|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Draft Monuments Code |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Edited Feb 24, 2012, 08:53
Feb 24, 2012, 09:25
|
||
|
VBB wrote: Let's face it, we shouldn't need to underline that we should all act with consideration towards others, just as society shouldn't need to codify respect towards the elderly. But it is the world we live in now. Well OK, include something in the Code about treating other visitors with respect if the tone of the times demands it but also do make sure it talks about treating the feelings and sensitivities of others towards the site with respect. Without that, you'll get people climbing on stones because THEY think they can justify it and bidding a cheery hello to annoyed or affronted spectators and thereby claiming they've kept to the code. Codes have to be cute else those that simply want to do their own thing will interpret them in their own favour. (PS I have a lot of experience of studying the effect of badly drafted codes of behaviour and how they can act as cloaks to facilitate bad behaviour. Every detectorist bar none swears they adhere to the Code For Responsible Detecting and tells every farmer they do in order to gain access to the fields yet it's statistically demonstrable most of them flout it. That's an example of a well meaning but badly drafted code having the opposite effect to what was intended. We'd be far better off without it.)
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Edited Mar 10, 2012, 07:50
Mar 10, 2012, 08:45
|
||
|
Paddy Power about Uffington - “We didn’t ask permission because we knew the answer would be no. But no harm has been done..." http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/9579762.Horse_stunt_is_a__desecration_/ So they were sure the publicity was worth the subsequent telling off and they're sure no damage has been done. And they're probably right in both cases as the Ancient Monuments Act provides penalties for "damage" not disrespect or miniscule surface holes caused by tiny tent pegs. NT probably didn't make it clear enough they are against stunts (and have taken money for them previously) and will do no more than moan now. EH et al aren't likely to formulate a Code so if people like us are serious about opposing this stuff it's up to us to formulate a Code and force EH to take it seriously. (I personally don't believe Paddy Power would necessarily have ignored a Code, if accepted by all the organisations. The reason they did what they did was because the message against it simply wasn't clear enough - and in NT's case, non-existent).
|
|||
|
VBB 558 posts |
Mar 10, 2012, 09:38
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Paddy Power about Uffington - “We didn’t ask permission because we knew the answer would be no. But no harm has been done..." http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/9579762.Horse_stunt_is_a__desecration_/ So they were sure the publicity was worth the subsequent telling off and they're sure no damage has been done. And they're probably right in both cases as the Ancient Monuments Act provides penalties for "damage" not disrespect or miniscule surface holes caused by tiny tent pegs. NT probably didn't make it clear enough they are against stunts (and have taken money for them previously) and will do no more than moan now. EH et al aren't likely to formulate a Code so if people like us are serious about opposing this stuff it's up to us to formulate a Code and force EH to take it seriously. (I personally don't believe Paddy Power would necessarily have ignored a Code, if accepted by all the organisations. The reason they did what they did was because the message against it simply wasn't clear enough - and in NT's case, non-existent). Horse racing has its traditions, those involved would relate to a Code I feel. Without condoning what they did, which evidently in the time and money aspect they planned to do no physical damage, Paddy Power would never have been in this position if the messages about respecting all monuments were crystal clear.
|
|||
tjj 3606 posts |
Edited Mar 10, 2012, 09:39
Mar 10, 2012, 10:37
|
||
|
VBB wrote: nigelswift wrote: Paddy Power about Uffington - “We didn’t ask permission because we knew the answer would be no. But no harm has been done..." http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/news/9579762.Horse_stunt_is_a__desecration_/ So they were sure the publicity was worth the subsequent telling off and they're sure no damage has been done. And they're probably right in both cases as the Ancient Monuments Act provides penalties for "damage" not disrespect or miniscule surface holes caused by tiny tent pegs. NT probably didn't make it clear enough they are against stunts (and have taken money for them previously) and will do no more than moan now. EH et al aren't likely to formulate a Code so if people like us are serious about opposing this stuff it's up to us to formulate a Code and force EH to take it seriously. (I personally don't believe Paddy Power would necessarily have ignored a Code, if accepted by all the organisations. The reason they did what they did was because the message against it simply wasn't clear enough - and in NT's case, non-existent). Horse racing has its traditions, those involved would relate to a Code I feel. Without condoning what they did, which evidently in the time and money aspect they planned to do no physical damage, Paddy Power would never have been in this position if the messages about respecting all monuments were crystal clear. The Cheltenham Races is a world famous product, I should think by now it is dawning on them that they got it very wrong and they have possibly tarnished their image. I wonder how many emails of protest were received thanks to you VBB for posting the email contact address (re-posted on Facebook and no doubt on Twitter). Its interesting that the Oxford Times has used the word desecration (picking up from local people) which shows just how strongly many, many people felt.
|
|||
|
VBB 558 posts |
Mar 10, 2012, 16:28
|
||
|
VBB wrote: Taking a lead from the Countryside Code, would be workable? Do we need something like this? The Monuments Code: Respect, Protect and Appreciate The responsibility to respect and protect monuments lies with everyone, the public and those that own and manage monuments. The Monuments Code for Visitors Leave monuments as you find them. Take your litter home. Act with respect towards the feelings and enjoyment of other visitors Report any hazard or damage. The Monuments Code for Owners and Managers Know your responsibilities and liabilities. Make it easy for visitors to act responsibly. Identify potential threats to visitor safety and monument conservation. Adopt transparency when dealing with the public. Time to act! Let's not have another Uffington jockey, let's not have another Priddy, lets not have people stealing metal from war memorials; and lets have a Monuments Code that everyone understands and the national Trust and English Heritage adopt plain and simple.
|
| Pages: 2 – [ Previous | 1 2 ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
