Cursuswalker
|
Re: YET ANOTHER REQUEST TO HELP THE LONG MAN
Jul 05, 2007, 10:34
|
|
tiompan wrote:
The site manger was saying this on Monday. Yet when we pressed him he admitted that it could not be proved that something had not been on the site for a lot longer.
Combine that with the alignment of a large round AND long barrow on the hill above with the figure (The long barrow addresses it arguably) and you have evidence for something having been on the side of the hill a long time ago.
And it is still called a "scheduled ancient monument"
|
Cursuswalker
|
Re: National coverage
Jul 05, 2007, 10:40
|
|
slumpystones wrote: Cursuswalker wrote:
No mention of sticks in the ground or wet muddy bootmarks. And notably no response by the TV company to the accusation of a sacred site being desecrated. They pick the easy question to answer and ignore the other.
And I got banned from the ITV message board. Dunno if it was my username [Bints-r-us] or the way I expressed myself, but I suspect it was a combination of the two ;)
They keep disabling my reply button :-)
|
slumpystones
|
Re: YET ANOTHER REQUEST TO HELP THE LONG MAN
Jul 05, 2007, 11:55
|
|
Cursuswalker wrote: tiompan wrote:
The site manger was saying this on Monday. Yet when we pressed him he admitted that it could not be proved that something had not been on the site for a lot longer.
Combine that with the alignment of a large round AND long barrow on the hill above with the figure (The long barrow addresses it arguably) and you have evidence for something having been on the side of the hill a long time ago.
And it is still called a "scheduled ancient monument"
That is what seems to have escaped the media moguls. They seem to have the attitude that "well it isn't as old as all that, and people go to Stonehenge and Avebury, so what's the problem?" instead of "Yes, you're right, it IS protected, we DID damage it [albeit only lightly] and yes, we ARE sorry we ever got into this mess".
Unfortunately this will probably work in their favour all the way, and they'll use TV news footage to advertise it.
I said I wasn't getting angry today...I promised!!!
|
tiompan
|
Re: YET ANOTHER REQUEST TO HELP THE LONG MAN
Jul 05, 2007, 12:18
|
|
Cursuswalker wrote:
The site manger was saying this on Monday. Yet when we pressed him he admitted that it could not be proved that something had not been on the site for a lot longer.
Combine that with the alignment of a large round AND long barrow on the hill above with the figure (The long barrow addresses it arguably) and you have evidence for something having been on the side of the hill a long time ago.
And it is still called a "scheduled ancient monument"
You can't prove a negative . You don't get antiquity by symbiosis .What period do you believe the figures dates from ?
"Scheduled ancient monument" is not a signifier of age e.g. some WW11 Pillboxes .
|
slumpystones
|
Re: YET ANOTHER REQUEST TO HELP THE LONG MAN
Jul 05, 2007, 12:51
|
|
tiompan wrote: "Scheduled ancient monument" is not a signifier of age e.g. some WW11 Pillboxes .
But it is a signifier of the same level of protection, surely? A WW2 Pillbox or gun enplacement with SAM status should not be viewed as any less relevant or worthy of our protection.
|
tiompan
|
Re: YET ANOTHER REQUEST TO HELP THE LONG MAN
Jul 05, 2007, 12:57
|
|
slumpystones wrote: tiompan wrote: "Scheduled ancient monument" is not a signifier of age e.g. some WW11 Pillboxes .
But it is a signifier of the same level of protection, surely? A WW2 Pillbox or gun enplacement with SAM status should not be viewed as any less relevant or worthy of our protection.
Agree on the protection I was under the inpression it was being used as a sign of antiquity
|
slumpystones
|
Re: YET ANOTHER REQUEST TO HELP THE LONG MAN
Jul 05, 2007, 13:26
|
|
tiompan wrote: slumpystones wrote: tiompan wrote: "Scheduled ancient monument" is not a signifier of age e.g. some WW11 Pillboxes .
But it is a signifier of the same level of protection, surely? A WW2 Pillbox or gun enplacement with SAM status should not be viewed as any less relevant or worthy of our protection.
Agree on the protection I was under the inpression it was being used as a sign of antiquity
Sorry, misread the gist of the thing. Yes, definitely a mistake trying to use a SAM tag as a proof of age. But then, does it really matter anyway? My son has the same rights as my father!
|
Cursuswalker
|
Re: Long Man of Wilmington - URGENT HELP NEEDED
Jul 05, 2007, 13:44
|
Just posted to the Sussex Express board:
I have now joined the Sussex Archaeological Society and I would urge other pagans to do so as well. If we are to be the ones who have the real best interests of this site at heart then it would be better for this to be from a position of empowerment, rather than having to protest every time such a misguided decision is taken. SAS have previously been excellent custodians of this site and they can expect there to be a motion tabled at their next AGM concerning this, unless they state, on the record, that from now on there will be NO authorised access to the Long man site except for the purposes of maintenance. Without such a clear statement the damage that could be done to the Long Man by people copying ITV's example will be even worse. It is high time ITV and the SAS issued a full apology for what happened.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Long Man of Wilmington - URGENT HELP NEEDED
Jul 05, 2007, 14:03
|
It is high time ITV and the SAS issued a full apology for what happened.
I think its a fair bet SAS will never do anything like this again (and ITV will, probably). Income from filming is something several guardians have failed to formulate sensible guidelines about recently (NT for one) and have learned the hard and damaging way. I doubt if there'll ever be another Eye at Uffington for instance.
But not doing it again isn't enough. Acknowledging it was wrong is important, else they're risking copycat behaviour elsewhere. But are they big enough to accept that?
|
Cursuswalker
|
COMPLAIN TO ITV
Jul 05, 2007, 14:48
|
Contact page for ITV:
http://www.itv.com/page.asp?partid=5
The franchise responsible is London Weekend Television
The programme is called "Trinny ans Susannah undress"
Incidentally, I have just found the original web-advert for participants in the show:
http://www.itv.com/page.asp?partid=6605
Better take a copy of that before they take it down!
|
