Re: Another stunt allowed by the NT. | Forum

tjj wrote:

harestonesdown wrote:

moss wrote:

I think it was wrong, an easy stunt, probably predicated on Trinny and Susannah dressing The Long Man of Wilmington up as a woman. I had problems seeing what was wrong as it is only for a day but the word that kept coming to mind was disrespect for an ancient monument, even though the cause may be good the action was cheap and of course will lead to much more being done in similar vein in the future - no way.
The Long Man of Wilmington is managed by the Sussex Archaeological Group and they later apologised to the Druids for the stunt, who also complained, it was probably a valid response.
Health warnings can be put on television, radio and billboards, the few who will look at the poor old giant will just have a giggle, ....

I agree, the "medium" is wholly inappropriate.
Whilst it may be for a good cause how many people will it reach ? And how many will it upset ?
If they really want to get the message across then blaze it across Buckingham palace where there will be thousands of visitors per day, but no, that would be tacky wouldn't it.

I might take my protest up Silbury, or would that be wrong ?

Why is the medium wholly inappropriate Geoff, its an ancient monument (though no-one knows how old). Perhaps its very existence was a joke in the first place - its appearance certainly startles even today. No commercial gain was made from this current exercise. As I said in my original post yesterday, I disagree in principle but am prepared to make an exception .... Your final question makes me shake my head and sigh (irony or not). I've known you for quite a long time via the now defunct Avebury Forum - for years, I've been patiently asking you not to climb Silbury, giving all the reasons why not.
I express an alternative view about a hill figure using a correct anatomical word and get subjected to an indirect tirade from the usual source. Perhaps certain people should save their mental energy for the battles that really matter - like protecting the unique and genuinely ancient Silbury.

June, for me it's an affront to every stonehead everywhere, a real cheap shot. This isn't just about physicality, these sites offer so much more, something we'd surely both agree on ? In my eyes this is an act of disrespect to one of them, put simply they have no fucking right ! ( pardon my French mum :) )

People are always talking to me about riding roughshod over laws and bye-laws, and then the same people do this ?

No fires. definitely no camping they say, but it's ok if they interact with with the landscape and alter it, even for a short while, like i do when i wild camp around Avebury under a constant barrage/recital of bye-laws, but i'm the bad guy.

It's double standards of the worst possible kind, they're fucking hypocrites and i have less than zero respect for them.

In regards to Silbury, i aint getting on the wrong side of BB. ;)