Banksy Cost Britain £150,000. Or Did He?
A curious figure has been following Banksy through the British press this weekend: £150,000.
The Guardian reported that three Banksy works in London have cost taxpayers nearly that amount, based on figures obtained by the BBC through Freedom of Information requests. The money covers removal attempts, security, barriers, administration and the relocation of the works.
The arithmetic is not really in dispute. The wording is more interesting.
Banksy did not invoice Britain for £150,000. Public authorities spent the money deciding what to do with works he left in public space — whether to remove them, protect them, move them or keep watch over them.
The largest bill comes from the mural that appeared on the Royal Courts of Justice in September 2025. It showed a bewigged judge striking a protester with a gavel as the protester lay on the ground holding a bloodstained placard. Banksy confirmed the work as his.
Because the Royal Courts of Justice is a listed building, HM Courts and Tribunals Service said it was obliged to maintain its original character. About £50,000 has so far been spent trying to remove the paint, with another £35,000 going on overtime and security.
Getting rid of it has not been straightforward. Initial attempts failed, contractors moved on to laser cleaning, and replacing the affected stonework remains a possible final option. The bill may not have stopped growing yet.
So who, exactly, generated that £85,000 bill?
The artist who painted the wall, or the institution that decided the painting had to disappear?
That distinction becomes harder to ignore when the other two works are considered.
Banksy’s sculpture at Waterloo Place, installed in April, depicts a suited man stepping from a plinth while a large flag obscures his face. When the sculpture appeared, Reuters reported that Westminster City Council welcomed it as an addition to London’s public art scene and said it would remain accessible to the public while protective measures were put in place.
Those protective measures did not come free. The council has since spent almost £60,000 on barriers, administration and a security guard.
Then there is the police sentry box Banksy covered with swimming piranhas in 2024. Removing it cost £2,200. But unlike the Royal Courts mural, it was not erased.
The City of London Corporation later transferred the work into the care of London Museum, where it is being conserved for public display.
One work is being erased. Another is guarded. Another is being preserved for a museum.
Put the invoices together, though, and they become “the cost of Banksy.”
There is nothing unusual about journalists scrutinising public spending. They should. £150,000 of public money is perfectly legitimate territory for a news story.
But it is worth noticing how quickly the language changes depending on what the money is buying.
According to the House of Commons Library, UK defence spending in 2025–26 was about £62 billion. The government’s Defence Investment Plan sets out £298 billion of defence investment over the next four years.
These are obviously not comparable expenditures. Running the armed forces is not the same thing as removing paint from a courthouse, and putting £150,000 beside £298 billion simply to marvel at the difference in scale would tell us very little.
The language around them, however, is worth comparing.
When £150,000 is connected to street art, it readily becomes money “costing taxpayers.” Much larger sums allocated to military programmes are more commonly discussed in terms of spending, investment, capability and security.
Both descriptions can be factually accurate. Neither is entirely neutral.
“Cost” draws attention to what has been lost. “Investment” encourages us to think about what might be gained.
And that is what makes this modest Banksy story more interesting than the £150,000 figure suggests.
The most expensive work in the story showed an authority figure beating a protester. The authorities decided it had to be removed. Removing it turned out to be difficult and expensive. The resulting expense then became part of a public argument about the burden created by the artist.
Banksy hardly needs to add anything.
The wall may eventually be clean.
The irony will be rather harder to remove.
Sources
The Guardian — Three Banksy artworks in London have cost taxpayers nearly £150,000
Reuters — Banksy installs statue of flag-wielding man in central London
House of Commons Library — UK defence spending
House of Commons Library — Defence Investment Plan: Key decisions
