Julian Cope presents Head Heritage | The Modern Antiquarian Forum

The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge Solstice: is there a risk?	Log In to post a reply

102 messages	Topic View: Flat \| Threaded

Mustard

1043 posts

Edited Jul 01, 2010, 12:50

Re: Stonehenge Solstice: is there a risk?

Jul 01, 2010, 12:35

Littlestone wrote:

I don't follow your reasoning Mustard; it's as equally irrelevant that you, personally, are happy for 20,000 people to celebrate at Stonehenge, as it is for Joe Bloggs to be happy for 1,000 people a day to travel 100 miles an hour on our motorways. Personal happiness doesn't come in to it - the law on these matters however does.

Well the law allows the solstice gathering to take place, doesn't it? Or else it wouldn't take place.

Littlestone wrote:

The risks of 20,000 people crammed into a vey small area (Stonehenge) should be obvious, but if not you'll find some of those risks outlined in the third paragraph of the Heritage Action feature under discussion here.

That paragraph doesn't do anything of the sort. It simply infers and suggests without outlining one single concrete example of an actual risk to the monument. To quote directly: "Who can say what might have happened.....". That section of the article more than any other is inflammatory, reactionary and prejudiced.

Those risks, to which I now add my own as a conservator, are never right ever - ie, to do anything to an artifact that might possibly damage it.

Well that would rule out visiting the things, period! Footfall and erosion stand a good chance of doing damage at any monument!

Again, it is completely irrelevant to argue (as it has been argued elsewhere) that the sarsen at Stonehenge is unlikely to suffer damage from one night's revelry. Not so, damage comes in various forms, but whatever its form it's accumulative. If that were not the case there would be no need to fence off Stonehenge at all would there?

Just because a thing has been done, it does not follow that it is necessary that it should be done.

It's a contradiction in terms to say Stonehenge must be fenced off all year round but on one night of the year 20,000 or 30,000 or 50,000 people may climb all over it and somehow the laws of conservation on that night mysteriously do not apply. What nonsense.

Your argument doesn't follow. 20,000 visitors in the course of one night is hardly comparable to over 1,000,000 visitors during the course of the whole year.

That's the conservation argument, moving on to the social/sacred argument. Videos show the ground in and around Stonehenge this year strewn with litter. Is this really acceptable to you and are you really happy for people to do it?

I don't consider it acceptable and I'm not happy with it. Nor am I happy with littering anywhere, but that doesn't mean that I want to see access to anywhere restricted on the basis that a minority drop litter. It doesn't do any practical harm to the monument, and while it's right and proper that such behaviour should be criticised and discouraged, it is not an argument in itself for preventing access.

I doubt it, from the social, sacred or legal points of view I can't see anyone being happy with it (unless you're one of the 20,000 people engaged in the act and don't give a tinker's cuss what it might mean to others in the wider community).

I find that suggestion quite rude and unnecessary.

But social and sacred arguments aside, the last time I checked the penalty for dropping litter in this country was £75. Unless English Heritage (and the National Trust) have some kind of special dispensation at Stonehenge they seem to me to be breaking the law by complicity - ie by preventing an offence taking place at a time and place under their control.

Which you could argue with regards to access at any monument. Should they be fencing off all our stone circles in case people drop litter?

Remember too that littler doesn't behave itself - it has a nasty habit of being dispersed all over the surrounding area.

In which instance, I assume you'd like to see an end to all large public gatherings? This is not an argument for preventing access to Stonehenge - it is an argument for discouraging littering.

Same applies to drug offences; the possession of cannabis is certainly not insignificant as you state.

I don't recall stating that it was insignificant. I suggested that it is not a behaviour that presents any form of risk to Stonehenge.

Possession of cannabis can carry an £80 spot fine, and a third offence for possession will render a person liable to arrest and prosecution with a custodial sentence of up to five years. Dealing in the drug carries a sentence up to 14 years.
If people want to smoke cannabis, that's between themselves and the nearest policeman. It is no more an argument for preventing access to Stonehenge than it is for preventing access to any other place.

The Solstice celebrations at Stonehenge cannot be compared to a minor late night party at the end of your street. On the contrary, we have at Stonehenge 20,000 (plus) people, many of whom will have been drinking, and some 'smoking', making their way from the Stonehenge 'venue' within hours of sunrise. There's little or no public transport from the site at that time so, you tell me, are you still happy to have an armada of people, many of whom will be still under the influence of alcohol and drugs, on the roads and driving away from Stonehenge in the early hours after sunrise?

Sorry, is there the slightest bit of evidence that people are driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol? People can be passengers as well as drivers, you realise. Not that this is remotely an argument for preventing access on this basis. If there's a problem with drink/drug driving, then it is for the police to deal with that the same as they would at any other gathering of people.

In reply to:
Re: Stonehenge Solstice: is there a risk? (Littlestone)

Replies:
Re: Stonehenge Solstice: is there a risk? (Mustard)

Topic Outline:

Stonehenge Solstice: is there a risk? – Littlestone, Jun 30, 2010, 07:40


The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index