Happy wanderer11
|
Re: ..Priddy Henges....
Aug 08, 2011, 21:33
|
|
If I am not mistaken the farm and houses were up for sale several months ago. It is likely that a new owner has decided to do something with the land. I know it was for sale as my wife and I dreamed of buying it al and setting up a retreat there.
|
Sanctuary
|
Re: ..Priddy Henges....
Aug 09, 2011, 06:27
|
|
Happy wanderer11 wrote: If I am not mistaken the farm and houses were up for sale several months ago. It is likely that a new owner has decided to do something with the land. I know it was for sale as my wife and I dreamed of buying it al and setting up a retreat there.
That's an interesting point and something I've not heard before. It's bothered me all along that somebody could be so stupid, wreckless and downright vandalous toward something so important as surely you wouldn't be so ridiculously stupid as to do such a thing deliberately. It may well have happened during the transitional ownership of the property and not a deliberate act. How would you deal with that?
|
goffik
|
Re: ..Priddy Henges....
Aug 09, 2011, 06:54
|
Surely some kind of planning permission should have been sought, whether he'd bulldozed it deliberately or not? I don't think anyone would think the henges were just some natural lumps and bumps to bulldoze, anyway. Do you? I mean - seriously. If it were some almost indistinguishable barrow or summat, then maybe. Nah.
G x
|
Sanctuary
|
Re: ..Priddy Henges....
Aug 09, 2011, 07:26
|
|
goffik wrote: Surely some kind of planning permission should have been sought, whether he'd bulldozed it deliberately or not? I don't think anyone would think the henges were just some natural lumps and bumps to bulldoze, anyway. Do you? I mean - seriously. If it were some almost indistinguishable barrow or summat, then maybe. Nah.
G x
Dunno. It all seems rather strange doesn't it. If the land and property were in the hands of an agent during the sale, I wonder if it's possible that a contractor was brought in during the interim period to 'tidy things up a bit' and make the land more presentable? I've not been on the ground there but I believe the section missing is from one fenced off field. Was the view restricted from the other adjoining fields so that the full view of that henge was not visible? Just trying to find a reason why someone should appear to be so vandalous knowing it would cost them dear!
|
summerlands
|
Re: ..Priddy Henges....
Aug 09, 2011, 09:07
|
Surely if that were the case, a mistake by another party, given the landownder (old or new, whichever) was named and shamed (OK, briefly) in the local papers, etc, you'd think they would want to speak out to clear their name? Unless any legal action prevents that?
I was in the area a few weeks back, I grew up close by and was back visiting the folks - I didn't stop to look any of the times I passed that week as frankly I was afraid of what I might see :-(
|
tomwatts
|
Re: ..Priddy Henges....Alleged damage....
Aug 09, 2011, 10:42
|
I knew of the Priddy Henges for years before I really got into stones etc.
If I'd heard of them here in darkest Lancashire, then the people who's land they're on MUST have known their importance.
Maybe the transfer of ownership of the land will allow the previous and present owners to blame each other for the alleged damage.
We must be careful not to prejudge matters, and jeopardise any coming court case
|
Sanctuary
|
Re: ..Priddy Henges....
Aug 09, 2011, 14:07
|
|
summerlands wrote: Surely if that were the case, a mistake by another party, given the landownder (old or new, whichever) was named and shamed (OK, briefly) in the local papers, etc, you'd think they would want to speak out to clear their name? Unless any legal action prevents that?
I was in the area a few weeks back, I grew up close by and was back visiting the folks - I didn't stop to look any of the times I passed that week as frankly I was afraid of what I might see :-(
No doubt it will all come to light eventually but I have this feeling in my water that a huge mistake has taken place and it wasn't done maliciously or with any wrongful intent. That said, what a diabollically stupid thing to do! Nothing will correct it of course but I think it was Nigel that said that the landowner/contractor should be made to 'reinstate' it at the very least. What else they decide to do is up in the air I suppose.
|
Rhiannon
|
Re: ..Priddy Henges....Alleged damage....
Aug 09, 2011, 14:19
|
|
That's true. but I wouldn't call the damage alleged. Cos some of the henge that was there isn't there any more. The damage is actual, even if it's not clear who did it. Innit.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: ..Priddy Henges....
Aug 09, 2011, 14:32
|
|
Sanctuary wrote: I think it was Nigel that said that the landowner/contractor should be made to 'reinstate' it at the very least. What else they decide to do is up in the air I suppose.
I hope I didn't as I don't want to be sued.
I do hope anyone convicted is made to pay a suitable penalty though. People like that need stopping. If rubber bullets are to be used to prevent vaguely equivalent but smaller crimes in London the least we can hope for is a hell of a fine and perhaps more in Dorset.
|
nigelswift
|
Re: ..Priddy Henges....Alleged damage....
Aug 09, 2011, 14:45
|
|
Rhiannon wrote: The damage is actual, even if it's not clear who did it. Innit.
Aye, and the silly sod made a mistake didn't he? If only he had avoided digging up a third of a henge and had instead dug up 9 million archaeological artefacts and told no-one he'd have broken no laws and the Minister of Culture would have hailed him as a Heritage Hero. Funny old world, innit?
|
