Internationally-renowned graffiti artist “Banksy” has done a great disservice to communities across the country by, to some extent, legitimising a form of anti-social behaviour.

That’s not to say that his work is without a good deal of merit: not only is it the product of an exceptional talent but he has used it in many cases as social commentary, highlighting issues sometimes in a stark, and sometimes in a wry, way.

That talent, coupled with his worldwide fame, poses a dilemma for local authorities. Should his graffiti be removed as a blight on the landscape or protected as a valuable work of art? As with all art, you either like it or you don’t and those who don’t see Banksy’s work as just more vandalism.

The same debate cannot be had about the work of rampaging graffiti hooligans such as 18-year-old Thomas Toczek who, we report today, has owned up to 30 offences of defacing public and private property in a way that Bradford Council street scene officer Damian Fisher described as “ugly and frequently offensive.”

The reality is that Banksy is a one-off and the now-generic term “graffiti artist” is not an accurate description of the people who daub this rubbish and make our neighbourhoods even harder to look after.

Any artistic “skills” these people have should be put to a more practical and beneficial use as a reward for their efforts. A spell of compulsory street cleaning and painting and decorating for the elderly and needy for every offender would do all concerned a power of good.