Getting Serious about Conservation

Earthstepper E
Earthstepper Nov 5, 2003 12:54:11
Replying to BrigantesNation

Heritage Alliance does sound respectable which might be useful. However, it suggests an unholy alliance of EH, NT, Scottish Heritage and Cadw (sp?).. That's not what's wanted is it?

Now that all the funny acronyms have been aired (hopefully) I would suggest that you forget about the best name until you know what you want to be and want to achieve. Suspend a concise mission statement too and just brainstorm ideas - the words will come later and can be polished to perfection

Who are we? Are we passive, or militant? Do we seek to affect change through gentle persuasion or by taking confrontational action when necessary? Are we limited by geography or period ie is prehistoric Britain and Ireland our chief/only concern?

Once this fundamental stuff is discussed and agreed the rest should follow without having to go back and waste time and energy by argueing with ourselves. Above all - please be aware of the continuing commitment in time and energy that will be required. It is serious or it is nothing. Brigantes has shown us that real passion and hard work is the key to a succesful, sustained campaign. Worse than useless if we start and then falter.

Coming up for my 'bus pass, but I'm game for it still.

E.S.

M Moth
Moth Nov 5, 2003 13:08:08
Replying to Earthstepper

I agree ES! But I think we WERE just 'brainstorming' - well I was! Trouble is because my skill is (supposed to be!) with words, that tends to be the angle I approach from.

And actually, SOMETIMES (in my experience anyway) the careful targeting of activites can come FROM a snappy title or slogan.

love

Moth

N nigelswift
nigelswift Nov 5, 2003 13:33:42
Replying to Earthstepper

I agree ES, these are the questions..

"Who are we? Are we passive, or militant? Do we seek to affect change through gentle persuasion or by taking confrontational action when necessary? Are we limited by geography or period."

But we'll never quite agree initially, nor indeed will we fully understand the implications or how it will develop. For that reason I favour a broad brush "catch-all" vehicle from which we can conduct any campaign or interest that arises or that happens to interest us. We can't sustain something that covers everything, and why should we try? Let's have no bureaucracy or rules, they can come later, if they must, and as they're needed. Just a respectable "platform" to speak from. "I'm from TMA and we think that..." just doesn't work, but this might.

So. let's just set up an online heritage preservation voice, and see how it develops. Organic growth is bound to be the best way to go.

© 2026 Head Heritage.

Unless otherwise stated, the copyright in each work is the property of the respective contributor. For usage or questions, contact [email protected].