a disadvantage; he could not or would not command. Lacking perhaps the political smartness of Mowat or Hardy, he relied too heavily for political initiative on Provincial Secretary James Robert Stratton, who was not much more than a ward-heeler, and Gibson, whose social élitism bred a disdain for the niceties of democratic procedure.

 

In contrast to power, prohibition would have been a liability for any government. Though a long-time temperance man, Ross endeavoured to separate the issue from his electoral campaigns. The decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in November 1901 that the Manitoba prohibition act was constitutional encouraged the cause in Ontario. In February 1902, following Manitoba’s example, Ross introduced legislation which allowed prohibition should it be favoured by a number equal to a majority of those voting in the election of 1898. In a referendum on 4 Dec. 1902, the number of votes fell short. Five days later, in a speech to the Sons of Temperance in Toronto, Ross declined to take further action [see Francis Stephens Spence].

 

The disappointment of prohibitionists would affect the election of 1905, but of immediate significance were charges of electoral scandal. Under Mowat and Hardy a machine, directed by the Ontario Liberal Association, had operated efficiently to get the vote out and maintain the Liberals’ hold on power. During the 1890s the machine began to give way. By relentlessly protesting irregularities, Whitney skilfully made corruption a political issue. To investigate charges in the Elgin West election in 1898, Ross named a commission of inquiry shortly after assuming the premiership. Its discovery that the ballots had been burned seemed to reveal a cover-up. More damaging were the accusations made on 11 March 1903 by Robert Roswell Gamey, the Conservative member for Manitoulin. Following the election of 1902, he charged, a Liberal organizer had approached him to support the government in exchange for money and the control of patronage in his riding; he reputedly received a payment in the outer office of Provincial Secretary Stratton. Although a royal commission struck by Ross cast doubts on Gamey’s evidence and exonerated Stratton, pressure did not let up. In September 1904 a trial concerning charges arising from the by-election of 1903 in Sault Ste Marie revealed that the Liberal victor had been assisted illegally by F. H. Clergue’s Algoma Central Railway. A company steamship had transported 20 men from the Michigan side to vote under the names of dead or absent miners. Aware of plans for the deception, the Conservative candidate had complained to Attorney General Gibson, who took no action.

 

Opinion on Ross’s involvement differed. Reporter Hector Willoughby Charlesworth* judged him “guileless,” unaware of the “unscrupulousness . . . around him,” while John Stephen Willison* believed that Ross, out of desperation, participated in what was going on. Both were probably right. Though no machine politician like Hardy, Ross knew from experience the ends to which organizers at times had to go to secure victory; he did not need to know the details of every constituency fight, only to assure that in the wake of an election controverted returns were managed to contain any damage. But going into the election of January 1905, he had to clean house; he accepted Stratton’s resignation and demoted Gibson. In addition, in November 1904 a new organization, the General Reform Association of Ontario, replaced the OLA, whose general secretary, James Vance, was removed as organizer. These steps, along with the premier’s confession – “We have sinned and repented and are sorry for it” – went unrewarded, as the Conservatives swept to a 40-seat majority.

 

Moral revulsion, prohibition, and the separate schools issue all contributed to the loss, as Ross admitted. The fact was, moreover, that despite a long record of victories the Liberal hold on office, even before Ross’s short term, rested on a popular vote only marginally higher than that of the opposition. In the election of 1902 the party had won a majority with less than half the vote, and a shift in a few ridings in 1898 or 1902 could have produced much different results. Furthermore, although the Ross government claimed credit for the long history of Liberal legislation on industry, its record, beyond its commitment to resource development, was modest. Measures such as bonuses to the sugar-beet industry, the promotion of the dressed-beef trade, and the appointment of a good-roads commissioner and the allocation of a million dollars for highway improvement, though useful programs, likely did not arouse much partisan enthusiasm. With hindsight, Ross would state in Getting into parliament and after (Toronto, 1913) that there had been nothing left to “appeal to the vivid conceptions of Government which attract the masses.” Liberalism had exhausted itself in Ontario.

 

Ross led the opposition through two sessions before he happily accepted a Senate seat on 15 Jan. 1907. Perhaps because some party veterans questioned his executive ability and commitment to “true Reform principles,” the cabinet position Ross desired did not materialize, but other honours did: a knight bachelorhood in 1910 and leadership of the Liberals in the Senate in 1911. Advancing a principled role for the Senate as a trustee of provincial rights and a defender of empire, Ross would lead its obstruction of the Conservative government of Robert Laird Borden* after 1911.

 

As a politician Ross’s strength was his power of oratory. He was widely regarded as one of Canada’s finest speakers, and, although the written versions of many of his addresses lack intellectual substance, his parliamentary debating skill was substantial. Much of his imperialism was the enthusiasm of a sentimental politician delivering an after-dinner speech, and empire was a subject to stir English Canadian audiences, especially in the years following Queen Victoria’s diamond jubilee and the South African War. On this emotional level, imperialism provided a vehicle for the patriotic feeling that Ross believed was essential for sound citizenship. To this end, as minister of education, he had compiled Patriotic recitations and Arbor Day exercises (Toronto, 1893) for school use. Later, in 1899, he introduced Empire Day into the schools [see Clementina Trenholme]. In speeches he emphasized the national unity that was possible within imperialism. Just as people of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, and Gallic ancestry had all contributed to the grand achievements of empire, so too could people of diverse backgrounds realize grand attainments in Canada. There were limits on this diversity, however. In an address in England in 1901, Ross felt free to express concern about the emigration of Doukhobors, Galicians, and Mennonites, people who “have to go through a course of naturalization.” On his return to Ontario, he stated that, instead, “we want . . . people who are of our own kith and kin, men . . . educated in the confident belief in British institutions.”

 

At the practical level, although Ross wished for closer relations within the British empire, he doubted the British commitment to defend Canadian interests, especially in negotiations with the United States. Imperial federation interested Ross as the final step in the devolution of sovereignty, from the British parliament to an imperial parliament of Britain and the dominions, but the prospect of federation of this sort, he claimed, was distant. In the interim, more modest measures would satisfy him, among them the promotion of capital investment and immigration to Canada, and preferential trade. The British prejudice for free trade, he suggested, could be overcome by directing the revenue from preferential tariffs to imperial defence.

 

After 1909 the issue of imperial defence generated deep partisan divisions. Ross strongly supported Laurier’s Naval Service Bill of 1910, which called for the establishment of a small Canadian navy that would contribute to imperial defence in times of emergency. Following Launer’s defeat in 1911, the Liberal-dominated Senate stubbornly opposed the Borden government’s legislative agenda. Bill after bill was rejected or amended; most significant was the Naval Aid Bill. Unable to foresee any emergency that would justify a grant of $35 million to the Royal Navy and angered by Borden’s inaction in establishing a Canadian navy, the Liberals dragged out debate in the commons from 5 Dec. 1912 until May, when the bill passed under closure. The Conservative leader in the Senate, James Alexander Lougheed*, negotiated an agreement with Ross whereby the government would accept an amendment to provide appropriation for a Canadian navy if the Senate would pass the bill. Ross had wanted a stronger commitment to an independent navy, but he privately favoured the bill as a “contribution for the protection that Britain has afforded us for the last 150 years.” As well, he had grown unhappy with Laurier’s naval policy and had talked about leaving the party over reciprocity. Furious that the commons had been gagged, the other Liberal senators and Laurier rejected any compromise. Ross accepted his party’s position and led the Senate opposition in forcing the bill’s return to the commons on 30 May 1913.

 

As Ross feared, the defeat provoked demands for Senate reform. When Borden’s proposal to enlarge the Senate with more representation from the west was rejected by the upper house, the prime minister seriously contemplated a plebiscite on an elected senate. In defence, Ross assembled ideas he had advanced on various occasions and published them as The Senate of Canada . . . (Toronto, [1914]). More than partisan rhetoric, it advanced a credible ideological justification. Only by agreement among the original provinces could the Senate be reformed, he argued.

 

In opposing Senate reform and, before that, public ownership, Ross adopted positions which appeared out of sympathy with popular democratic sentiment. In his ideal society, men took individual initiatives and enjoyed the fruits of their efforts. It was, he stated in the Senate in May 1913, “a fact that the most successful men in our professions, and in commercial life, have been raised upon the farm up to a certain age, and with that strong mental and physical push which they possess, because of their environment, they have been able to grapple more successfully with the problems and the difficulties that they encountered.” Such had been his own experience. But by the 20th century an increasingly smaller proportion of the population had been born on the farm, and the values associated with that background had lost much of their political appeal.

 

The naval debate was Ross’s last major campaign. On occasion the rheumatism which had afflicted him since the 1880s kept him away from the Senate, and in the spring of 1913 he carne down with a mild attack of pneumonia. On 24 Jan. 1914 he collapsed suddenly while speaking to the Senate. Rushed back to Toronto, he remained in hospital until his death on 7 March; he was survived by his third wife, two sons, and six daughters.

 

via Playground Markings UK bit.ly/1lMiYcr

Playground Surfacing daily is out! bit.ly/1Qd2l6A #playflooring Stories via @ECOBONDLBP @DayNurseriesUK @OutsideFlooring

XX285(CK) Hawk T1A 100SQ 100 Years Markings

Mandy was rubbing her face on the dining room chair--marking it as her own or maybe just scratching her face....but she looked adorable as always. Hope you have a wonderful Monday!

Painting and markings:

I wanted an authentic Luftwaffe livery – but the Hs 126 and similar German recce planes of the mid-WWII era only offer a small range of camouflage options. The generic paint scheme was a splinter pattern in RLM 70/71/65 with a low, hard waterline. Africa as optional theatre of operations offered some variations with field-modifications of this basic scheme with German and Italian sand added on top – but that would not have been the right option for a floatplane, I guess?

 

Eventually I decided to locate the model’s unit far up North and to add improvised winter camouflage to the standard livery. It was applied just as in real life: first, the whole model received its standard splinter camouflage with Humbrol 30, 91 and 65, then the decals were applied. The latter were puzzled together from the scrap box, using simplified Eiserne Kreuze without black edges. The white unit emblems are fictional and come from an MPM He 100 kit with spurious PR markings. The tactical code is “plausible” (“9W” is the AufklGr. 122’s unit code, “D” denotes the 4th aircraft, and “C” is the verification letter for the Stabgeschwader of the unit’s 2nd group) and created from single letters/digits. The black and the green have no strong contrast to the camouflage, but this style was common Luftwaffe practice. The Stabflieger color green was also incorporated on the spinner, another very typical Luftwaffe marking to denote an aircraft’s operational unit.

 

The temporary whitewash was the applied with white acrylic paint (Revell 05) and a flat, soft brush. Once dry, the whole model received a light black ink washing, post-panel shading and a light treatment with wet sandpaper on the white areas to simulate wear and tear. After some exhaust stains were created with graphite, the model was finally sealed with matt acrylic varnish.

 

via Playground Markings UK bit.ly/1WlgVre

Playground Surfacing daily is out! bit.ly/20drYat #playflooring Stories via @apiplay @rubbersurface @OutsideFlooring

Yellow-rumped warbler showing off his wing and crown colors in our backyard.

Markings; 305th and 415th Air Wings, McGuire AFB, New Jersey, 2000

Painting and markings:

As mentioned above, the livery is based on an official profile which I deem authentic and canonical. My aircraft depicts a different machine from VFT-127, though, since I could not (and did not really want to) 100% replicate the profile's machine from the Macross PLUS source book, "13 Red". Especially the squadron’s emblem on the fin would create massive problems.

 

For the two-tone wrap-around scheme I used Humbrol 72 (Khaki Drill) and 98 (Chocolate Brown), based on the printed colors in the source book where I found the scheme. The pattern is kept close to the benchmark profile, and, lacking an underside view, I just mirrored the upper scheme. The starboard side pattern was guesstimated.

As a second-line aggressor aircraft, I weathered the VF-4 with a black ink wash, some post-shading with various lighter tones (including Humbrol 160, 168, 170 and 187) and did some wet-sanding treatment for an uneven and worn look.

 

Interior surfaces were painted according to visual references from various sources: the landing gear and the air intakes became white, while the cockpit was painted in RAF Dark Sea Grey.

 

In order to add some color to the overall brown aircraft I decided to paint the missiles all around the hull in white with tan tips – in the profile, the appear to be integrated into the camouflage, what I found dubious.

 

Most stencils come from the OOB sheet, but I added some more from the scrap box. The grey "kite" roundels come from an 1:72 Hasegawa Macross F-14 Tomcat kit sheet, which I acquired separately for a reasonable price. Even though it took four weeks to be delivered from Asia, the investment was worthwhile, since the sheet also provided some useful low-viz stencils.

 

The VAT-127 “Zentraedi Busters” unique tail insignia was more complicated, because these had to be printed at home. As a side note, concerning the fin marking, I recently found a translation of the benchmark profile's text on mahq.net, which is interesting: "The Regult within the targeting reticle on the tail met with disapproval from micronized Zentraedi pilots, and so was only used for a short time." The comment also reveals that the original aircraft's modex is "713", not just "13" as depicted, so I tried to reflect these details on my build, too.

 

I eventually settled for a solution that was partly inspired by the kit’s OOB fin marking and the wish for more contrast for the motif: I scanned the original Regult pod illustration from the source book and printed it on white decal sheet. This was sealed with two layers of glossy acrylic varnish (applied with a rattle can) and then cut into a white field that fills the fixed part of the fin (using the WAVE kit’s OOB fin markings as reference). Once in place and dry, two black outlines were added separately (generic decal material) which help blend the decal and the surroundings. Finally, thin strips of silver decal sheet were used for the fins’ leading edges.

 

This design variation, compared with the original “13 Red” illustration, led to the idea of a flight leader’s machine with slightly more prominent markings. In order to take this concept further I also gave the aircraft a white stripe around the front fuselage, placed under the kite roundel and again with black outlines for a consistent look. It’s not much different from “13 Red”, but I think that it looks conclusive and, together with the white fin markings and the missiles, livens up the VF-4’s look.

 

The appropriate flight leader tactical code “01 Red” was puzzled together from single digits from a Begemot Su-27 sheet, the rest of the bort numbers were taken from the OOB sheet (which incidentally feature a “01” code, too).

 

Concerning the OOB decal sheet, there’s much light but also some deep shadow. While the register is excellent and the carrier film flexible enough to lay down smoothly, the instructions lack information where to place the zillion of stencils (“No step” and “Beware of Blast” stuff) are to be placed! You only get references for the major markings – the rest has either to be guessed, OR you are in possession of the VF-4 source book from Softbank Publishing which was (incidentally?) released in parallel with the WAVE kit. This mecha porn offers an overview of all(!) relevant stencils on the VF-4A’s hull, and ONLY with this information the exhaustive decal sheet makes some sense…

 

As final steps, the VF-4 received some dry-brushing with light grey around the leading edges, some chipped paint was simulated with dry-brushed aluminum and, finally, light soot stains around the vectoring nozzles all around the hull and the weapon bays were created with graphite. Then the kit was sealed with matt acrylic varnish (Italeri).

via Playground Markings UK playgroundmarkingsuk.tumblr.com/post/143677877960

Playground Markings in Horsington | Play Area Graphics #Horsington t.co/ydvqrE1Q7Y

That's pretty common thing here in the US, but in Russia road construction companies never use it. This steel plate covers a pit, where a manhole or any other similar thing should be mounted or was mounted recently. It helps to avoid jams, because road is still usable and nobody has to slow down, give way, change lanes and so on.

 

Circular feature and thin cut, filled with bitumen (front plane) are the parts of traffic sensor system.

2007 FORD CROWN VICTORIA POLICE INTERCEPTOR

 

This 2007 Ford Police Interceptor features red, white, and blue markings as well as the obligatory " To Protect and To Service" motto emblazoned on the door. The car is equipped with a Federal Signal brand v-shaped lightbar with blue and white halogen lights

via Playground Markings UK bit.ly/1MY2Jjm

Playground Games in Melbury Sampford | Recreational Area Markings #Playground #Markings #Games #Melbury #Sampford bit.ly/1XplCWB

via Playground Markings UK bit.ly/1H7oikt

Playground Games in Harrapool/Harrapul | Recreational Area Markings #Playground #Markings #Games #Harrapool/Harrapul bit.ly/1Oe1C1q

A small clip of coyotes marking the area. They were lying down as a bobcat ran by. They both got up on alert because of the bobcat. I wish I got the bobcat too but it was only about 6 feet from me and behind a fence. The bobcat disappeared in a flash. I used the Canon R1 withe the RF 100-300mm with the 2x resting on a fence post.

 

On YouTube

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhwrBQvzRGs

 

Graffiti (plural; singular graffiti or graffito, the latter rarely used except in archeology) is art that is written, painted or drawn on a wall or other surface, usually without permission and within public view. Graffiti ranges from simple written words to elaborate wall paintings, and has existed since ancient times, with examples dating back to ancient Egypt, ancient Greece, and the Roman Empire (see also mural).

 

Graffiti is a controversial subject. In most countries, marking or painting property without permission is considered by property owners and civic authorities as defacement and vandalism, which is a punishable crime, citing the use of graffiti by street gangs to mark territory or to serve as an indicator of gang-related activities. Graffiti has become visualized as a growing urban "problem" for many cities in industrialized nations, spreading from the New York City subway system and Philadelphia in the early 1970s to the rest of the United States and Europe and other world regions

 

"Graffiti" (usually both singular and plural) and the rare singular form "graffito" are from the Italian word graffiato ("scratched"). The term "graffiti" is used in art history for works of art produced by scratching a design into a surface. A related term is "sgraffito", which involves scratching through one layer of pigment to reveal another beneath it. This technique was primarily used by potters who would glaze their wares and then scratch a design into them. In ancient times graffiti were carved on walls with a sharp object, although sometimes chalk or coal were used. The word originates from Greek γράφειν—graphein—meaning "to write".

 

The term graffiti originally referred to the inscriptions, figure drawings, and such, found on the walls of ancient sepulchres or ruins, as in the Catacombs of Rome or at Pompeii. Historically, these writings were not considered vanadlism, which today is considered part of the definition of graffiti.

 

The only known source of the Safaitic language, an ancient form of Arabic, is from graffiti: inscriptions scratched on to the surface of rocks and boulders in the predominantly basalt desert of southern Syria, eastern Jordan and northern Saudi Arabia. Safaitic dates from the first century BC to the fourth century AD.

 

Some of the oldest cave paintings in the world are 40,000 year old ones found in Australia. The oldest written graffiti was found in ancient Rome around 2500 years ago. Most graffiti from the time was boasts about sexual experiences Graffiti in Ancient Rome was a form of communication, and was not considered vandalism.

 

Ancient tourists visiting the 5th-century citadel at Sigiriya in Sri Lanka write their names and commentary over the "mirror wall", adding up to over 1800 individual graffiti produced there between the 6th and 18th centuries. Most of the graffiti refer to the frescoes of semi-nude females found there. One reads:

 

Wet with cool dew drops

fragrant with perfume from the flowers

came the gentle breeze

jasmine and water lily

dance in the spring sunshine

side-long glances

of the golden-hued ladies

stab into my thoughts

heaven itself cannot take my mind

as it has been captivated by one lass

among the five hundred I have seen here.

 

Among the ancient political graffiti examples were Arab satirist poems. Yazid al-Himyari, an Umayyad Arab and Persian poet, was most known for writing his political poetry on the walls between Sajistan and Basra, manifesting a strong hatred towards the Umayyad regime and its walis, and people used to read and circulate them very widely.

 

Graffiti, known as Tacherons, were frequently scratched on Romanesque Scandinavian church walls. When Renaissance artists such as Pinturicchio, Raphael, Michelangelo, Ghirlandaio, or Filippino Lippi descended into the ruins of Nero's Domus Aurea, they carved or painted their names and returned to initiate the grottesche style of decoration.

 

There are also examples of graffiti occurring in American history, such as Independence Rock, a national landmark along the Oregon Trail.

 

Later, French soldiers carved their names on monuments during the Napoleonic campaign of Egypt in the 1790s. Lord Byron's survives on one of the columns of the Temple of Poseidon at Cape Sounion in Attica, Greece.

 

The oldest known example of graffiti "monikers" found on traincars created by hobos and railworkers since the late 1800s. The Bozo Texino monikers were documented by filmmaker Bill Daniel in his 2005 film, Who is Bozo Texino?.

 

In World War II, an inscription on a wall at the fortress of Verdun was seen as an illustration of the US response twice in a generation to the wrongs of the Old World:

 

During World War II and for decades after, the phrase "Kilroy was here" with an accompanying illustration was widespread throughout the world, due to its use by American troops and ultimately filtering into American popular culture. Shortly after the death of Charlie Parker (nicknamed "Yardbird" or "Bird"), graffiti began appearing around New York with the words "Bird Lives".

 

Modern graffiti art has its origins with young people in 1960s and 70s in New York City and Philadelphia. Tags were the first form of stylised contemporary graffiti. Eventually, throw-ups and pieces evolved with the desire to create larger art. Writers used spray paint and other kind of materials to leave tags or to create images on the sides subway trains. and eventually moved into the city after the NYC metro began to buy new trains and paint over graffiti.

 

While the art had many advocates and appreciators—including the cultural critic Norman Mailer—others, including New York City mayor Ed Koch, considered it to be defacement of public property, and saw it as a form of public blight. The ‘taggers’ called what they did ‘writing’—though an important 1974 essay by Mailer referred to it using the term ‘graffiti.’

 

Contemporary graffiti style has been heavily influenced by hip hop culture and the myriad international styles derived from Philadelphia and New York City Subway graffiti; however, there are many other traditions of notable graffiti in the twentieth century. Graffiti have long appeared on building walls, in latrines, railroad boxcars, subways, and bridges.

 

An early graffito outside of New York or Philadelphia was the inscription in London reading "Clapton is God" in reference to the guitarist Eric Clapton. Creating the cult of the guitar hero, the phrase was spray-painted by an admirer on a wall in an Islington, north London in the autumn of 1967. The graffito was captured in a photograph, in which a dog is urinating on the wall.

 

Films like Style Wars in the 80s depicting famous writers such as Skeme, Dondi, MinOne, and ZEPHYR reinforced graffiti's role within New York's emerging hip-hop culture. Although many officers of the New York City Police Department found this film to be controversial, Style Wars is still recognized as the most prolific film representation of what was going on within the young hip hop culture of the early 1980s. Fab 5 Freddy and Futura 2000 took hip hop graffiti to Paris and London as part of the New York City Rap Tour in 1983

 

Commercialization and entrance into mainstream pop culture

Main article: Commercial graffiti

With the popularity and legitimization of graffiti has come a level of commercialization. In 2001, computer giant IBM launched an advertising campaign in Chicago and San Francisco which involved people spray painting on sidewalks a peace symbol, a heart, and a penguin (Linux mascot), to represent "Peace, Love, and Linux." IBM paid Chicago and San Francisco collectively US$120,000 for punitive damages and clean-up costs.

 

In 2005, a similar ad campaign was launched by Sony and executed by its advertising agency in New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and Miami, to market its handheld PSP gaming system. In this campaign, taking notice of the legal problems of the IBM campaign, Sony paid building owners for the rights to paint on their buildings "a collection of dizzy-eyed urban kids playing with the PSP as if it were a skateboard, a paddle, or a rocking horse".

 

Tristan Manco wrote that Brazil "boasts a unique and particularly rich, graffiti scene ... [earning] it an international reputation as the place to go for artistic inspiration". Graffiti "flourishes in every conceivable space in Brazil's cities". Artistic parallels "are often drawn between the energy of São Paulo today and 1970s New York". The "sprawling metropolis", of São Paulo has "become the new shrine to graffiti"; Manco alludes to "poverty and unemployment ... [and] the epic struggles and conditions of the country's marginalised peoples", and to "Brazil's chronic poverty", as the main engines that "have fuelled a vibrant graffiti culture". In world terms, Brazil has "one of the most uneven distributions of income. Laws and taxes change frequently". Such factors, Manco argues, contribute to a very fluid society, riven with those economic divisions and social tensions that underpin and feed the "folkloric vandalism and an urban sport for the disenfranchised", that is South American graffiti art.

 

Prominent Brazilian writers include Os Gêmeos, Boleta, Nunca, Nina, Speto, Tikka, and T.Freak. Their artistic success and involvement in commercial design ventures has highlighted divisions within the Brazilian graffiti community between adherents of the cruder transgressive form of pichação and the more conventionally artistic values of the practitioners of grafite.

 

Graffiti in the Middle East has emerged slowly, with taggers operating in Egypt, Lebanon, the Gulf countries like Bahrain or the United Arab Emirates, Israel, and in Iran. The major Iranian newspaper Hamshahri has published two articles on illegal writers in the city with photographic coverage of Iranian artist A1one's works on Tehran walls. Tokyo-based design magazine, PingMag, has interviewed A1one and featured photographs of his work. The Israeli West Bank barrier has become a site for graffiti, reminiscent in this sense of the Berlin Wall. Many writers in Israel come from other places around the globe, such as JUIF from Los Angeles and DEVIONE from London. The religious reference "נ נח נחמ נחמן מאומן" ("Na Nach Nachma Nachman Meuman") is commonly seen in graffiti around Israel.

 

Graffiti has played an important role within the street art scene in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), especially following the events of the Arab Spring of 2011 or the Sudanese Revolution of 2018/19. Graffiti is a tool of expression in the context of conflict in the region, allowing people to raise their voices politically and socially. Famous street artist Banksy has had an important effect in the street art scene in the MENA area, especially in Palestine where some of his works are located in the West Bank barrier and Bethlehem.

 

There are also a large number of graffiti influences in Southeast Asian countries that mostly come from modern Western culture, such as Malaysia, where graffiti have long been a common sight in Malaysia's capital city, Kuala Lumpur. Since 2010, the country has begun hosting a street festival to encourage all generations and people from all walks of life to enjoy and encourage Malaysian street culture.

 

The modern-day graffitists can be found with an arsenal of various materials that allow for a successful production of a piece. This includes such techniques as scribing. However, spray paint in aerosol cans is the number one medium for graffiti. From this commodity comes different styles, technique, and abilities to form master works of graffiti. Spray paint can be found at hardware and art stores and comes in virtually every color.

 

Stencil graffiti is created by cutting out shapes and designs in a stiff material (such as cardboard or subject folders) to form an overall design or image. The stencil is then placed on the "canvas" gently and with quick, easy strokes of the aerosol can, the image begins to appear on the intended surface.

 

Some of the first examples were created in 1981 by artists Blek le Rat in Paris, in 1982 by Jef Aerosol in Tours (France); by 1985 stencils had appeared in other cities including New York City, Sydney, and Melbourne, where they were documented by American photographer Charles Gatewood and Australian photographer Rennie Ellis

 

Tagging is the practice of someone spray-painting "their name, initial or logo onto a public surface" in a handstyle unique to the writer. Tags were the first form of modern graffiti.

 

Modern graffiti art often incorporates additional arts and technologies. For example, Graffiti Research Lab has encouraged the use of projected images and magnetic light-emitting diodes (throwies) as new media for graffitists. yarnbombing is another recent form of graffiti. Yarnbombers occasionally target previous graffiti for modification, which had been avoided among the majority of graffitists.

 

Theories on the use of graffiti by avant-garde artists have a history dating back at least to the Asger Jorn, who in 1962 painting declared in a graffiti-like gesture "the avant-garde won't give up"

 

Many contemporary analysts and even art critics have begun to see artistic value in some graffiti and to recognize it as a form of public art. According to many art researchers, particularly in the Netherlands and in Los Angeles, that type of public art is, in fact an effective tool of social emancipation or, in the achievement of a political goal

 

In times of conflict, such murals have offered a means of communication and self-expression for members of these socially, ethnically, or racially divided communities, and have proven themselves as effective tools in establishing dialog and thus, of addressing cleavages in the long run. The Berlin Wall was also extensively covered by graffiti reflecting social pressures relating to the oppressive Soviet rule over the GDR.

 

Many artists involved with graffiti are also concerned with the similar activity of stenciling. Essentially, this entails stenciling a print of one or more colors using spray-paint. Recognized while exhibiting and publishing several of her coloured stencils and paintings portraying the Sri Lankan Civil War and urban Britain in the early 2000s, graffitists Mathangi Arulpragasam, aka M.I.A., has also become known for integrating her imagery of political violence into her music videos for singles "Galang" and "Bucky Done Gun", and her cover art. Stickers of her artwork also often appear around places such as London in Brick Lane, stuck to lamp posts and street signs, she having become a muse for other graffitists and painters worldwide in cities including Seville.

 

Graffitist believes that art should be on display for everyone in the public eye or in plain sight, not hidden away in a museum or a gallery. Art should color the streets, not the inside of some building. Graffiti is a form of art that cannot be owned or bought. It does not last forever, it is temporary, yet one of a kind. It is a form of self promotion for the artist that can be displayed anywhere form sidewalks, roofs, subways, building wall, etc. Art to them is for everyone and should be showed to everyone for free.

 

Graffiti is a way of communicating and a way of expressing what one feels in the moment. It is both art and a functional thing that can warn people of something or inform people of something. However, graffiti is to some people a form of art, but to some a form of vandalism. And many graffitists choose to protect their identities and remain anonymous or to hinder prosecution.

 

With the commercialization of graffiti (and hip hop in general), in most cases, even with legally painted "graffiti" art, graffitists tend to choose anonymity. This may be attributed to various reasons or a combination of reasons. Graffiti still remains the one of four hip hop elements that is not considered "performance art" despite the image of the "singing and dancing star" that sells hip hop culture to the mainstream. Being a graphic form of art, it might also be said that many graffitists still fall in the category of the introverted archetypal artist.

 

Banksy is one of the world's most notorious and popular street artists who continues to remain faceless in today's society. He is known for his political, anti-war stencil art mainly in Bristol, England, but his work may be seen anywhere from Los Angeles to Palestine. In the UK, Banksy is the most recognizable icon for this cultural artistic movement and keeps his identity a secret to avoid arrest. Much of Banksy's artwork may be seen around the streets of London and surrounding suburbs, although he has painted pictures throughout the world, including the Middle East, where he has painted on Israel's controversial West Bank barrier with satirical images of life on the other side. One depicted a hole in the wall with an idyllic beach, while another shows a mountain landscape on the other side. A number of exhibitions also have taken place since 2000, and recent works of art have fetched vast sums of money. Banksy's art is a prime example of the classic controversy: vandalism vs. art. Art supporters endorse his work distributed in urban areas as pieces of art and some councils, such as Bristol and Islington, have officially protected them, while officials of other areas have deemed his work to be vandalism and have removed it.

 

Pixnit is another artist who chooses to keep her identity from the general public. Her work focuses on beauty and design aspects of graffiti as opposed to Banksy's anti-government shock value. Her paintings are often of flower designs above shops and stores in her local urban area of Cambridge, Massachusetts. Some store owners endorse her work and encourage others to do similar work as well. "One of the pieces was left up above Steve's Kitchen, because it looks pretty awesome"- Erin Scott, the manager of New England Comics in Allston, Massachusetts.

 

Graffiti artists may become offended if photographs of their art are published in a commercial context without their permission. In March 2020, the Finnish graffiti artist Psyke expressed his displeasure at the newspaper Ilta-Sanomat publishing a photograph of a Peugeot 208 in an article about new cars, with his graffiti prominently shown on the background. The artist claims he does not want his art being used in commercial context, not even if he were to receive compensation.

 

Territorial graffiti marks urban neighborhoods with tags and logos to differentiate certain groups from others. These images are meant to show outsiders a stern look at whose turf is whose. The subject matter of gang-related graffiti consists of cryptic symbols and initials strictly fashioned with unique calligraphies. Gang members use graffiti to designate membership throughout the gang, to differentiate rivals and associates and, most commonly, to mark borders which are both territorial and ideological.

 

Graffiti has been used as a means of advertising both legally and illegally. Bronx-based TATS CRU has made a name for themselves doing legal advertising campaigns for companies such as Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Toyota, and MTV. In the UK, Covent Garden's Boxfresh used stencil images of a Zapatista revolutionary in the hopes that cross referencing would promote their store.

 

Smirnoff hired artists to use reverse graffiti (the use of high pressure hoses to clean dirty surfaces to leave a clean image in the surrounding dirt) to increase awareness of their product.

 

Graffiti often has a reputation as part of a subculture that rebels against authority, although the considerations of the practitioners often diverge and can relate to a wide range of attitudes. It can express a political practice and can form just one tool in an array of resistance techniques. One early example includes the anarcho-punk band Crass, who conducted a campaign of stenciling anti-war, anarchist, feminist, and anti-consumerist messages throughout the London Underground system during the late 1970s and early 1980s. In Amsterdam graffiti was a major part of the punk scene. The city was covered with names such as "De Zoot", "Vendex", and "Dr Rat". To document the graffiti a punk magazine was started that was called Gallery Anus. So when hip hop came to Europe in the early 1980s there was already a vibrant graffiti culture.

 

The student protests and general strike of May 1968 saw Paris bedecked in revolutionary, anarchistic, and situationist slogans such as L'ennui est contre-révolutionnaire ("Boredom is counterrevolutionary") and Lisez moins, vivez plus ("Read less, live more"). While not exhaustive, the graffiti gave a sense of the 'millenarian' and rebellious spirit, tempered with a good deal of verbal wit, of the strikers.

 

I think graffiti writing is a way of defining what our generation is like. Excuse the French, we're not a bunch of p---- artists. Traditionally artists have been considered soft and mellow people, a little bit kooky. Maybe we're a little bit more like pirates that way. We defend our territory, whatever space we steal to paint on, we defend it fiercely.

 

The developments of graffiti art which took place in art galleries and colleges as well as "on the street" or "underground", contributed to the resurfacing in the 1990s of a far more overtly politicized art form in the subvertising, culture jamming, or tactical media movements. These movements or styles tend to classify the artists by their relationship to their social and economic contexts, since, in most countries, graffiti art remains illegal in many forms except when using non-permanent paint. Since the 1990s with the rise of Street Art, a growing number of artists are switching to non-permanent paints and non-traditional forms of painting.

 

Contemporary practitioners, accordingly, have varied and often conflicting practices. Some individuals, such as Alexander Brener, have used the medium to politicize other art forms, and have used the prison sentences enforced on them as a means of further protest. The practices of anonymous groups and individuals also vary widely, and practitioners by no means always agree with each other's practices. For example, the anti-capitalist art group the Space Hijackers did a piece in 2004 about the contradiction between the capitalistic elements of Banksy and his use of political imagery.

 

Berlin human rights activist Irmela Mensah-Schramm has received global media attention and numerous awards for her 35-year campaign of effacing neo-Nazi and other right-wing extremist graffiti throughout Germany, often by altering hate speech in humorous ways.

 

In Serbian capital, Belgrade, the graffiti depicting a uniformed former general of Serb army and war criminal, convicted at ICTY for war crimes and crimes against humanity, including genocide and ethnic cleansing in Bosnian War, Ratko Mladić, appeared in a military salute alongside the words "General, thank to your mother". Aleks Eror, Berlin-based journalist, explains how "veneration of historical and wartime figures" through street art is not a new phenomenon in the region of former Yugoslavia, and that "in most cases is firmly focused on the future, rather than retelling the past". Eror is not only analyst pointing to danger of such an expressions for the region's future. In a long expose on the subject of Bosnian genocide denial, at Balkan Diskurs magazine and multimedia platform website, Kristina Gadže and Taylor Whitsell referred to these experiences as a young generations' "cultural heritage", in which young are being exposed to celebration and affirmation of war-criminals as part of their "formal education" and "inheritance".

 

There are numerous examples of genocide denial through celebration and affirmation of war criminals throughout the region of Western Balkans inhabited by Serbs using this form of artistic expression. Several more of these graffiti are found in Serbian capital, and many more across Serbia and Bosnian and Herzegovinian administrative entity, Republika Srpska, which is the ethnic Serbian majority enclave. Critics point that Serbia as a state, is willing to defend the mural of convicted war criminal, and have no intention to react on cases of genocide denial, noting that Interior Minister of Serbia, Aleksandar Vulin decision to ban any gathering with an intent to remove the mural, with the deployment of riot police, sends the message of "tacit endorsement". Consequently, on 9 November 2021, Serbian heavy police in riot gear, with graffiti creators and their supporters, blocked the access to the mural to prevent human rights groups and other activists to paint over it and mark the International Day Against Fascism and Antisemitism in that way, and even arrested two civic activist for throwing eggs at the graffiti.

 

Graffiti may also be used as an offensive expression. This form of graffiti may be difficult to identify, as it is mostly removed by the local authority (as councils which have adopted strategies of criminalization also strive to remove graffiti quickly). Therefore, existing racist graffiti is mostly more subtle and at first sight, not easily recognized as "racist". It can then be understood only if one knows the relevant "local code" (social, historical, political, temporal, and spatial), which is seen as heteroglot and thus a 'unique set of conditions' in a cultural context.

 

A spatial code for example, could be that there is a certain youth group in an area that is engaging heavily in racist activities. So, for residents (knowing the local code), a graffiti containing only the name or abbreviation of this gang already is a racist expression, reminding the offended people of their gang activities. Also a graffiti is in most cases, the herald of more serious criminal activity to come. A person who does not know these gang activities would not be able to recognize the meaning of this graffiti. Also if a tag of this youth group or gang is placed on a building occupied by asylum seekers, for example, its racist character is even stronger.

By making the graffiti less explicit (as adapted to social and legal constraints), these drawings are less likely to be removed, but do not lose their threatening and offensive character.

 

Elsewhere, activists in Russia have used painted caricatures of local officials with their mouths as potholes, to show their anger about the poor state of the roads. In Manchester, England, a graffitists painted obscene images around potholes, which often resulted in them being repaired within 48 hours.

 

In the early 1980s, the first art galleries to show graffitists to the public were Fashion Moda in the Bronx, Now Gallery and Fun Gallery, both in the East Village, Manhattan.

 

A 2006 exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum displayed graffiti as an art form that began in New York's outer boroughs and reached great heights in the early 1980s with the work of Crash, Lee, Daze, Keith Haring, and Jean-Michel Basquiat. It displayed 22 works by New York graffitists, including Crash, Daze, and Lady Pink. In an article about the exhibition in the magazine Time Out, curator Charlotta Kotik said that she hoped the exhibition would cause viewers to rethink their assumptions about graffiti.

 

From the 1970s onwards, Burhan Doğançay photographed urban walls all over the world; these he then archived for use as sources of inspiration for his painterly works. The project today known as "Walls of the World" grew beyond even his own expectations and comprises about 30,000 individual images. It spans a period of 40 years across five continents and 114 countries. In 1982, photographs from this project comprised a one-man exhibition titled "Les murs murmurent, ils crient, ils chantent ..." (The walls whisper, shout and sing ...) at the Centre Georges Pompidou in Paris.

 

In Australia, art historians have judged some local graffiti of sufficient creative merit to rank them firmly within the arts. Oxford University Press's art history text Australian Painting 1788–2000 concludes with a long discussion of graffiti's key place within contemporary visual culture, including the work of several Australian practitioners.

 

Between March and April 2009, 150 artists exhibited 300 pieces of graffiti at the Grand Palais in Paris.

 

Spray paint has many negative environmental effects. The paint contains toxic chemicals, and the can uses volatile hydrocarbon gases to spray the paint onto a surface.

 

Volatile organic compound (VOC) leads to ground level ozone formation and most of graffiti related emissions are VOCs. A 2010 paper estimates 4,862 tons of VOCs were released in the United States in activities related to graffiti.

  

In China, Mao Zedong in the 1920s used revolutionary slogans and paintings in public places to galvanize the country's communist movement.

 

Based on different national conditions, many people believe that China's attitude towards Graffiti is fierce, but in fact, according to Lance Crayon in his film Spray Paint Beijing: Graffiti in the Capital of China, Graffiti is generally accepted in Beijing, with artists not seeing much police interference. Political and religiously sensitive graffiti, however, is not allowed.

 

In Hong Kong, Tsang Tsou Choi was known as the King of Kowloon for his calligraphy graffiti over many years, in which he claimed ownership of the area. Now some of his work is preserved officially.

 

In Taiwan, the government has made some concessions to graffitists. Since 2005 they have been allowed to freely display their work along some sections of riverside retaining walls in designated "Graffiti Zones". From 2007, Taipei's department of cultural affairs also began permitting graffiti on fences around major public construction sites. Department head Yong-ping Lee (李永萍) stated, "We will promote graffiti starting with the public sector, and then later in the private sector too. It's our goal to beautify the city with graffiti". The government later helped organize a graffiti contest in Ximending, a popular shopping district. graffitists caught working outside of these designated areas still face fines up to NT$6,000 under a department of environmental protection regulation. However, Taiwanese authorities can be relatively lenient, one veteran police officer stating anonymously, "Unless someone complains about vandalism, we won't get involved. We don't go after it proactively."

 

In 1993, after several expensive cars in Singapore were spray-painted, the police arrested a student from the Singapore American School, Michael P. Fay, questioned him, and subsequently charged him with vandalism. Fay pleaded guilty to vandalizing a car in addition to stealing road signs. Under the 1966 Vandalism Act of Singapore, originally passed to curb the spread of communist graffiti in Singapore, the court sentenced him to four months in jail, a fine of S$3,500 (US$2,233), and a caning. The New York Times ran several editorials and op-eds that condemned the punishment and called on the American public to flood the Singaporean embassy with protests. Although the Singapore government received many calls for clemency, Fay's caning took place in Singapore on 5 May 1994. Fay had originally received a sentence of six strokes of the cane, but the presiding president of Singapore, Ong Teng Cheong, agreed to reduce his caning sentence to four lashes.

 

In South Korea, Park Jung-soo was fined two million South Korean won by the Seoul Central District Court for spray-painting a rat on posters of the G-20 Summit a few days before the event in November 2011. Park alleged that the initial in "G-20" sounds like the Korean word for "rat", but Korean government prosecutors alleged that Park was making a derogatory statement about the president of South Korea, Lee Myung-bak, the host of the summit. This case led to public outcry and debate on the lack of government tolerance and in support of freedom of expression. The court ruled that the painting, "an ominous creature like a rat" amounts to "an organized criminal activity" and upheld the fine while denying the prosecution's request for imprisonment for Park.

 

In Europe, community cleaning squads have responded to graffiti, in some cases with reckless abandon, as when in 1992 in France a local Scout group, attempting to remove modern graffiti, damaged two prehistoric paintings of bison in the Cave of Mayrière supérieure near the French village of Bruniquel in Tarn-et-Garonne, earning them the 1992 Ig Nobel Prize in archeology.

 

In September 2006, the European Parliament directed the European Commission to create urban environment policies to prevent and eliminate dirt, litter, graffiti, animal excrement, and excessive noise from domestic and vehicular music systems in European cities, along with other concerns over urban life.

 

In Budapest, Hungary, both a city-backed movement called I Love Budapest and a special police division tackle the problem, including the provision of approved areas.

 

The Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 became Britain's latest anti-graffiti legislation. In August 2004, the Keep Britain Tidy campaign issued a press release calling for zero tolerance of graffiti and supporting proposals such as issuing "on the spot" fines to graffiti offenders and banning the sale of aerosol paint to anyone under the age of 16. The press release also condemned the use of graffiti images in advertising and in music videos, arguing that real-world experience of graffiti stood far removed from its often-portrayed "cool" or "edgy'" image.

 

To back the campaign, 123 Members of Parliament (MPs) (including then Prime Minister Tony Blair), signed a charter which stated: "Graffiti is not art, it's crime. On behalf of my constituents, I will do all I can to rid our community of this problem."

 

In the UK, city councils have the power to take action against the owner of any property that has been defaced under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 (as amended by the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005) or, in certain cases, the Highways Act. This is often used against owners of property that are complacent in allowing protective boards to be defaced so long as the property is not damaged.

 

In July 2008, a conspiracy charge was used to convict graffitists for the first time. After a three-month police surveillance operation, nine members of the DPM crew were convicted of conspiracy to commit criminal damage costing at least £1 million. Five of them received prison sentences, ranging from eighteen months to two years. The unprecedented scale of the investigation and the severity of the sentences rekindled public debate over whether graffiti should be considered art or crime.

 

Some councils, like those of Stroud and Loerrach, provide approved areas in the town where graffitists can showcase their talents, including underpasses, car parks, and walls that might otherwise prove a target for the "spray and run".

 

Graffiti Tunnel, University of Sydney at Camperdown (2009)

In an effort to reduce vandalism, many cities in Australia have designated walls or areas exclusively for use by graffitists. One early example is the "Graffiti Tunnel" located at the Camperdown Campus of the University of Sydney, which is available for use by any student at the university to tag, advertise, poster, and paint. Advocates of this idea suggest that this discourages petty vandalism yet encourages artists to take their time and produce great art, without worry of being caught or arrested for vandalism or trespassing.[108][109] Others disagree with this approach, arguing that the presence of legal graffiti walls does not demonstrably reduce illegal graffiti elsewhere. Some local government areas throughout Australia have introduced "anti-graffiti squads", who clean graffiti in the area, and such crews as BCW (Buffers Can't Win) have taken steps to keep one step ahead of local graffiti cleaners.

 

Many state governments have banned the sale or possession of spray paint to those under the age of 18 (age of majority). However, a number of local governments in Victoria have taken steps to recognize the cultural heritage value of some examples of graffiti, such as prominent political graffiti. Tough new graffiti laws have been introduced in Australia with fines of up to A$26,000 and two years in prison.

 

Melbourne is a prominent graffiti city of Australia with many of its lanes being tourist attractions, such as Hosier Lane in particular, a popular destination for photographers, wedding photography, and backdrops for corporate print advertising. The Lonely Planet travel guide cites Melbourne's street as a major attraction. All forms of graffiti, including sticker art, poster, stencil art, and wheatpasting, can be found in many places throughout the city. Prominent street art precincts include; Fitzroy, Collingwood, Northcote, Brunswick, St. Kilda, and the CBD, where stencil and sticker art is prominent. As one moves farther away from the city, mostly along suburban train lines, graffiti tags become more prominent. Many international artists such as Banksy have left their work in Melbourne and in early 2008 a perspex screen was installed to prevent a Banksy stencil art piece from being destroyed, it has survived since 2003 through the respect of local street artists avoiding posting over it, although it has recently had paint tipped over it.

 

In February 2008 Helen Clark, the New Zealand prime minister at that time, announced a government crackdown on tagging and other forms of graffiti vandalism, describing it as a destructive crime representing an invasion of public and private property. New legislation subsequently adopted included a ban on the sale of paint spray cans to persons under 18 and increases in maximum fines for the offence from NZ$200 to NZ$2,000 or extended community service. The issue of tagging become a widely debated one following an incident in Auckland during January 2008 in which a middle-aged property owner stabbed one of two teenage taggers to death and was subsequently convicted of manslaughter.

 

Graffiti databases have increased in the past decade because they allow vandalism incidents to be fully documented against an offender and help the police and prosecution charge and prosecute offenders for multiple counts of vandalism. They also provide law enforcement the ability to rapidly search for an offender's moniker or tag in a simple, effective, and comprehensive way. These systems can also help track costs of damage to a city to help allocate an anti-graffiti budget. The theory is that when an offender is caught putting up graffiti, they are not just charged with one count of vandalism; they can be held accountable for all the other damage for which they are responsible. This has two main benefits for law enforcement. One, it sends a signal to the offenders that their vandalism is being tracked. Two, a city can seek restitution from offenders for all the damage that they have committed, not merely a single incident. These systems give law enforcement personnel real-time, street-level intelligence that allows them not only to focus on the worst graffiti offenders and their damage, but also to monitor potential gang violence that is associated with the graffiti.

 

Many restrictions of civil gang injunctions are designed to help address and protect the physical environment and limit graffiti. Provisions of gang injunctions include things such as restricting the possession of marker pens, spray paint cans, or other sharp objects capable of defacing private or public property; spray painting, or marking with marker pens, scratching, applying stickers, or otherwise applying graffiti on any public or private property, including, but not limited to the street, alley, residences, block walls, and fences, vehicles or any other real or personal property. Some injunctions contain wording that restricts damaging or vandalizing both public and private property, including but not limited to any vehicle, light fixture, door, fence, wall, gate, window, building, street sign, utility box, telephone box, tree, or power pole.

 

To help address many of these issues, many local jurisdictions have set up graffiti abatement hotlines, where citizens can call in and report vandalism and have it removed. San Diego's hotline receives more than 5,000 calls per year, in addition to reporting the graffiti, callers can learn more about prevention. One of the complaints about these hotlines is the response time; there is often a lag time between a property owner calling about the graffiti and its removal. The length of delay should be a consideration for any jurisdiction planning on operating a hotline. Local jurisdictions must convince the callers that their complaint of vandalism will be a priority and cleaned off right away. If the jurisdiction does not have the resources to respond to complaints in a timely manner, the value of the hotline diminishes. Crews must be able to respond to individual service calls made to the graffiti hotline as well as focus on cleanup near schools, parks, and major intersections and transit routes to have the biggest impact. Some cities offer a reward for information leading to the arrest and prosecution of suspects for tagging or graffiti related vandalism. The amount of the reward is based on the information provided, and the action taken.

 

When police obtain search warrants in connection with a vandalism investigation, they are often seeking judicial approval to look for items such as cans of spray paint and nozzles from other kinds of aerosol sprays; etching tools, or other sharp or pointed objects, which could be used to etch or scratch glass and other hard surfaces; permanent marking pens, markers, or paint sticks; evidence of membership or affiliation with any gang or tagging crew; paraphernalia including any reference to "(tagger's name)"; any drawings, writing, objects, or graffiti depicting taggers' names, initials, logos, monikers, slogans, or any mention of tagging crew membership; and any newspaper clippings relating to graffiti crime.

The vehicles carrier, Talisman [IMO 9191319] departing Fremantle Port on October 30, 2015 having been pulled off No. 12 NQ, her next port of call Singapore.

 

IMO: 9191319

NAME OF SHIP: Faust

CALL SIGN: LAOW5

MMSI: 257613000

Gross Tonnage: 67,140

DWT: 38,300

Built: 2000

Flag: Norway

Ship Manager: Wilhelmsen Ship Management AS

Copyright © John G. Lidstone, all rights reserved.

You are warned: DO NOT STEAL or RE-POST THIS PHOTO.

It is an offence under law if you remove my copyright marking, or post this image anywhere else without my express written permission.

If you do, and I find out, you WILL be reported for copyright infringement action to the host platform and/or group applicable.

The same applies to all of my images.

My copyright is also embedded in the image metadata.

via Playground Markings UK bit.ly/1MaK42L

Thermoplastic Markings in Achahoish #Thermoplastic #Playground #Markings #Achahoish bit.ly/1FPjnEo

I visited the CAF SoCal museum this past weekend. still going through the images of what I shot. The CAF is the Commemorative Air Force museum. They have a bunch of old WWII Navy & Army Air Corp/ Air Force planes...

 

Olympus E-PM1 + Fujian 35mm f1.7

 

Shot in RAW, processed with Filterstorm & Snapseed

   

A member of Wessex Archaeology's Finds Department identifying and marking animal bones using a fountain pen.

Copyright © John G. Lidstone, all rights reserved.

I hope you enjoy my work and thanks for viewing.

 

NO use of this image is allowed without my express prior permission and subject to compensation/payment.

I do not want my images linked in Facebook groups.

 

It is an offence, under law, if you remove my copyright marking, and/or post this image anywhere else without my express written permission.

If you do, and I find out, you will be reported for copyright infringement action to the host platform and/or group applicable and you will be barred by me from social media platforms I use.

The same applies to all of my images.

My ownership & copyright is also embedded in the image metadata.

   

Black base colour on wings, white markings near wing edges and small white dots near the bottom of the wings. Orange areas near body all seperated by black veining. Head and thorax black with white spots on the back of the head, abdomen orange. Pouch on the hindwings. Underside is paler version of the topside

  

Male - similar in appearance but lacks pouch and has a black and white spot on the underside of the hindwings

  

Caterpillar - black body with broken yellow longitudinal lines along it's sides, and yellow and white speckling along it's back. Two red and black spikes project from the shoulder area, two more from the rear end and two longer ones from just behind the head. Black head with white striping

  

Pupa - large green pods, bulbous near the top and tapers slightly downwards

Markings: painted to represent original British European Airways (BEA) Sikorsky S-51 trials aircraft G-AJOV which on 1 June 1950 began the first ever sustained regular scheduled passenger helicopter service, between Liverpool (Speke) and Cardiff (Pengham Moor)

www.rafmuseum.org.uk/documents/collections/84-A-1174-Drag...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westland_WS-51_Dragonfly

----

Alvis Leonides 50 nine-cylinder supercharged 11.8-litre radial, 540-hp

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvis_Leonides

----

Museum site

www.rafmuseum.org.uk/midlands/

 

P4085716 Anx2 Q90 1400h

I'm constantly astonished at the variations in markings of this species, it varies so much, not only between adult specimens but between the various instars.

Complex road markings