FourWinds
|
Re: Here's my best shot...
Nov 05, 2003, 21:48
|
|
I think the word *Guardian* should be in there somewhere
|
BrigantesNation
|
Re: Getting Serious about Conservation
Nov 05, 2003, 21:59
|
As usual 4W is dead right, working on a single campaign is a lot of work in itself but would give the group a track record.
Also I would be careful about leaving out the historical stuff. If a site was for example surrounded by DMV's and so Roman stuff. by fighting to preserve these might help the case of the ancient monument in question. Often you are fighting a tide of local ignorance and by switching to a new item of heritage under threat you can bring people round a lot easier to the idea of it being an area of important heritage.
|
FourWinds
|
Re: rockulous idea sirrah...
Nov 05, 2003, 21:59
|
Re: the last paragraph ...
Yes the people who will already do something can see through the buzzwords, but to make this succeed you need to reach the people who wouldn't normally do anything. You need to grab their attention and a hippy with a dog on a rope saying 'but this is our heritage man!' ain't gonna do that :-)
|
FourWinds
|
|
|
What's one o' them then?
|
BrigantesNation
|
Re: DMV
Nov 05, 2003, 22:24
|
Disused M-evil village
In reply to:
DMV (FourWinds) | |
Replies:
Oh! (FourWinds)
|
|
FourWinds
|
|
That would explain why I was nowhere near :-)
In reply to:
Re: DMV (BrigantesNation) |
|
nigelswift
|
Proposed Format, for discussion
Nov 06, 2003, 07:44
|
When you come down to the practicalities of the site, a lot of what FW and BN say make sense, and in fact are a matter of necessity. It amounts to a format whereby...
1. We use the platform to run one or a few of our own campaigns (someone can offer to be lead campaigner/coordinator/editor in each case if they want, and Thornborough, naturally, would be one of them)
2. We entertain applications from others to join us and publicise their own campaigns (that should give us an endless source of discussion fodder here).
3. We devise a BRIEF Charter and/or a Campaign blueprint ("legal, decent, honest and truthful" etc) that we and others must conform to, and we publish it for all to see (reducing the scope for criticism).
4. We keep the focus on Prehistory, but include other stuff if it happens to be associated.
Plus, a couple of my own suggestions:
5. We should be Ireland as well as UK.
6. We should consider running "generalised" campaigns (eg, planning reform, metal detector control)
7. We should have an "Urgent Action" feature, where different sites can be periodically highlighted ( a means to prick the conscience of the authorities by showing a photo without necessarily having to run a detailed campaign).
8. The site should have no forum, but a link back to here. This is an important issue. I can't see that TMA would be willing to be associated with the new site, nor wish to see our discussions move elsewhere, but if this forum is the discussion area for the new site then both sites will benefit.
|
Steve Gray
|
Re: Getting Serious about Conservation
Nov 06, 2003, 08:31
|
Inspired to some extent by suggestion of others in this thread:
Guardians of Antiquities
Guardians of Ancient Sites (GAS)
Guardians of our Heritage
Heritage Watch
Antiquity Watch
Ancient Site Sentinels (ASS - we could kick some)
Sentinels of Antiquities
Sentinels of Ancient Sites (SAS)
Defenders of.. etc.
Protectors of.. etc.
Friends of.. etc.
Where the hell is Baza when we need him? His "Stonehengineers" was a brainwave.
|
Kammer
|
Re: Here's my best shot...
Nov 06, 2003, 09:34
|
How about 'The Guardian'?
Alternatively, 'The Observer'?
|
BrigantesNation
|
Re: Proposed Format, for discussion
Nov 06, 2003, 09:51
|
A suggestion: I think this either starts off Big picture, or little picture.
Either start off by creating a list of sites under threat then developing a set of activities that encorage local groups to form Action Groups, with RASCALS (Radical Action for Sustainability of anCient Areas and LandscapeS) acting to promote these groups and raise general awareness of all sites under threat - working towards a remit of intense co-ordinated lobbying and awareness activities.
Or
Pick on a single issue, such as Silbury Hill and be that "local" Action Group with a view to future expansion.
This second point is the direction FoT has taken, and I think it has a lot of merits. There is nothing to stop us forming alliances with other parties and we get genuine first hand knowledge of what goes into a campaign, including the non archaeological issues that serve to strengthen the overall campaign. This smaller focus means initial activites can be limited and therefore the groups resources are less likely to get overstretched too soon. Taking on all comers, whilst we would all like to do this, will only result in this group being toothless and inactive.
It should also be remebered that any campaign is best driven with a strong local element. Local people do not like outsiders coming in telling them what to do, many are more concerned about the possible impact of increased tourism than they are about the monuments themselves, so unless they are already organised care must be taken.
|
