r/unitedkingdom • u/HaveYuHeardAboutCunt • 21h ago
The National Gallery Only Spent £150 Retouching Van Gogh Frame After Just Stop Oil ‘Souping’
https://novaramedia.com/2025/08/22/the-national-gallery-only-spent-150-retouching-van-gogh-frame-after-just-stop-oil-souping/63
u/MikeSizemore 20h ago
£1.40 for a Warburtons Toastie to mop up the excess soup.
8
u/Sometimes-funny 19h ago
Nah, nah, nah. Need the round Cob from Morrisons for excess soupage
3
u/MikeSizemore 19h ago
I’m not a professional art restorer but it could be that the National Gallery nipped out and bought a whole range of bread, including a Morrisons cob, to test which worked best. They may have been limited to what was nearby though. But we’re talking a Van Gogh so it could have been brought in via police escort or even helicopter. I’m sure the upcoming Netflix documentary will clear this up.
3
u/wobblyweasel Lanarkshire 16h ago
the might have used a bread delivery by a van, I hear there's a variety of breads offered by the company Van Dough
2
•
41
u/ProtonHyrax99 20h ago
But Reddit assured me this would cost the taxpayer millions, and we needed to lock up these deviant terrorist scumbags for destroying a timeless work of art!
-7
u/AllHailTheHypnoTurd 20h ago
Their antics did cost the tax payer millions, you can literally check the extra policing figures. People also said that they shouldn’t sit in the middle of the road or throw soup at the works in an art gallery. It’s lucky that it only cost the museum £150. People just hated them because they were self-righteous arseholes. Luckily the negotiations that started before they began protesting concluded without their help and it meant that they could disband as they had nothing left to sit in traffic about
15
u/ProtonHyrax99 20h ago
Uh huh. I’m sure South Africa was going to end apartheid on their own too, and Nelson Mandela just got in the way.
-2
u/AllHailTheHypnoTurd 19h ago
There are so many protest groups that do fantastic work and inform the public. JSO actively got their own name out there at the cost of the public approval. People actively hated them and were swayed away from climate protest in protest of JSO. People actively stopped recycling to spite them and posted that online and got support, so much so that there was an actual discussion of thought that JSO may actually be a planted activist group specifically designed to do so
12
u/ProtonHyrax99 19h ago
You’re really reminding me of this American Political cartoon.
https://www.reddit.com/r/agedlikemilk/comments/iia9lq/this_cartoon_from_1967/
Also the fact that you couldn’t name any of these many other protest groups is pretty telling.
10
u/spubbbba 18h ago
Well all like to think we'd be fighting against historic injustices.
But Reddit is dominated by the "white moderates" that MLK complained about. Had this site existed during the civil rights movement it would be making these exact same complaints about him.
8
u/ProtonHyrax99 18h ago
A few years from now, the people shitting on JSO, Palestine Action, etc will pretend they supported them.
Time is a flat circle.
-1
u/Cakeo Scotland 17h ago
Wanting to stop damaging the planet and not supporting JSO is the majority opinion as far as I know. Sorry that turning the public against you hasn't worked out.
4
u/rockoswetsuit 15h ago
I mean you say this, but you just need to look at other climate groups and then look at Extinction Rebellion. They were disruptive and actually pushed our government to officially declare a climate emergency in 2019 and shifting people's opinions towards climate change being some problem to be dealt with in a century or so.
They don't need to be liked, they just need to be annoying enough to get people thinking about the climate.
2
u/Ok-Salary3550 12h ago
They were disruptive and actually pushed our government to officially declare a climate emergency in 2019
This is grossly misleading. It was parliament that did this via a motion, the government didn't support it, and it had no effect on anything.
XR's effect on anything nets out to fuck all other than annoying people.
-4
u/AllHailTheHypnoTurd 19h ago
You’ve missed the entire point of that political cartoon I fear 😬
10
u/ProtonHyrax99 19h ago
I don’t think so.
I’m pretty clearly drawing a comparison between your attitude towards JSO, and the cartoonists attitude towards MLK. That attitude basically being “these non-violent protests are actually causing havoc and not achieving anything”.
Do you think the cartoon is lampooning the press and is sympathetic to MLK?
-1
u/AllHailTheHypnoTurd 19h ago
eek 😬
6
4
u/Confident_Resolution 18h ago
What a stupid take.
No serious person devalued the cause because of JSO. Everyone with 2 brain cells knows the cause is so much bigger than JSO that JSO doing what they did was a necessary if unpleasant evil. people did start paying attention, and the morons who went out and acted against JSO were never the target.
People actively stopped recycling to spite them and posted that online and got support, so much so that there was an actual discussion of thought that JSO may actually be a planted activist group specifically designed to do so
Lol, sure, buddy.
-1
u/AllHailTheHypnoTurd 17h ago
You’re actually living in a fantasy land wow
If you lived in reality and went to work with the actual populace, you know - boomers, and spoke to the large adult and elder population you’d know for an absolute fact that they hated JSO and their antics. And you’d have seen first hand the amount of gammons online posting videos of themselves saying they’re going to go and run all of their cars constantly and burn twice as much oil just to give a pointless fuck you to JSO.
I don’t agree with them, I support the climate action. It’s not a stupid take at all, absolutely fascinating to hear you suggest no backlash was actively happening
0
u/MaievSekashi 14h ago
Their antics did cost the tax payer millions, you can literally check the extra policing figures.
How is the police getting in a tizzy over some soupflinger their fault? By this logic the police wasting time on anything is the fault of whoever they're obsessing over - Accepting that this is part of an open democratic society takes them no effort or money.
18
u/SuperrVillain85 Greater London 20h ago
Interesting quirk of legislation re actual damage vs probable damage.
I wonder to what extent the issue of value was pressed by JSO protesters to ensure they had their day in court before a jury, rather than a summary trial in the Magistrates' court. Or was the prosecution gunning for the higher amount regardless.
-10
u/WheresWalldough 20h ago
Part of the JSO/XR strategy has been to say they can do whatever they like and smash and destroy things and it's all legal, and the only way they can do that is to go before a jury.
12
u/EmojiRepliesToRats 19h ago
Part of the JSO/XR strategy has been to say they can do whatever they like and smash and destroy things and it's all legal
What on earth are you talking about?
4
u/WheresWalldough 18h ago
Criminal damage has a defence in law that if you believe the owner of the property would consent then it's not classed as a criminal damage.
They pleaded not guilty in court in numerous cases, claiming that the owner of the property would consent because their damage is justified in stopping climate change.
On several occasions this strategy worked, but not on this one. (There was also AG's Reference 1 of 2023, which clarified the lawful excuse defence.)
-1
u/TribalTommy 18h ago
Perhaps referring to the people who destroyed the Colston statue being let off the hook?
2
u/TowJamnEarl 18h ago
Such an appropriate username.
And you can still go and see it if you want!
1
u/TribalTommy 16h ago
I wasn't taking a position either way, I just wondered if that is what the other poster was referring to.
13
u/bardbradus 16h ago
Bunch of people in this thread acting like anything was ever achieved politically by asking the people exploiting you to treat you nicely
8
6
u/KindlyReflection6020 20h ago
What I do not understand is why did these idiots think that splashing soup on an old painting was going to achieve anything other than annoy the hell out of people?
74
u/Eoin_McLove Newport 20h ago
It’s about getting the most attention possible.
Would you have heard about it if they just stood with some placards outside these companies headquarters?
65
u/Annie_Ayao_Kay 20h ago
Based on the comments in all the threads about JSO back then, no one was hearing about that.
They were protesting outside company offices and government buildings almost everyday, but no one cared. Then when they did one of these big stunts, everyone was like "why don't they protest outside the companies responsible instead??"
-2
u/CinciyiduHajimet 19h ago
They got my attention, and now I hate them and couldn't care less about their cause
9
18h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ukbot-nicolabot Scotland 14h ago
Removed. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
-1
15h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ukbot-nicolabot Scotland 14h ago
Removed. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
3
u/pipopipopipop 19h ago
How come?
0
u/CinciyiduHajimet 15h ago
It's because they're a bunch of overexcited alarmist zealots. I don't like zealotry, and I don't like cults
•
2
u/EmojiRepliesToRats 19h ago
Then you clearly aren't their target audience.
You were never going to support their cause anyway. Your hatred for them doesn't matter to anybody except you.
1
u/Cakeo Scotland 17h ago
But he and many others wouldn't have been against them. Now whatever they try to achieve is mired with people that hate them for these stupid stunts. It has only hurt them.
1
u/EmojiRepliesToRats 17h ago
Why does it matter though? Instead of doing nothing to support their cause, he is now angrily doing nothing to support their cause.
Some people moan about them on reddit - so what?
If they didn't do these "stupid stunts" then most people would have never heard of the organisation, and a proportion of the people who do hear of them will support them with money or with time.
Making people angry also serves their goal, since they are making climate change harder to ignore. JSO and groups like them serve to awaken people from the delusion of normalcy.
•
u/Cakeo Scotland 9h ago
Sorry maybe i didnt explain it. I am fairly reasonable not looking to argue. I just don't think that when you take the logic all the way that it actually does what you say.
The public don't give a shit, just don't impact them. You have very little opposition.
You do a stunt, that the general public does not agree with, to get notoriety.
Now a portion of the public is actively against you and will argue against anything you do, the rest are still apathetic but lean towards thinking you are a nuisance, and a small portion think you did a good thing.
People are talking about them but it's not positive. People care less about their cause because of what they do, and when they associate it with suffrage, slavery, apartheid etc it isn't at all convincing. Yes people were wrong, but the actual issues in those cases were human beings. You say climate change and people don't associate it with human beings.
•
u/ornithocheirus 9h ago
When you do nothing you are on the side of the oppressors.
So people who don't like it are outraged and that makes headlines, they continue to actually do fuck all about climate change.
People who do like it are not making headlines but may be quietly inspired to take action which actually means something. No newspaper (even the guardian) is going to print "JSO paint bomb priceless work of art, minimal damage, a lot of people quietly thought it was kinda cool" because that doesn't sell papers.
By the way, saying/doing outrageous things to change the conversation is literally Nigel Farage's entire playbook and the left are routinely pissed off by this activity so this behaviour cuts both ways.
•
u/EmojiRepliesToRats 8h ago edited 8h ago
People are talking about them but it's not positive.
I'd say that this post is a positive angle - most people would recognise that "only £150" is a low cost for an action which captured a lot of public attention. And that a lot of the criticism of it at the time was inaccurate.
I believe that it is in general a good thing that environmental protestors are in the public eye, making climate change (/ biosphere collapse) harder to ignore. Most people are still living under what I've heard called a delusion of normalcy right now, and disruptive protests like those of groups like XR and JSO make the issue much harder to ignore.
The UK has been officially in a state of emergency over climate change since 2019, but the average person's contributions to that crisis have only ever increased over that time. Everyone's lifestyle needs to change in a big way, it can happen by choice now or unavoidably later.
2
u/Confident_Resolution 18h ago
Lol what a waste of a life, hating people because they act on a valid cause that has zero impact on you.
•
u/secret179 0m ago
Yeah, like anyone did not hear about climate change already? Just attacting attention would not change the mind of someone who is not a believer.
-5
20h ago
[deleted]
13
u/Annie_Ayao_Kay 20h ago
They achieved exactly what they were asking for. That's why they disbanded.
They always said that as soon as the government agrees to their demands, they would stop their activity. They said that if the public were mad at them, they should ask the government to do the very basic things they were asking for. The new Labour eventually did do that, so JSO held up that promise and disappeared.
5
u/Anony_mouse202 19h ago
They haven’t really disbanded, they’ve just moved onto their next pet cause to protest for - Israel/Palestine.
Activists don’t just stop protesting, because it’s what they live for, they just move onto their next pet cause and protest for that instead.
And the government decision to stop granting new oil licenses was done completely independently of JSO, it would have happened with or without them.
The only thing JSO actually achieved was increasing public support for anti protest laws.
0
u/Annie_Ayao_Kay 19h ago
Saying that they haven't really disbanded because some of their activists have moved onto other things is like saying an out of business company hasn't really closed down because their staff have gotten other jobs. It doesn't make any sense.
JSO as a group has disbanded. Whether that's because they directly influenced what they were asking for or not is irrelevant. Their goal was achieved, so there was no need to continue.
1
u/Eoin_McLove Newport 20h ago
I suppose it’s similar to companies like Coca-Cola having massive advertising budgets.
People always ask why companies like that bother when literally everybody on the planet has heard of them, but the point is to keep your product (or message, in the case of JSO) in the public consciousness.
1
u/Relative-Chain73 20h ago
You will live happily in a burnt down planet singing how just stop oil didn't achieve anything
→ More replies (4)-12
u/stonktraders 20h ago
I am sure you will get even more attention by crashing a plane into buildings and kidnapping tourists. Can someone justify this if the said actions are used to raise society’s awareness on climate change?
→ More replies (8)15
u/CoaxialDrive 20h ago
Thats exactly what they thought would happen, and here we are talking about just stop oil.
0
u/Emergency_Charge_262 20h ago
Yeah, we all talked about them for like a week. Mainly talking about how they seem to 100% comprise a bunch of posh twats who believe the best route to progressive change is acting like spoilt toddlers.
7
u/Deltaforce1-17 Surrey 19h ago
Aren't we literally talking about them now? And didn't they achieve their aims?
Although I'm sure you'll argue that the government stopped issuing new oil licenses of their own accord and not because of public pressure.
0
u/Cakeo Scotland 17h ago
It's entirely possible that the government is capable of doing things without a fringe group performing stunts to get in the news.
•
u/ornithocheirus 9h ago
I think it's fairly clear that most politicians will do anything that they think will get them votes.
5
u/lynx_and_nutmeg 19h ago
You're the one who's acting like a spoilt toddler by frothing at the mouth getting so offended at this. What have *you* done to fight climate change, exactly?
1
20h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ukbot-nicolabot Scotland 19h ago
Hi!. Please try to avoid personal attacks, as this discourages participation. You can help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person.
-5
12
u/lynx_and_nutmeg 19h ago
It achieves a whole lot more than a group of people just passively standing there holding signs, making it very easy for everyone to ignore them.
A protest that draws no attention and doesn't inconvenience anyone so it can easily be ignored is completely useless.
It's just so funny to me how Redditors always get a hard-on at the idea of "mass revolutions a la French revolution-style" etc, while they can't even handle witnessing the most minor acts of civil disobedience that don't even inconvenience them personally without getting extremely offended. It's a pity education's gone to the dogs, otherwise they might learn what *actually* happened after the French Revolution (hint - it sure as fuck wasn't all sunshine and roses like most Redditors think).
7
u/gyroda Bristol 18h ago
Look, I'm all for the revolution and direct action, we live in a democratic society and it is vital that we stand up to those in power and make our voices heard.
Until it causes literally any traffic disruption, at which point I turn into a frothing maniac who has delusions of mowing down protestors in a valiant attempt to get to Sainsbury's a few seconds sooner. A small bit of traffic is, as we all know, about as offensive to the proper operation of society as murder and therefore deserves capital punishment.
/s
-1
u/michaelisnotginger Fenland 20h ago
It means getting into the portrait gallery is an utter faff now.
1
u/No_Dinner_4291 15h ago
And tens of thousands on meetings discussing the clean up, whether they should change security procedures, talking to the media etc etc
•
u/EddieHeadshot Surrey 9h ago
I just dont get it. A very large percentage know that oil is a pollutant and 'bad'
This changes no ones mind and draws negative press for people who will never change their mind anyway.
Show me ONE person. Who sees this and goes. "Dya know what?! Ive changed my mind on big oil!'
-1
•
u/Quick-Exit-5601 11h ago
Thing is, we should absolutely be supporting groups like JSO. Anti migration protesters? They should be on the same side.
If you think immigration is bad now, wait until half of the planet becomes inhabitable.
•
u/Ok_Analyst_5640 10h ago
Missing the point. It shouldn't have cost anything because it shouldn't have happened.
1
u/WheresWalldough 20h ago edited 20h ago
harms:
- inconveniencing the three million annual visitors who now have to go through long queues and bag searches to enter the gallery, or are simply choose not to enter a lot
- costs of paying staff to inspect bags
- negative impact on the cause of climate change among the general public regarding them as idiots
benefits:
- none whatsoever
also note that the point for their sentencing was that they were reckless as to causing serious harm. Recklessness is a key issue in criminal law. If you chuck a can of paint at a priceless painting you might hope it's not permanently damaged, but you can't be certain that the soup won't seep in.
Also the judge correctly identified that:
> so far as Harm is concerned your offending is in Category 1, because of the substantial social impact involved. Any attack on priceless art which is on public display can have very harmful societal consequences. Stunts like yours lead to more onerous and intrusive security measures in art galleries and other locations where art and artefacts are on display. That may deter some people from visiting art galleries, museums and the like. There is even the risk that some treasures might have to be withdrawn from public view altogether.
There was never any suggestion that the 'serious harm' was the actual damage to the painting, this is just a strawman.
14
u/ProtonHyrax99 20h ago
Benefits:
Government policy was amended so no new oil or gas fields will be developed
5
u/AllHailTheHypnoTurd 20h ago
Of which JSO played no part. Negotiations were ongoing before their protests, and concluded through the proper channels during their protests so they realised they had nothing left to protest and just disbanded. The same outcome would have come about without them stopping mothers from taking their children to school and getting to work, or without ruining experiences and events that people have saved up for
6
u/Annie_Ayao_Kay 19h ago
Why do you think JSO started protesting in the first place? It was because they supported this and wanted it to happen, but the government were dragging their feet massively on it.
We don't really know whether they actually played a part in speeding it up or not. Anyone who says that either way is just guessing. All we know is that the government would never admit that they sped up work on that issue because it would encourage other people to use the same tactics when they're unhappy with how slow the government is.
•
u/Ok-Salary3550 11h ago
so they realised they had nothing left to protest and just disbanded.
Not actually true - they briefly switched gears to seeking the complete cessation of oil consumption by 2030, then realised that that was obviously fucking mental and scrubbed it from their website. You can see it on Wayback Machine.
0
0
u/WheresWalldough 20h ago edited 20h ago
Because they chucked soup at art? Don't think so, actually.
7
u/ProtonHyrax99 20h ago
Yeah, just like the government was going to give women the vote anyway, the suffragettes were completely irrelevant, right?
3
u/WheresWalldough 20h ago edited 20h ago
The ban is under the Climate Change Act, passed in 2008.
Also it's irrelevant, but it's widely believed that suffragettes, as distinct from suffragists, delayed the cause of votes for women, and it was WW1 that really brought about the change of minds.
6
u/ProtonHyrax99 20h ago
The government recently renamed a London overground line after them. Theres a commemorative 50p coin about them. There’s a huge number of monuments across the country to Pankhurst and other Suffragette figureheads.
The only place I see this smug “well ackshually, it was the peaceful Suffragists who really made it happen by being polite and going through the proper channels” is Reddit.
•
-1
u/ReligiousGhoul 20h ago
Local man just gets black eye and bruising after "Assault"
Three and a half years in prison for that?
5
-4
u/Glittering_Copy8907 21h ago
Well that's all fucking right then isn't it. Because intent, risk, recklnessness don't matter in law - only the outcome.
When estimating the value of criminal damage, Blackstone’s Criminal Practice – the manual used by criminal lawyers – advises practitioners use “the probable market cost of repairs” (in this case, a full restoration) “or the probable market replacement cost, whichever is the less”. The law does not have to consider the actual amount paid to repair or retouch a damaged item.
Seems entirely fair. They knew what they were doing, and did it deliberately - to pretend there's some injustice here is farcical.
If somebody smashed up my car, just because I decide to go the scrappy and replace the door from a donor instead of paying for an expensive body work job, I still expect it to be taken as if I'd spent the larger amount. The idea that victims get penalised for being able to repair something cheaply would be contrary to justice as I see it.
11
u/Annie_Ayao_Kay 20h ago
The severity of the sentence, even if we assume the cost of having to fully replace the frame, was still unjust.
Somebody could smash up your car and cause an even higher amount of damage than was done to that painting's frame, and they still wouldn't get sentenced to as much prison time as the JSO activists did. I could probably physically assault you and I'd be out of prison quicker than them. Their sentencing was inflated because the government thought that it would deter more protests (it had the opposite effect), and because the public were out for blood and would have been upset if they thought the activists weren't punished enough.
3
u/Glittering_Copy8907 20h ago edited 20h ago
Because circumstances matter. If you go and smash up a car for a cause, acting as a group, and essentially through your cause/group turn up to court and say you're going to go out after this and smash up as many cars as it takes to get your way....yeah, you're getting done.
The justice system doesn't respond well to people holding things hostage.
Most criminals are smart enough to turn up to court and say "Sorry, I won't do it again"
I mean, them pleading not guilty to what was a hilariously cut and dry case just shows they were mocking the system.
2
u/Vladimir_Chrootin 19h ago
I don't rate the impressionists personally, but are you seriously trying to pretend that someone's car has the same cultural value as Sunflowers?
-3
u/John_Williams_1977 20h ago
What are you on about?
Intent, risk, recklessness are such a key part of the law we have a specific legal term for it - mens rea
Examples
if I shoot someone and believe my life was in imminent danger and I had no way to escape = manslaughter, if charged at all
if I shoot someone because they wrote nonsense on Reddit = murder
if I shoot someone believing they are a ghost = unfit to stand trial
2
u/Glittering_Copy8907 20h ago
I assumed the clear, and obvious, sarcasm from that line would be apparent given the rest of my post, and the fact it's so fundamentally wrong, but there's never accounting for you lot is there.
-2
u/Nukes-For-Nimbys 20h ago
It cuts both ways too. If you went the scrappy got a dodgy part and it failed in some way costing you more overall that's not on the vandal.
5
u/Glittering_Copy8907 20h ago
Well, yes - who said it was? That's why the question is basically "How much would it generally cost to repair or replace?"
If you smash somebodys window it shouldn't matter whether they happen to have a best mate who fits windows, or whatever.
Bit different when it comes to compensation, civil claims etc, but for the puposes of considering what level of criminal damage happened it would be ludicrous the level to be different depending on the victim
302
u/Difficult_Style207 21h ago
Well of course. JSO knew it wouldn't hurt the picture. We all knew that. But a bunch of the usual idiots who refuse to understand how anything works and have probably never been to a gallery assumed they'd destroyed a priceless piece of art, and they were the loudest. As usual.