the police were definately in 'grunt' mode but if it hadn't been the chalking, it would have been the PA or the 'anti-war confetti', or the bandages and flowers tied to the netting or... even a loitering lamppost with attitude (wouldn't have surprised me!). Pity theres no picture of the subversion of "dear" Albert in the square, peace flags flying out of his arse (almost).
serious point though.. does anyone know if it is actually criminal damage (as the cop told me) to use chalk on a wall or monument, when chalk doesn't actually damage anything?

Heather, I also thought that if it was chalk, it wasn't criminal damage. Sadly it appears that this is not the case. According to the Activists Legal Project

"You commit the offence of criminal damage if you destroy or damage property or threaten to destroy or damage property, either intentionally or recklessly, without lawful excuse: Section 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. The damage does not have to be permanent and even if it is graffiti made with chalk which will wash away with rain it may still be criminal damage. There is a specific defence of 'lawful excuse' set out in the Criminal Damage Act, which basically states that if you believed that the destruction of the property was necessary to protect neighbouring property, which was in immediate need of protection, then you have a defence. The classic example of this defence is breaking down your neighbour's door in order to put out a fire. "

 http://www.activistslegalproject.org.uk/offences.htm#criminaldamagearson