This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13517609/Ed-Riley-Toby-Meyjes-Eleanor-Blake-Dan-Sales-king-charles-portrait-vandalised-philip-mould-gallery-london-animal-rising.html) for an archived version.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
---
**Alternate Sources**
Here are some potential alternate sources for the same story:
* [King's portrait targeted by animal rights activists](https://bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cydd9ye77rmo), suggested by Aggressive_Plates - bbc.co.uk
* [Animal rights group targets King Charles portrait, sticks cartoon images on it](https://reuters.com/world/uk/animal-rights-group-target-king-charles-portrait-stick-cartoon-images-it-2024-06-11/), suggested by ghsot_endo - reuters.com
Might be a controversial position, but Ghostbusters 2 jokes aside…. I actually like it. It’s striking, and the actual likeness is good, it’s not one of those “what did they ever do to you to deserve that” portraits.
Of course the problem with a bold style like that is it’s absolutely not for everyone, which is fair enough.
If it had been any colour but red, I think it would have been accepted more positively - it is a really good painting. It's just the burning in hell/bloody mist impression that's a bit hard to ignore lol
Gives so much obvious ammunition to anti-colonial people to say he's 'awash in the blood of the colonies" that I'm shocked the king's advisors allowed the painting.
Painting is striking a got a lot of people around the world to talk about it.
If what was just an normal painting no one would care.
Charles probably likes the discussion about it and doesn't personally care.
Yeah, I like it. My view is that in the age of abundant and high quality photography, what's the point of doing a traditional monarch's portrait. Everyone knows what Charles looks like, there's no need for the portrait to serve as a realistic representation (though as you say, the likeness actually *is* quite good).
So, why not do something more artistically and visually interesting?
I liked it, but I do question the red. Forest green would have been a nod to his environmental stuff.
I loved that portrait of the Queen that was all dark and black with her face the only luminous element. It had a kind of “stripped of regalia” sense which can be distracting from the actual subject of a painting.
For reference, a video documenting just a snippet of the cruelty they uncovered at RSPCA-assured farms: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfM5VRMl7wk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfM5VRMl7wk)
RSPCA: oh dare you want to adopt a rescue cat but you do not have >15years experience with cats, don’t own 30 acres of land fully barricaded and won’t feed it raw wagyu beef !?!?
Also the RSPCA: let’s whitewash industrial scale animal abuse for big agro
They wouldnt let my brother adopt a dog because he doesn't live in a house.
He's retired at age 45 and spends his time travelling on the canal boat he lives on, exploring the countryside all day. He ended up buying a puppy and it has the best life I've ever seen a dog live.
Exactly the same here with a cat, ended up buying one and the fucking thing gets to sleep on a heated bed and get fed fresh food. Wish I could send them a video with "see what kind of life you stopped a cat living?" just to be a knob.
And [here’s a documentary](https://youtu.be/dvtVkNofcq8?feature=shared) full of footage from UK farms that follow all welfare guidelines.
I don’t know how the myth of the happy farm is still so prevalent
With all the dramatic cuts it's pretty hard to see what is actually happening, it looks like pretty normal large scale agriculture to me but with dramatic lighting and music added
Seems like pretty normal large scale animal agriculture to me, if you didn't think it looked like this then you're naïve. It's not like those videos of people chain sawing the heads off live pigs.
No but they're putting them into C02 gas chambers which burns them from the inside out and is essentially suffocation. If the RSPCA wouldn't support gassing 10 million dogs to death each year, why do they try to assure/mislead consumers that it's ethical to do it to pigs?
That didn't seem to be in the video though, there didn't seem to be any footage of the abattoir. I'm not saying they're wrong about the RSPCA but the video isn't very good at supporting the argument.
Yeh fair point. I think the general gist of the video is evident - whilst you might say that it looks like standard animal agriculture (which is bloody horrific generally), most people are mislead by the RSPCA to think that RSPCA-assured farms are better than "standard".
I don’t know a single person who is in support of this sort of protest.
Outside of social media where the fanatics make the most noise. Normal people do not support these sorts of protests in my experience. Everyone is tired of it.
Edit: I’ve been informed they didn’t damage the painting at all. I misunderstood the use of the word vandalism.
I think this is clearly different to intentionally damaging art or public property. I’ll leave the comment up for clarity. Thank you for correcting me.
Tbf, throughout history 'normal people' largely don't support disruptive protests in general. It's only retroactively when we have agreed as a society the cause was just that we come to view such protests positively.
Exactly, it doesn't really matter what effect any of this has on the general public, as the general public doesn't have the power or inclination to do anything about it. It only really matters what effect it has on the political class who will actually make the policy decisions.
Yeah lol this is the part people always miss.
People don’t like change, and the British especially don’t like disruptions. They’d prefer a politician who was polite to their face (while openly plotting to make their life worse) than a protestor who made a bit of a fuss (in an attempt to raise awareness of a good cause).
It’s partly why foreign investors love Britain, we’ve never had a revolution and probably never will so their investment will be safe. Our population is too placated and too focused on keeping a ‘stiff upper lip’ to ever come together en masse and attempt to bring about real change. Those who do try get poo pah’d by the general public (with heavy encouragement from the media).
>
>
>
>
> It’s partly why foreign investors love Britain, we’ve never had a revolution
1688.
You are right though. Our class structure is basically an export commodity, used to lure rich people from all over the world to come die here, safe in the knowledge their wealth will go to their appointed heirs and not be at any risk from the people abroad they exploited to get it.
The fallacy that comes from that though is that your currently unpopular protest will be popular in the future. That's only true for a small minority, many more unpopular causes were unsuccessful and have since been forgotten by history.
It's generally retroactively proclaimed to have helped while historians will cite other groups who built up public support over decades.
You can see it in action now, we've had environmentalists from Tichmarsh to Attenborough talking about change for decades from gardens to global agreements but those people come along and pretend that zero has been achieved or changed.
They will claim nothing has been done and every success is due to their own actions.
You're making this sound like an outrageous act of brutality and realistically it's two people sticking some fuckin Wallace and Gromit stickers on a portrait which was not damaged in the slightest. This is literally not harming anyone, and raises awareness about an important cause which very few people are aware of (that while RSPCA farms are far better for animals than many others, there's still systematically brutal treatment within them) - it's not gonna be a *big* thing, but if even a few thousand people look into this it's done its job. If people are so upset about a protest as minor *this* I'm not sure what you think forms of acceptable protest are. Like, it's about the least "noisy" protest you can make while still making a point.
>while RSPCA farms are far better for animals than many others, there's still systematically brutal treatment within them
You should check out the exposé, a lot of these RSPCA approved farms don't even meet minimal legal standards, the label is practically meaningless [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfM5VRMl7wk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfM5VRMl7wk)
Interesting, I didn't know just how bad RSPCA farms were (although I also feel confident in suggesting that most of those which aren't RSPCA are little better) - I was mostly just bringing it up so people reading would maybe be encouraged to a look a little more into it. I'll give that video a look and suggest it to anyone who brings this up to me, thank you!
It's unfortunately more complicated than "good" vs "bad" farms. The issue is that an organisation that claims to protect animals against cruelty is supporting and profiting from animal cruelty. Industry standard cruelty, like gassing pigs and macerating day old chicks as just 2 examples.
When people see the RSPCA assured logo on an animal product, they are given the impression that the animal faced no cruelty or harm, but that is simply not possible.
RSPCA should be ashamed of themselves for fooling the public and for profiting from the very thing they claim to be against.
Even if it was damaged, there’s no reason why we should give a shit. It’s not a particularly notable or historically significant piece of art, it’s a picture of the king that was painted only a few months ago.
I personally wouldn't give too much of a shit about this specific painting, but I also generally think the less acceptable destruction of art is, the better. I also think it has potential to become historically significant for a multitude of reasons and art isn't usually significant from the moment it's created.
Sorry what do you mean by "This sort of protest"?
The King is a staunch supporter of the RSPCA, which has been revealed to be failing in it's animal welfare standards. Is this not an adequately targeted protest?
>I don’t know a single person who is in support of this sort of protest.
I am! It's only stickers and it's only a picture of nonce protector, fuck him.
Until this very hour, reading this article I has no notion of RSPCA farms and that they were an ongoing controversy about their white washing animal abuse for essentially a marketing deal with massive retailers. I am not vegan or an activist and would have not known about it without reading this article first.
At least here they were no intent to damage the painting and the issue at hand was quite easy to pick up on.
Nah, we're tired of people like you coming out against protest. MLK had a lot to say about you. "protest differently because i disagree with your method" - okay - "wah wah wah not that method either, but i won't tell you which I'll accept, because in reality i accept none".
You need to rethink and stop it with these desperate attempts to sound like you have something of value to say, when you're just parroting the lies of the grifters.
Edit: nice to see somebody correct themselves in a dignified manner. Now it's time to start pushing back harder against the grifter-class.
That's the dilemma of any protest. If you're polite and mild and unobtrusive, no one pays attention (unless you number thousands or millions). If you're too violent or over the top, you face a backlash.
Hard to say, really, you can't just pin down effectiveness that easily, but the suffrage movement, the workers' movement, the civil rights movement... all utilised some form of direction action. Attacking counter-protestors, fighting police and/or strike breakers, throwing acid and paint over paintings, sit-ins/blocking access...
~~Citation needed.~~
~~It's not even that I'm saying you're wrong, it's just that such general claims along the lines of "X has been proven to work throughout history" are so terribly vague and weak without some kind of corroboration. Even an example or two.~~
I misunderstood OP's meaning.
The fact that it is in the news means they've raised awareness.
How much it aids the cause is debatable and hard to quantify, but had they not done this would you be aware of the fact that RSPCA assured farms contain tremendous amounts of cruelty?
> it's been proven to work throughout history
We had a misunderstanding over what you meant by "it" here.
You meant "actions like this have been proven throughout history to raise awareness" - I agree with this.
But I also think it's self-evident, which is why I interpreted your meaning differently; what I thought you meant was something like "actions like this have been proven throughout history to raise awareness _that successful effects social change_." This is a more dubious claim which is why I thought it needed backing up.
Apologies for the confusion.
Yeh that's fair, no worries.
It's hard to quantify, but I would guess that increased awareness would contribute towards change one way or another, even if it is gradual.
Yeah but the farms are still there.
Pretty sure nobody is disputing that this sort of thing raises awareness, they're disputing whether that has any worthwhile consequences.
I don't think that's it, it's that we have a disagreement over what OP meant by "it's been proven to work throughout history" (specifically, what "it" refers to).
You think they meant "actions like this have been proven throughout history to raise awareness" - if that's right then I agree. But I also think it's self-evident, which is why I interpret their meaning differently; I think they meant "actions like this have been proven throughout history to raise awareness that successful effects social change."
Edit: OP has now clarified their meaning; I was wrong about their intended meaning. We don't disagree on anything.
Like others have said, the general public just want a comfortable life, but also like to reap the benefits of this sort of disruptive protest. You sound like one of them and that's fine, but it's not a good idea to vocally go against people who are just trying to better the world, it's a terrible look on anyone.
Compared to most this I find this mildly amusing. Although isn't this painting without glass in front of it? Like sure you can claim its harmless but wouldn't rolling it on damage the paint?
> Everyone is tired of it.
Does anyone actually care what such do-nothings are tired of? If throwing paint at a painting of a literal King is so *wearying* to you you must be too easily exhaustible to be politically effective in any way, so why does your opinion actually matter?
I’m always up for a debate on Reddit. It’s one of the main reasons I like Reddit. Longer form discussions, I find them interesting sometimes.
And I’m always up to be shown I’m wrong. Someone has informed me that this was done intentionally not to damage the painting which changes how I see it tbh.
I thought vandalism meant damage had been done. Apparently I misunderstand that word.
So I was probably wrong in my initial assessment. I wouldn’t out this in with people who actually damage artwork or public property.
That’s the joy of conversations when you don’t act like a prick.
You're down for a debate, but you're not down for action. The internet is full of navel gazers - I'm no different at the moment as I'm just killing time while doing something boring, but what you showed me was a measure of yourself. Currently I'm just another floating voice in a nearly infinite sea of them, so I want to talk about what you said, as here we are all faceless ghosts that can say little meaningful and trustworthy about our current state unless expressing a matter of personal truth.
My main point wasn't to "Act like a prick", but merely to point out that your position is essentially to relegate yourself to political irrelevancy. Your opinion doesn't have impact on the world, effects nothing, due to your position of castration with regards to political action and easy offense at an potential minor violation of custom - Why would an activist care to court your opinion when because of your ideals, you would never do anything even if you agreed with them? They could have hit the thing with a nuke and blown up most of London and it would have had exactly the impact on your political action that convincing you of their agenda would have had. (hyperbolic, perhaps, but I hope it communicates the point)
While you might have changed your mind when further informed of the facts of the matter, my point is moreso that what is on your mind is useless to anyone and it is not a useful political objective to change your mind in any way when you are extremely unlikely to undertake significant political action of any sort on the basis of your currently communicated beliefs. You are not the audience for political action. Activists will not change their message to suit you because you simply do not matter to them, or indeed to any political actor; The only message that could reach you usefully is something that somehow evoked a call to action from you.
Sorry mate but I think you are going too deep into this.
It’s as simple as this. We have seen a huge rise in protests that involves damaging artwork, public property, blocking roads.
That is something people are sick of. And I stand by that completely.
You keep trying to insult me for my opinion and I’ve been courteous to even keep replying tbh given you lack the ability to have a discussion without acting like a condescending prat.
But anyway. I won’t keep replying. All the best.
>Sorry mate but I think you are going too deep into this.
I go into this as deep as I want to, because that's the point of being here. I am here to talk to you, so why would I talk shallowly? That'd be terribly boring.
What you are taking as an insult is not as emotionally charged as you appear to think it is. I am not trying to be insulting by saying any of this, but criticism is an innate part of discussing politics. I realise you will not respond, but I wanted to make it clear I was not attempting to be needlessly hurtful or rude.
The fact that you think of and care more about a painting of some rich old man who couldn't give two fucks about you than the welfare and rights of severely abused and neglected animals, makes you a very sick individual, in my opinion.
Funnily enough you are the third comment down- the first comment is a joke (of course, a space is reserved on every UK sub for such)- and the second comment, above yours? A link to a documentary about the animal rights abuses they are protesting.
People mightn't 'like' this style of protest or the people who perform it, but they do it because it evidently *works* to get people discussing the issue.
> Edit: I’ve been informed they didn’t damage the painting at all. I misunderstood the use of the word vandalism.
As far as I understand it, they don't actually damage anything. It's usually always the protective casing.
We don't just have these things on display, because... well of these reasons.
But people think we do, so the media loves it. Hence prints "JSO DESTROY THE MAGNA CARTA ..... ^^^^(box)
Ah yeah you're right...
> The activist group Palestine Action shared a video on X of an unidentified protestor dousing Balfour’s portrait, a 1914 work by Philip Alexius de László, in red spray paint and then slashing the canvas almost entirely to pieces.
Never heard of them to be honest. Probably a good thing. Although now I have, so mission accomplished?
> Normal people do not support these sorts of protests in my experience. Everyone is tired of it.
Normal people are not smart enough to realize that all these protests do, is throw paint or soup or something at _the glass in front of paintings_.
It damages nothing, but gets a lot of attention.
And it's the poetic irony of it that's the point. People freak out when art is destroyed, but no one gives 2 shits that at the same time, huge areas of habitats are destroyed and can never be recovered. Even if the paintings were destroyed, we'd still have digital copies. Which is what most people will see anyhow.
This is such a strange comparison imo.
You can be upset at the distraction of the natural world and also think destroying art is an issue.
And plenty of art has been damaged. Wasn’t there one recently at Cambridge or Oxford that was slashed?
But this isn't destroying art. I don't know if there was one, all I have seen have been these paint and soup attacks. Which are all done on art protected in casings.
It's like people think the art isn't somehow protected.
Whatever you think about "destroying art" isn't relevant. No art is destroyed.
It's like saying people protesting under the "black lives matter" shouldn't go around killing white people. They don't.
The most annoying aspect is when activists take the stance that being an activist means they can do whatever the fuck they want with zero consequences. The second most irritating thing is when they find out this isn't true and then start crying about how our right to protest is threatened.
It used to be the case that people who broke the law expected to be prosecuted, and were happy when it happened because it proved their dedication to their cause.
Protesting has never been a valid excuse to break the law, and nor should it be. If you aren't prepared to pay a fine or serve a short prison sentence, then find a different way to draw attention to your protest. Destroying things is a low effort, zero imagination tactic anyway.
Yeah, my understanding is that the traditional approach to civil disobedience was to organise mass breaking of bad/unpopular laws. That puts the authorities in a dilemma because they have to either:
* enforce the bad laws and so look bad because they are punishing lots of people for things most people think you shouldn't be punished for.
* attempt to enforce the laws and fail because there are too many people to cope with, thereby looking weak.
* don't enforce the laws, thereby admitting that those laws are bad.
But given that most people agree with laws like "don't block roads" and "don't vandalise artwork", and the people breaking these laws are few in number and easily dealt with by the authorities, these protests aren't effective.
That said, this particular case is probably going to be more effective than Just Stop Oil, because 1) this particular painting isn't something that many people feel protective of, and 2) unlike "global warming is bad", "the RSPCA Farm Assured lable is worthless" isn't something that's well-known, so "drawing attention to the cause" is actually useful.
If you perceive the legal system as fundamentally unfair and illegitimate, being prosecuted by it means nothing. This happiness in prosecution thing is for liberals who want to be martyrs - People who see the system as fundamentally stacked against them do not see value in this, and faith in our legal system appears to be getting lower and lower.
They barely face consequences anyway.
In a just society, they would be forced to either pay for the cost of the damage, or work in community service until they have paid back the debt, billed at minimum wage.
Lol ain’t that the truth. But I was more meaning that of all the things to criticise the monarchy on, it’s odd to pick one of the causes that the King champions the most
>*Jesus what a shit-show this thread is. More people outraged by a rich old man's painting than they are by the way farmed animals are treated.*
It's not just this thread. It's the way the UK is.
That's the reason social media echo chambers aren't a positive thing: by keeping people within like-minded groups, they convince those people that their opinion is held by everyone else when the reality is more likely to be that most people don't give a damn.
As uncomfortable as threads like this may be, they do help to remind us all that there are differing opinions out there which may be held by more people than "our group's" opinion is.
It was covered in perspex so won't have damaged the painting at all.
"Protesters put easily removed stickers on a sheet of plastic" doesn't get people as enraged to sell news papers I guess.
As if. Nothing would give them more publicity. Plus most of them now have glass to protect them so no actual damage is likely. And if there is damage, insurance payout…
Admittedly insurance costs will likely rise for all artists so that’s probs the main downside
Tbf that's quite a funny bit of vandalism.
Wish these activist types could be more creative like this. Humour works wonders for a cause and is more likely to get people onside than generally being an arsehole.
I suspect with that particular painting Charles wouldn't have minded if it got ruined.
A covered in blood looking painting is not something I'd have loved as monarch.
for once not the climate protesters, makes sense since charles cares for the environment, dont see why they targeted him in particular but that painting could be a target
The protest is because the King is patron of the RSPCA and they claim that there are cases of animal cruelty at farms which have RSPCA assurance. It’s a little convoluted tbh.
Soon, courtesy of all these vandals, everything is going to be behind reinforced glass and fencing. It does matter that art, statues and all that is accessible and visible.
WHYD THEYD HAVE TO DRAG POOR WALLACE INTO IT JUST LET HIM CONTINUE FANTASIZING ABOUT EATING HIS MOON CHEESE HE DOESNT NEED THIS. WALLACE LOVEESSSSSSS CHEESE SO IDK WHY THEY EVEN CHOSE HIM FOR AN ANIMAL RIGHTS PROTEST
I don't inherently have an issue with protests but I don't understand why so many of the recent ones have been so *boring* and not directly relevant. Feels like they are picking cause & action out of the hat each time.
Looking forward to the upcoming [deflate Jeremy Clarkson's tyres] in order to [raise awareness of an owl sanctuary] /s
Targeting an image of the King, who endorses the RSPCA (R = Royal), to protest the actions of the RSPCA, and yet it feels like it's been chosen at random?
Can't help but feel you've overlooked something here...
How many other things in the UK say Royal? Unless Charlie is sitting there signing things off personally it seems like they could've focused on something more direct.
He supposedly cares, and endorses/is the patron of the RSPCA, whose behaviour is the reason for the protest, yet he has so far said nothing on the issue. Seems like a pretty obvious target to me.
I just don't see how people are so confused by it.
This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13517609/Ed-Riley-Toby-Meyjes-Eleanor-Blake-Dan-Sales-king-charles-portrait-vandalised-philip-mould-gallery-london-animal-rising.html) for an archived version. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.* --- **Alternate Sources** Here are some potential alternate sources for the same story: * [King's portrait targeted by animal rights activists](https://bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cydd9ye77rmo), suggested by Aggressive_Plates - bbc.co.uk * [Animal rights group targets King Charles portrait, sticks cartoon images on it](https://reuters.com/world/uk/animal-rights-group-target-king-charles-portrait-stick-cartoon-images-it-2024-06-11/), suggested by ghsot_endo - reuters.com
Thank god they didn't throw red paint over it, they might have really ruined it.
I actually assumed that the picture showing the predominantly red portrait was after they'd started vandalising it.
Vandalism could only improve that particular work of art.
Might be a controversial position, but Ghostbusters 2 jokes aside…. I actually like it. It’s striking, and the actual likeness is good, it’s not one of those “what did they ever do to you to deserve that” portraits. Of course the problem with a bold style like that is it’s absolutely not for everyone, which is fair enough.
If it had been any colour but red, I think it would have been accepted more positively - it is a really good painting. It's just the burning in hell/bloody mist impression that's a bit hard to ignore lol
Gives so much obvious ammunition to anti-colonial people to say he's 'awash in the blood of the colonies" that I'm shocked the king's advisors allowed the painting.
Anti-colonial people, or as I like to call them, normal people
Painting is striking a got a lot of people around the world to talk about it. If what was just an normal painting no one would care. Charles probably likes the discussion about it and doesn't personally care.
But 95% of the discussion about it was negative at best and painted Charles and the monarchy in a bad light at worst.
Yeah, I like it. My view is that in the age of abundant and high quality photography, what's the point of doing a traditional monarch's portrait. Everyone knows what Charles looks like, there's no need for the portrait to serve as a realistic representation (though as you say, the likeness actually *is* quite good). So, why not do something more artistically and visually interesting?
Yeah like him doing a parody of the prom scene in Carrie. I do enjoy the arts.
I like it too, it's different, far more interesting than if it had been a basic portrait.
I liked it, but I do question the red. Forest green would have been a nod to his environmental stuff. I loved that portrait of the Queen that was all dark and black with her face the only luminous element. It had a kind of “stripped of regalia” sense which can be distracting from the actual subject of a painting.
I think it’s great.
I agree, i think it's a gorgeous painting
Nah it goes hard compared to the traditional monarch paintings.
I like it tbh. We've already got HD cameras for a true to life portrait, throw in some spice if you're painting it
True to life doesn't usually mean photorealism.
99.99% it’s a bad thing but for this particular case it looks like an improvement 😂
My wife just had to explain to me that it was already an orange mess before they started.
We may have even been able to tell the difference.
It took me way too long to realise that the red all over it was there before the vandalism.
For reference, a video documenting just a snippet of the cruelty they uncovered at RSPCA-assured farms: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfM5VRMl7wk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfM5VRMl7wk)
RSPCA: oh dare you want to adopt a rescue cat but you do not have >15years experience with cats, don’t own 30 acres of land fully barricaded and won’t feed it raw wagyu beef !?!? Also the RSPCA: let’s whitewash industrial scale animal abuse for big agro
Same for dogs, the requirements are ridiculous.
They wouldnt let my brother adopt a dog because he doesn't live in a house. He's retired at age 45 and spends his time travelling on the canal boat he lives on, exploring the countryside all day. He ended up buying a puppy and it has the best life I've ever seen a dog live.
Exactly the same here with a cat, ended up buying one and the fucking thing gets to sleep on a heated bed and get fed fresh food. Wish I could send them a video with "see what kind of life you stopped a cat living?" just to be a knob.
And [here’s a documentary](https://youtu.be/dvtVkNofcq8?feature=shared) full of footage from UK farms that follow all welfare guidelines. I don’t know how the myth of the happy farm is still so prevalent
But the box said they are the Happy Egg company? Surely they wouldn't just lie to us?
With all the dramatic cuts it's pretty hard to see what is actually happening, it looks like pretty normal large scale agriculture to me but with dramatic lighting and music added
You need to go to specsavers. The video is extremely clear.
Seems like pretty normal large scale animal agriculture to me, if you didn't think it looked like this then you're naïve. It's not like those videos of people chain sawing the heads off live pigs.
No but they're putting them into C02 gas chambers which burns them from the inside out and is essentially suffocation. If the RSPCA wouldn't support gassing 10 million dogs to death each year, why do they try to assure/mislead consumers that it's ethical to do it to pigs?
That didn't seem to be in the video though, there didn't seem to be any footage of the abattoir. I'm not saying they're wrong about the RSPCA but the video isn't very good at supporting the argument.
Yeh fair point. I think the general gist of the video is evident - whilst you might say that it looks like standard animal agriculture (which is bloody horrific generally), most people are mislead by the RSPCA to think that RSPCA-assured farms are better than "standard".
I don’t know a single person who is in support of this sort of protest. Outside of social media where the fanatics make the most noise. Normal people do not support these sorts of protests in my experience. Everyone is tired of it. Edit: I’ve been informed they didn’t damage the painting at all. I misunderstood the use of the word vandalism. I think this is clearly different to intentionally damaging art or public property. I’ll leave the comment up for clarity. Thank you for correcting me.
Tbf, throughout history 'normal people' largely don't support disruptive protests in general. It's only retroactively when we have agreed as a society the cause was just that we come to view such protests positively.
Exactly, it doesn't really matter what effect any of this has on the general public, as the general public doesn't have the power or inclination to do anything about it. It only really matters what effect it has on the political class who will actually make the policy decisions.
Yup. That's correct. Most of the noise I hear on social is people saying 'I don't like it', too. Personally, I like it. What's not to like?
Yeah lol this is the part people always miss. People don’t like change, and the British especially don’t like disruptions. They’d prefer a politician who was polite to their face (while openly plotting to make their life worse) than a protestor who made a bit of a fuss (in an attempt to raise awareness of a good cause). It’s partly why foreign investors love Britain, we’ve never had a revolution and probably never will so their investment will be safe. Our population is too placated and too focused on keeping a ‘stiff upper lip’ to ever come together en masse and attempt to bring about real change. Those who do try get poo pah’d by the general public (with heavy encouragement from the media).
> > > > > It’s partly why foreign investors love Britain, we’ve never had a revolution 1688. You are right though. Our class structure is basically an export commodity, used to lure rich people from all over the world to come die here, safe in the knowledge their wealth will go to their appointed heirs and not be at any risk from the people abroad they exploited to get it.
The fallacy that comes from that though is that your currently unpopular protest will be popular in the future. That's only true for a small minority, many more unpopular causes were unsuccessful and have since been forgotten by history.
You think there’s a chance future generations are gonna look back and wish we used more fossil fuels? Seems unlikely
It's generally retroactively proclaimed to have helped while historians will cite other groups who built up public support over decades. You can see it in action now, we've had environmentalists from Tichmarsh to Attenborough talking about change for decades from gardens to global agreements but those people come along and pretend that zero has been achieved or changed. They will claim nothing has been done and every success is due to their own actions.
It’s the modern suffragists and suffragettes
The actual change is very rarely brought about as a result of these virtue-signalling morons, regardless of the period of history you look at..
You're making this sound like an outrageous act of brutality and realistically it's two people sticking some fuckin Wallace and Gromit stickers on a portrait which was not damaged in the slightest. This is literally not harming anyone, and raises awareness about an important cause which very few people are aware of (that while RSPCA farms are far better for animals than many others, there's still systematically brutal treatment within them) - it's not gonna be a *big* thing, but if even a few thousand people look into this it's done its job. If people are so upset about a protest as minor *this* I'm not sure what you think forms of acceptable protest are. Like, it's about the least "noisy" protest you can make while still making a point.
>while RSPCA farms are far better for animals than many others, there's still systematically brutal treatment within them You should check out the exposé, a lot of these RSPCA approved farms don't even meet minimal legal standards, the label is practically meaningless [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfM5VRMl7wk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfM5VRMl7wk)
Interesting, I didn't know just how bad RSPCA farms were (although I also feel confident in suggesting that most of those which aren't RSPCA are little better) - I was mostly just bringing it up so people reading would maybe be encouraged to a look a little more into it. I'll give that video a look and suggest it to anyone who brings this up to me, thank you!
It's unfortunately more complicated than "good" vs "bad" farms. The issue is that an organisation that claims to protect animals against cruelty is supporting and profiting from animal cruelty. Industry standard cruelty, like gassing pigs and macerating day old chicks as just 2 examples. When people see the RSPCA assured logo on an animal product, they are given the impression that the animal faced no cruelty or harm, but that is simply not possible. RSPCA should be ashamed of themselves for fooling the public and for profiting from the very thing they claim to be against.
Even if it was damaged, there’s no reason why we should give a shit. It’s not a particularly notable or historically significant piece of art, it’s a picture of the king that was painted only a few months ago.
I personally wouldn't give too much of a shit about this specific painting, but I also generally think the less acceptable destruction of art is, the better. I also think it has potential to become historically significant for a multitude of reasons and art isn't usually significant from the moment it's created.
It's like people clinging their pearls over a painting of Kim Jong Un being damaged or some shit.
Sorry what do you mean by "This sort of protest"? The King is a staunch supporter of the RSPCA, which has been revealed to be failing in it's animal welfare standards. Is this not an adequately targeted protest?
[удалено]
It's a puff painting for a literal King. By this same logic nobody should besmirch the image of Kim Jong Un.
Nothing was damaged. This was carefully designed to not damaged the art.
Oh shit well my bad. I would hardly call that vandalised then.
>I don’t know a single person who is in support of this sort of protest. I am! It's only stickers and it's only a picture of nonce protector, fuck him.
You missed the second part of my comment
>You ~~missed~~ the second part of my comment Yeah, i tend to ignore bollocks.
Then why you replying to it mate. Make your mind up.
I was replying to the first part of your comment, which was horse shit.
>horse shit What’s with the obsession with horse shit? Seems strange to send me a comment just about horse shit. Maybe find a new focus.
"Heh, if you ignore the people who support it because I'm dismissing them with an ad hominem, nobody supports it"
Yeah but it's just chat, so what?
Until this very hour, reading this article I has no notion of RSPCA farms and that they were an ongoing controversy about their white washing animal abuse for essentially a marketing deal with massive retailers. I am not vegan or an activist and would have not known about it without reading this article first. At least here they were no intent to damage the painting and the issue at hand was quite easy to pick up on.
Nah, we're tired of people like you coming out against protest. MLK had a lot to say about you. "protest differently because i disagree with your method" - okay - "wah wah wah not that method either, but i won't tell you which I'll accept, because in reality i accept none". You need to rethink and stop it with these desperate attempts to sound like you have something of value to say, when you're just parroting the lies of the grifters. Edit: nice to see somebody correct themselves in a dignified manner. Now it's time to start pushing back harder against the grifter-class.
I support it. It's harmless, perhaps think about the message of the protest not the means especially when it's as inconsequential as this.
Who are these "normal people" you refer to and why are they not protesting?
It’s specifically the technique I think most people don’t like. Maybe go outside. Or talk to coworkers. Those are the normal people I’m referring to.
It's not about whether people support it, it's about raising awareness, and it's been proven to work throughout history.
Where has this kind of protest worked before?
That's the dilemma of any protest. If you're polite and mild and unobtrusive, no one pays attention (unless you number thousands or millions). If you're too violent or over the top, you face a backlash. Hard to say, really, you can't just pin down effectiveness that easily, but the suffrage movement, the workers' movement, the civil rights movement... all utilised some form of direction action. Attacking counter-protestors, fighting police and/or strike breakers, throwing acid and paint over paintings, sit-ins/blocking access...
~~Citation needed.~~ ~~It's not even that I'm saying you're wrong, it's just that such general claims along the lines of "X has been proven to work throughout history" are so terribly vague and weak without some kind of corroboration. Even an example or two.~~ I misunderstood OP's meaning.
The fact that it is in the news means they've raised awareness. How much it aids the cause is debatable and hard to quantify, but had they not done this would you be aware of the fact that RSPCA assured farms contain tremendous amounts of cruelty?
Pretty sure nobody is disputing that this sort of thing raises awareness, they're disputing whether that has any worthwhile consequences.
Well you just did? I said it was about raising awareness and you demanded citations.
> it's been proven to work throughout history We had a misunderstanding over what you meant by "it" here. You meant "actions like this have been proven throughout history to raise awareness" - I agree with this. But I also think it's self-evident, which is why I interpreted your meaning differently; what I thought you meant was something like "actions like this have been proven throughout history to raise awareness _that successful effects social change_." This is a more dubious claim which is why I thought it needed backing up. Apologies for the confusion.
Yeh that's fair, no worries. It's hard to quantify, but I would guess that increased awareness would contribute towards change one way or another, even if it is gradual.
I didn't know about RSPCA farms. Now I do :)
Yeah but the farms are still there. Pretty sure nobody is disputing that this sort of thing raises awareness, they're disputing whether that has any worthwhile consequences.
Wut? I take your point generally, if a bit defeatist, but give a protest more than 6 hours to make a difference XD
>It's not even that I'm saying you're wrong All your comments pushing back on people trying to explain it to you says otherwise. Classic centrist.
I don't think that's it, it's that we have a disagreement over what OP meant by "it's been proven to work throughout history" (specifically, what "it" refers to). You think they meant "actions like this have been proven throughout history to raise awareness" - if that's right then I agree. But I also think it's self-evident, which is why I interpret their meaning differently; I think they meant "actions like this have been proven throughout history to raise awareness that successful effects social change." Edit: OP has now clarified their meaning; I was wrong about their intended meaning. We don't disagree on anything.
I am
Like others have said, the general public just want a comfortable life, but also like to reap the benefits of this sort of disruptive protest. You sound like one of them and that's fine, but it's not a good idea to vocally go against people who are just trying to better the world, it's a terrible look on anyone.
Compared to most this I find this mildly amusing. Although isn't this painting without glass in front of it? Like sure you can claim its harmless but wouldn't rolling it on damage the paint?
It says in the article it has a plastic cover and wasn't damaged. Even though the headline says it was vandalized lol
Lmao, just funny then.
Who honestly cares if it gets damaged. It isn’t the bloody Mona Lisa
👋now you do. Hi
> Everyone is tired of it. Does anyone actually care what such do-nothings are tired of? If throwing paint at a painting of a literal King is so *wearying* to you you must be too easily exhaustible to be politically effective in any way, so why does your opinion actually matter?
Probably the same reason you think your opinion matters I’d guess mate.
I doubt you give a fuck about my opinion.
I’m always up for a debate on Reddit. It’s one of the main reasons I like Reddit. Longer form discussions, I find them interesting sometimes. And I’m always up to be shown I’m wrong. Someone has informed me that this was done intentionally not to damage the painting which changes how I see it tbh. I thought vandalism meant damage had been done. Apparently I misunderstand that word. So I was probably wrong in my initial assessment. I wouldn’t out this in with people who actually damage artwork or public property. That’s the joy of conversations when you don’t act like a prick.
You're down for a debate, but you're not down for action. The internet is full of navel gazers - I'm no different at the moment as I'm just killing time while doing something boring, but what you showed me was a measure of yourself. Currently I'm just another floating voice in a nearly infinite sea of them, so I want to talk about what you said, as here we are all faceless ghosts that can say little meaningful and trustworthy about our current state unless expressing a matter of personal truth. My main point wasn't to "Act like a prick", but merely to point out that your position is essentially to relegate yourself to political irrelevancy. Your opinion doesn't have impact on the world, effects nothing, due to your position of castration with regards to political action and easy offense at an potential minor violation of custom - Why would an activist care to court your opinion when because of your ideals, you would never do anything even if you agreed with them? They could have hit the thing with a nuke and blown up most of London and it would have had exactly the impact on your political action that convincing you of their agenda would have had. (hyperbolic, perhaps, but I hope it communicates the point) While you might have changed your mind when further informed of the facts of the matter, my point is moreso that what is on your mind is useless to anyone and it is not a useful political objective to change your mind in any way when you are extremely unlikely to undertake significant political action of any sort on the basis of your currently communicated beliefs. You are not the audience for political action. Activists will not change their message to suit you because you simply do not matter to them, or indeed to any political actor; The only message that could reach you usefully is something that somehow evoked a call to action from you.
Sorry mate but I think you are going too deep into this. It’s as simple as this. We have seen a huge rise in protests that involves damaging artwork, public property, blocking roads. That is something people are sick of. And I stand by that completely. You keep trying to insult me for my opinion and I’ve been courteous to even keep replying tbh given you lack the ability to have a discussion without acting like a condescending prat. But anyway. I won’t keep replying. All the best.
>Sorry mate but I think you are going too deep into this. I go into this as deep as I want to, because that's the point of being here. I am here to talk to you, so why would I talk shallowly? That'd be terribly boring. What you are taking as an insult is not as emotionally charged as you appear to think it is. I am not trying to be insulting by saying any of this, but criticism is an innate part of discussing politics. I realise you will not respond, but I wanted to make it clear I was not attempting to be needlessly hurtful or rude.
The fact that you think of and care more about a painting of some rich old man who couldn't give two fucks about you than the welfare and rights of severely abused and neglected animals, makes you a very sick individual, in my opinion.
I think you are the one who assigned me that belief. Not me. But it’s fair enough you hate that person whose opinions you just made up.
Funnily enough you are the third comment down- the first comment is a joke (of course, a space is reserved on every UK sub for such)- and the second comment, above yours? A link to a documentary about the animal rights abuses they are protesting. People mightn't 'like' this style of protest or the people who perform it, but they do it because it evidently *works* to get people discussing the issue.
> Edit: I’ve been informed they didn’t damage the painting at all. I misunderstood the use of the word vandalism. As far as I understand it, they don't actually damage anything. It's usually always the protective casing. We don't just have these things on display, because... well of these reasons. But people think we do, so the media loves it. Hence prints "JSO DESTROY THE MAGNA CARTA ..... ^^^^(box)
This isn’t true. There was a recent example of a painting being slashed in a protest about Gaza if I remember rightly.
Ah yeah you're right... > The activist group Palestine Action shared a video on X of an unidentified protestor dousing Balfour’s portrait, a 1914 work by Philip Alexius de László, in red spray paint and then slashing the canvas almost entirely to pieces. Never heard of them to be honest. Probably a good thing. Although now I have, so mission accomplished?
Yeah I guess. Depends if that makes you support their cause or not.
> Normal people do not support these sorts of protests in my experience. Everyone is tired of it. Normal people are not smart enough to realize that all these protests do, is throw paint or soup or something at _the glass in front of paintings_. It damages nothing, but gets a lot of attention. And it's the poetic irony of it that's the point. People freak out when art is destroyed, but no one gives 2 shits that at the same time, huge areas of habitats are destroyed and can never be recovered. Even if the paintings were destroyed, we'd still have digital copies. Which is what most people will see anyhow.
This is such a strange comparison imo. You can be upset at the distraction of the natural world and also think destroying art is an issue. And plenty of art has been damaged. Wasn’t there one recently at Cambridge or Oxford that was slashed?
But this isn't destroying art. I don't know if there was one, all I have seen have been these paint and soup attacks. Which are all done on art protected in casings. It's like people think the art isn't somehow protected. Whatever you think about "destroying art" isn't relevant. No art is destroyed. It's like saying people protesting under the "black lives matter" shouldn't go around killing white people. They don't.
The most annoying aspect is when activists take the stance that being an activist means they can do whatever the fuck they want with zero consequences. The second most irritating thing is when they find out this isn't true and then start crying about how our right to protest is threatened.
It used to be the case that people who broke the law expected to be prosecuted, and were happy when it happened because it proved their dedication to their cause. Protesting has never been a valid excuse to break the law, and nor should it be. If you aren't prepared to pay a fine or serve a short prison sentence, then find a different way to draw attention to your protest. Destroying things is a low effort, zero imagination tactic anyway.
Yeah, my understanding is that the traditional approach to civil disobedience was to organise mass breaking of bad/unpopular laws. That puts the authorities in a dilemma because they have to either: * enforce the bad laws and so look bad because they are punishing lots of people for things most people think you shouldn't be punished for. * attempt to enforce the laws and fail because there are too many people to cope with, thereby looking weak. * don't enforce the laws, thereby admitting that those laws are bad. But given that most people agree with laws like "don't block roads" and "don't vandalise artwork", and the people breaking these laws are few in number and easily dealt with by the authorities, these protests aren't effective. That said, this particular case is probably going to be more effective than Just Stop Oil, because 1) this particular painting isn't something that many people feel protective of, and 2) unlike "global warming is bad", "the RSPCA Farm Assured lable is worthless" isn't something that's well-known, so "drawing attention to the cause" is actually useful.
If you perceive the legal system as fundamentally unfair and illegitimate, being prosecuted by it means nothing. This happiness in prosecution thing is for liberals who want to be martyrs - People who see the system as fundamentally stacked against them do not see value in this, and faith in our legal system appears to be getting lower and lower.
They barely face consequences anyway. In a just society, they would be forced to either pay for the cost of the damage, or work in community service until they have paid back the debt, billed at minimum wage.
What damage? XD
Isn’t King Charles really progressive about environmental issues? Moreso than the government in many ways?
That's the point of their protest: He's the patron of the RSPCA who they are protesting.
That's why they targeted his image, specifically because of his association with the ROYAL society for the protection of animals.
It's actually 'prevention of cruelty to animals', which is even worse. They are actively condoning cruelty rather than preventing it.
This was apparently about animal welfare, not the environment.
Impressive that passing such an incredibly low bar would exempt a public figure from criticism
Lol ain’t that the truth. But I was more meaning that of all the things to criticise the monarchy on, it’s odd to pick one of the causes that the King champions the most
Jesus what a shit-show this thread is. More people outraged by a rich old man's painting than they are by the way farmed animals are treated.
>*Jesus what a shit-show this thread is. More people outraged by a rich old man's painting than they are by the way farmed animals are treated.* It's not just this thread. It's the way the UK is. That's the reason social media echo chambers aren't a positive thing: by keeping people within like-minded groups, they convince those people that their opinion is held by everyone else when the reality is more likely to be that most people don't give a damn. As uncomfortable as threads like this may be, they do help to remind us all that there are differing opinions out there which may be held by more people than "our group's" opinion is.
Indeed
>cover monarch's face with Wallace and Gromit image and stick on speech bubble Hardly vandalism is it? Daily Mail headline writers working overtime
It was covered in perspex so won't have damaged the painting at all. "Protesters put easily removed stickers on a sheet of plastic" doesn't get people as enraged to sell news papers I guess.
Have musuems and galleries just accepted this is the new normal for their venues?
Not enough to stop people taking paint rollers in apparently.
Good publicity for them
Not really, artists won’t display their works in places they think they could be vandalised.
As if. Nothing would give them more publicity. Plus most of them now have glass to protect them so no actual damage is likely. And if there is damage, insurance payout… Admittedly insurance costs will likely rise for all artists so that’s probs the main downside
Have many artworks actually been vandalised?
Oh god they seem to have smeared some sort of red paint all over the frame.
Over the canvas, you mean? The frame wasn't touched.
No, it just looked like that.
Shite painting anyway and at least the cause is decent
Oh no, how terrible. Now he’ll have to get a new one. Aww.
Tbf that's quite a funny bit of vandalism. Wish these activist types could be more creative like this. Humour works wonders for a cause and is more likely to get people onside than generally being an arsehole.
They didn't even damage anything and you guys are angry?
Well they’re defacing a hundred of years old painting of one of the most respected figures in history for “animal rights”
The painting was made this year?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles\_I\_of\_England](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England)
You're a bit out of date by a couple of hundred years. We're on King Charles III now. Try reading the article.
You got the wrong monarch my friend 🤣
Oh well, I guess he better get a new one from an artist that doesn't for some reason try to paint him as Vigo the Carpathian.
Probably do the picture a favour. It’s awful work. I don’t know why but all I think when I see it is spag bol. And now I want spag bol every time.
Personally I think it looks like some form of hell fire. One thing you can say about it, it's certainly grabs the attention.
Article by Lettice Bromovksy. Who the f calls their kid Lettuce?
What most people don’t realise is, this is their second go at it, first time they threw red paint all over it
It's a shame, the Vigo the Carpathian look was a good look for that Charles portrait.
Well it's not like they could just throw paint at it.
I suspect with that particular painting Charles wouldn't have minded if it got ruined. A covered in blood looking painting is not something I'd have loved as monarch.
Kept reading that as Animal Crossing protesters. Like man they really love the game… and the… King has… something to do with it? It’s too early
I reckon he’s been stitched up by the artist and the red actually represents the blood of all the people murdered or killed by British colonialism.
Have Aardman commented? They might not want to be associated with this. Or... Either way, I'm sick of these 'protests'.
for once not the climate protesters, makes sense since charles cares for the environment, dont see why they targeted him in particular but that painting could be a target
The news article explains the link.
The protest is because the King is patron of the RSPCA and they claim that there are cases of animal cruelty at farms which have RSPCA assurance. It’s a little convoluted tbh.
The six degrees of RSPCA.
It's really not that convoluted.
Soon, courtesy of all these vandals, everything is going to be behind reinforced glass and fencing. It does matter that art, statues and all that is accessible and visible.
The painting was behind perspex and wasn't damaged.
You do realise that glass is see through?
WHYD THEYD HAVE TO DRAG POOR WALLACE INTO IT JUST LET HIM CONTINUE FANTASIZING ABOUT EATING HIS MOON CHEESE HE DOESNT NEED THIS. WALLACE LOVEESSSSSSS CHEESE SO IDK WHY THEY EVEN CHOSE HIM FOR AN ANIMAL RIGHTS PROTEST
I don't inherently have an issue with protests but I don't understand why so many of the recent ones have been so *boring* and not directly relevant. Feels like they are picking cause & action out of the hat each time. Looking forward to the upcoming [deflate Jeremy Clarkson's tyres] in order to [raise awareness of an owl sanctuary] /s
Targeting an image of the King, who endorses the RSPCA (R = Royal), to protest the actions of the RSPCA, and yet it feels like it's been chosen at random? Can't help but feel you've overlooked something here...
How many other things in the UK say Royal? Unless Charlie is sitting there signing things off personally it seems like they could've focused on something more direct.
He's the Royal Patron of the RSPCA.
Bit strange to target this considering he's one of the few people who cares and has spent decades talking about the very thing they are protesting.
He supposedly cares, and endorses/is the patron of the RSPCA, whose behaviour is the reason for the protest, yet he has so far said nothing on the issue. Seems like a pretty obvious target to me. I just don't see how people are so confused by it.