Me too. They should have just sat on that information. There's no good reason to leak his name to the public. Now he'll have to deal with all sorts of trouble.
Eh, I didn't find the article convincing, especially since Daily Mail is known for being sensationalist at best, tabloid at worst... If it was a more reputable news source, I'd buy it, but not from daily mail alone. But maybe that's me doing wishful thinking.
The same could be said of the National Enquirer, but that's one that actually proves spot on in many instances. The other rags are just trash, but now and then they're right.
Oh noes! That would take his mystique away to a certain extent. I haven't got time to read that whole article as I am late for work .. and I too hate The Daily Mail .. but skimming it, it sounds vaguely plausible. Let's face it, I'm sure people have being trying to out him for years and I'm amazed it hasn't happened sooner.
The Inland Revenue should know who he is .. you can't earn such large sums from Galleries and books etc and remain hidden for too long, unless you're an offshore resident of course.
I know someone who was also active in graffiti in Bristol when Banksy was. He knows who he is I'm sure. I think I asked him once .. and he said .. he didn't know, with a kind of knowing smile.
I just hope he keeps doing his incredible stuff, that's all. He's one of my heroes.
That article was D-U-M-B. I especially liked their breathless amazement that he could be a "former public schoolboy from middle-class suburbia" - as if 90% of British couldn't be described as such.
I don't know if I believe them, but either way, they sought a journalistic coup and the found one, or at least seem to have.
"The Mail on Sunday has come as close as anyone possibly can to revealing his identity" -- they're not even stating it without qualification.
I rather find myself irritated by the sneer with which they announce he was a public school boy. So effin' what?
I am confused by this line: "The man in the photograph, he insisted, was formerly known as Robin Gunningham - and it didn't require much imagination to work out how such a name could result in the nickname Banksy."
The Inland Revenue should know who he is .. you can't earn such large sums from Galleries and books etc and remain hidden for too long, unless you're an offshore resident of course.
I know someone who was also active in graffiti in Bristol when Banksy was. He knows who he is I'm sure. I think I asked him once .. and he said .. he didn't know, with a kind of knowing smile.
I just hope he keeps doing his incredible stuff, that's all. He's one of my heroes.
"The Mail on Sunday has come as close as anyone possibly can to revealing his identity" -- they're not even stating it without qualification.
I rather find myself irritated by the sneer with which they announce he was a public school boy. So effin' what?
I am confused by this line:
"The man in the photograph, he insisted, was formerly known as Robin Gunningham - and it didn't require much imagination to work out how such a name could result in the nickname Banksy."
Do I need to be British to understand this?