NASA has asked future visitors to the Moon to keep at least 1.2 miles away from the Apollo landing sites. It says they’re important to mankind and must be protected and that “only one misstep could forever damage this priceless human treasure”. Meanwhile English Heritage is about to welcome many thousands of people in party mood to a gathering inside Stonehenge.
Apollo 17 Lunar Heritage Site: protection limit 1.2 miles
Stonehenge World Heritage Site: protection limit zero inches and four bottles of beer or a bottle of wine per person
This year EH has offered a rationale for how they conduct the event. It seems unconvincing in four ways:
1. “There is always a risk that something could happen to the stones” but “We will keep them open for these gatherings as long as the stones don’t get damaged”. Those are surprising admissions as if you’ve a duty to protect the stones and ensure visitor safety you don’t knowingly take risks. At least, that’s what a lawyer would say if someone WAS hurt.
2. “by allowing access for these gatherings English Heritage can better control what happens and put measures in place to ensure that the monument does not get damaged.” Can Stonehenge be better protected if it’s packed solid than if numbers are limited? Does that make any sense to anyone?
3. “Denying access at these gatherings could lead to public disorder and this would pass the responsibility of controlling this unrest onto the police.” So some attendees are potential rioters, or so it’s feared. Doesn’t that indicate a need for an advance vetting system and a limit on numbers – like every nightclub imposes every night? They don’t fear rioting. The Beanfield was about closure of Stonehenge not entry by ticket only. Isn’t the potential for trouble a direct function of the “just turn up in limitless numbers” way things are being managed?
4. “We are fortunate that our relationship with the groups involved in the gatherings allows us to have peaceful and incident-free Solstices and Equinoxes.” Umm, actually images from previous events consistently suggest the opposite. But the real point is the fact it has now been acknowledged there’s always a risk that something could happen to the stones. Health & Safety and monument protection obligations require something IS done about that risk and all avoidable risks. Yet take a look at what happened last year. The stewards failed to stop him. The crowd egged him on. Right at the end, someone shouts “He survived”. What if he hadn’t?
[Update: the video has now been made "private" of course, but it shows a drunken idiot climbing right up - and falling off - one of the highest stones while lots of other drunken idiots roar him on. So the precise opposite of "by allowing access for these gatherings English Heritage can better control what happens and put measures in place to ensure that the monument does not get damaged". Such behaviour is not allowed and doesn't happen at St Paul's or Wembley, so why here? Is "restricting numbers for health & safety and monument protection purposes" such a dreadful idea? Will people really riot if it happened. Which people are these? Shouldn't the idea be proposed so we can all see who it is that doesn't give a damn for Stonehenge! It won't be Druids or genuine pagans, that's for sure, so why are they being even listened to?]
58 comments
Comments feed for this article
10/06/2012 at 11:17
paganronnie
In response to your question:
“Can Stonehenge be better protected if it’s packed solid than if numbers are limited? Does that make any sense to anyone?”
I think you are missing a far wider and much more important point:
When I used to go to the ‘proper’ sometimes month-long Stonehenge FREE festivals back in the early 1980′s – three of which I attended, I never witnessed any damage done to the stones.
I think this was mainly due to the fact that people were allowed to experience the stones in a FREE and UNCOTROLLED manner, spending as much time with them as they liked and whenever they liked – UNSUPERVISED. This concept is probably so alien to our present day nanny-state mentallity that it likely sends shivers down English Heritage’s collective spine? BUT the present way the Stonehenge Summer Solstice ‘celebrations’ are LIMITED & CONTROLLED or as English Heritage puts it: ‘open managed access’ – IS THE CAUSE OF THE VERY BEHAVIOUR THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE PREVENTING!
People feel they have to cram so much intense experience into the very short space of time that they are ‘allowed’ access to the stones because they know they are going to be thrown out again in a few hours time.
A fitting parallell might make sense to a GENUINELY religious person: Contemplate having your church, sinagogue, mosque or temple, denied to you for 364 days of the year and imagine how you would feel on the one day you were ‘allowed’ access to it, in the knowledge that you would be ejected again in a few hours time, for another 364 days? Understand now?
10/06/2012 at 12:01
Amanda Salter
I couldn’t agree more. Besides, nothing is meant to be forever, enjoy the ephemeral, these wonderful things will last forever if we are allowed to experience them, recall our memories and pass onto the next generation. Otherwise it will be just like visiting a zoo and how memorable is that compared to seeing things in the wild!
10/06/2012 at 12:19
Peter Lewis
The last two comments are very good illustrations of why Stonehenge needs better protection. Unlimited, unsupervised, uncontrolled access as the way to protect a World Heritage Monument?!!!!
10/06/2012 at 12:31
paganronnie
Re: the previous comment:
Wrap it up in cotton wool, ‘protect’ it from ‘THE PEOPLE’ and it will die.
Did you or any of your contemporaries build it? Do you ‘OWN’ IT? NO – so who are you to decide who has ‘control’ over it? Stonehenge is what, 4000 years old, (depending on what data you believe) – it has survived that long ok.
If PEOPLE have a REAL & GENUINE experience and dare I say ‘relationship’ with Stonehenge, without needless fences, police, security guards & cctv – it stands a far better chance of being respected and thus ‘protected’ by those same PEOPLE rather than if they are ALIENATED from it by unneccessary nanny state RESTRICTIONS.
10/06/2012 at 12:45
Peter Lewis
Tell you what, you can have your way if the majority of British people vote in support of your plan, OK?
10/06/2012 at 12:55
paganronnie
Yes that’s fine, thank you very much. When’s the referendum?
10/06/2012 at 13:16
juamei
I had an idea about this a while back.
Stick a sound system or two in the carpark in effect moving the party about 500 metres away. Still allowing unfettered access to the stones however. Then deputise a lot more people to be stewards and have them actually enforce rules such as no climbing on the stones.
No-one is saying those who care about the stones are the ones climbing them and likely to eventually cause damage. As anyone who’s been to Stonehenge on the summer solstice in recent years will know the vast majority of people there are there to get pissed, take drugs and party and frankly are only at Stonehenge cos its a cool place to do that. Entice those people out of the circle and the problems are reduced.
10/06/2012 at 13:20
Peter Lewis
Run a petition on the Number 10 website: “We demand all protection is removed from Stonehenge”! If you get 100,000 signatures it will be put forward for debate in the Commons. If you don’t, well it will suggest most people don’t agree with you.
10/06/2012 at 14:06
paganronnie
I wonder what percentage of the population have acces to/know how to use/use the internet?
I wonder what proportion of them go to the number ten website?
Hardly representative of the ‘majority of the British people’ is it?
juamei: Brilliant idea!
10/06/2012 at 17:01
christina gardener-white
give us time, we,ll get your numbers on paper, see you there
10/06/2012 at 17:27
Pat
It just isn’t going to happen that UNESCO or EH or the majority of people would dream of approving of Stonehenge being deprived of all official protection. It would be better to talk about practical ways to protect Stonehenge than to waste time suggesting something that is patently a non-starter.
10/06/2012 at 19:12
Lizzie
The stones were erected by humans for humans enjoyment, be it pleasure, achievement, worship or whatever else we don’t know about. Take away the people and they are just stones, nothing more.
Let the people have free access and let those that care about them be the guardians off them. Enjoy them whilst we still can and in turn, our generation will leave our legacy on the stones and who knows, in 3,000 years time, historians will be pondering over our rituals and relationships with the stones as part of Stone Henges archaeological evolution.
Consider how we now look at graffiti from other eras, before records began and we gaze in awe at the legacy that someone left behind and remain thankful that someone at some time, left thier historical mark for us to discover. In time perhaps what we see as damage may well be revered as our generational legacy.
11/06/2012 at 06:09
Pat
What YOU want shouldn’t be represented as what “the people” want. Most people simply want the place properly protected as a World Heritage Monument and free access can never deliver that. It’s time people stopped banging on about free access, it’s an undemocratic demand and pointless because it’s never going to happen thank goodness. I doubt if even most pagans are in favour of it. Much better to be discussing how to prevent drunken idiots climbing the stones and thousands cheering them on.
11/06/2012 at 07:13
paganronnie
Lizzie: I love you !
Pat: Have you ever visited Glastonbury Tor? It has free access and has many many thousands of people from all over the world visiting it every year.
IT IS FINE!
What about all the other numerous SACRED ancient sites around Britain too? They seem to do fine without the barbed wire, chain-link fencing, security guards, roped-off paths etc etc etc.
It’s got more to do with making ££££££££ out of Stonehenge and religious / political bashing of people who do not conform to those mainstream institutions!
11/06/2012 at 07:55
Pat
Good illustration, Glastonbury. The “Holy Thorn” recently got hacked down by vandals. Ancient sites get attacked all the time, we can’t protect them all, but to deliberately fail to protect Stonehenge of all places when it gets nearly a million visitors a year would be the height of irresponsibility.
EH’s motivation has nothing to do with “religious / political bashing of people who do not conform to those mainstream institutions” – they have a duty, imposed by Parliament, to protect the place, simple as. It seems to me a very tired old drum is being beaten here. EH can’t and never will agree to free access nor will the vast majority of people so why go on about it? I can only repeat it would be far more constructive to discuss how to improve things.
11/06/2012 at 09:45
paganronnie
Your last post certainly is a good illustration: of misreading / misquoting: I specified ‘Glastonbury Tor’ – AND:
“”EH’s motivation has nothing to do with “religious / political bashing of people who do not conform to those mainstream institutions” – they have a duty, imposed by Parliament, to protect the place, simple as.”"
‘ . . . they have a duty imposed by parliament’ think about it!
11/06/2012 at 11:16
Pat
Yes, the Glastonbury Thorn isn’t Glastonbury Tor. But it’s been hacked down, hasn’t it? There are many dodgy characters out there, that’s the point and they shouldn’t have free run of Stonehenge, surely you can see that?
As for Parliament, what’s your point? Don’t you think Parliament should be the ultimate arbiter of how Stonehenge is protected?
11/06/2012 at 11:49
paganronnie
THINK ABOUT IT
11/06/2012 at 12:36
Lizzie
Pat, you mention an undemocratic demand but by the same rationale, your desire to see the Henge fenced off is also an undemocratic demand. Only a democratic vote would decide.
The stones have been there for thousands of year and will still be there for thousands of years. My kids and I visit perhaps 15 castles a year and they clamber all over them with no ill effect. If France at Carnac you can walk among the hundreds of stones, you can also do the same at Avebury. What you want is to molly coddle the stones and turn them into a museum exhibit behind glass so people can gawp at them for 5 minutes before getting on the bus and and moving on. Let people interact with and ‘feel’ the stones in a deeply physical way.To feel the energy that flows from them that in turn imbues the person with an enormous sense of well being and connection to the earth we tread upon.
Are we now to deprive the public access to other world heritage sites and turn history into something enjoyed from an armchair and a laptop?
The people that truly care will be the guardians of the stones and protect and nurture them for future generations.
11/06/2012 at 12:38
Pat
I’m not a mind reader!
So may I ask again, as it’s the crux of the matter, do you think Parliament should be the ultimate arbiter of how Stonehenge is protected?
11/06/2012 at 12:56
paganronnie
OK, to spell it out for you, re: your comment:
“”EH’s motivation has nothing to do with “religious / political bashing of people who do not conform to those mainstream institutions” – they have a duty, imposed by Parliament”"
And your later comment: “Don’t you think Parliament should be the ultimate arbiter of how Stonehenge is protected?”
It’s like saying Hitler was the best person to safeguard the human rights of the Jews!
11/06/2012 at 14:16
Pat
So not letting you have your way is breaching your human rights?
What about the human rights of the majority that want something different?
11/06/2012 at 19:18
paganronnie
So you’re not answering the question?
Then I shan’t answer your ‘question’
11/06/2012 at 19:47
Pat
Which question? Have I been to the Tor? Yes I certainly have. And no it’s not “FINE”. Apart from the hacking down of the “Holy Thorn” idiots plastered purple paint on the tower less than 5 years ago. See here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/7022154.stm So long as people like that are around calls for “Free Stonehenge” are simply untenable.
So now I’ve answered your question can you now answer mine?
11/06/2012 at 22:45
paganronnie
OK, to spell it out for you, re: your comment:
“”EH’s motivation has nothing to do with “religious / political bashing of people who do not conform to those mainstream institutions” – they have a duty, imposed by Parliament””
And your later comment: “Don’t you think Parliament should be the ultimate arbiter of how Stonehenge is protected?”
If you just can’t get it, forget it, I’m tired banging my head against your wall.
But re: ‘paint on the tor’ and? The Tor’s still there now isn’t it? You can’t mothball things, fence them off, charge loads of money to see them and then expect them to remain relevant & RESPECTED to the here & now.
Now I am really bored trying to explain very simple concepts to someone who just does not get it. Bye.
12/06/2012 at 06:44
Pat
Well Ronny it actually looks as if you’re leaving because you don’t want to confront two realities – it’s for Parliament to decide, not you, and it’s never going to vote for your idea of Free Stonehenge as that involves damaging Stonehenge.
As for “You can’t mothball things, fence off, charge loads of money to see them and then expect them to remain relevant & RESPECTED to the here & now” – yes you can. At least, everyone except you can. It’s ironic, most people seem to respect Stonehenge far more than you as they’re in favour of protecting it and you’re not!
So it’s you that doesn’t “get it”, not everyone else. It’s time the Free Stonehenge slogan was dropped. It’s superficially attractive but when you analyse it it’s childish. You want people to accept that repeated incidents such as spray painting it purple, like happened to the tower on the Tor, would be an acceptable price to pay for throwing it open. Most people don’t agree with you, it’s as simple as that.
12/06/2012 at 07:41
paganronnie
Well Pat it looks like you finally proved to me beyond any hope, that you are completely incapable of UNDERSTANDING the most basic concepts,
SO – I – WILL – SPELL – IT – OUT – TO – YOU – WORD – FOR – WORD :
I said one of the two main reason ordinary people are not permitted free access to Stonehenge is because they are of a different political persuation to to the mainstream, AS IN PARLIAMENT – PARLIAMENT IS THE MAINSTREEAM, BY DEFINITION !
And here you are banging on and on about it is only right how parliament should be the ones who decides how Stonehenge is managed. Do you now FINALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM SAYING AND THE LUDICROUS NATURE OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING????
I am not leaving for any of the dum reasons you state – I simply have better ways to spend my time than repeatedly try to explain basics to someone incapable of ‘GETTING IT’ – Bye
12/06/2012 at 08:34
Pat
I do understand Ronnie, and have done from the start, but it has taken until now to get you to spill the beans! As you say, you are of a “different political persuation to to the mainstream, AS IN PARLIAMENT” and as such you are in a tiny minority and powerless to bring about what you call for. You’re just a sloganiser, calling for Free Stonehenge without the remotest chance of bringing it about. Keep calm and carry on!
12/06/2012 at 13:17
paganronnie
As I said – YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND – I DO NOT THINK YOU ARE CAPABLE OF DOING SO.
And what about Lizzie’s comments, have you UNDERSTOOD them? As you have not responded to them.
And if I am a ‘sloganiser’ as you so incorrectly put it, then you are a ‘relinquisher’ of responsibility, prefering to let other faceless people make the decisions for you so that you can hide behind them rather than taking responsibility yourself!
12/06/2012 at 15:08
Pat
Lizzie, you should know that people who climb on the stones or call for free access and no constraints are a small minority and have no right to describe themselves as the ones that care for them most. That title goes to the majority, including most pagans, who don’t want to run the risk of idiots damaging them and care for them enough to support measures to prevent such things happening.
It couldn’t be simpler or more certain. Free Stonehenge isn’t going to happen because most people know what would happen if it did. If there was the least chance it was going to happen there’d be a point in discussing it, but it isn’t, it’s a pointless slogan, so it might be better to move on. How do you think the solstice arrangements could be improved without risking damage to the monument or participants?
12/06/2012 at 18:14
Simon
If i’m honest, I went to Stonehenge for the first time 5 years ago and was thoroughly disapointed with it. Seen the books,seen the images of the stones against sunrises and sunsets but the hype is far greater than reality.
I actually exclaimed “is THAT it??” to the wife who shared my disappointment.
Much much better sites to visit all over the UK
12/06/2012 at 20:21
Welsh Andy
The matter of access to Stonehenge, and archaeological sites in general, is something that I think is quite important as both an archaeologist(in training) and the issues surrounding Stonehenge are also deeply personal to me as a person who spent a very long time living as a traveller. Something I hope to do again at some point after I graduate.
The mismanagement of Stonehenge by English Heritage is an embarrassment to both the people of Britain and to the heritage industry especially. The stones should be accessible at all times to whomsoever wishes to access them for the simple fact that, as heritage, they belong to all of us. They do not belong to English Heritage.
English Heritage should be stewards of our heritage NOT ‘guardians’. Their job should be to maintain the sites under their care in order to ensure that they can be enjoyed, and studied, by those who wish to do so. That is a role that should ensure that, if they desire, a few thousand medieval brigands can turn up and party like it’s 1649 for a few weeks in the summer.
If there are concerns over the behaviour of a small number of people who wish to gather at the stones then that should be addressed by entering into dialogue with groups wishing to use the site NOT by placing a blanket ban on non-tourists, i.e. people who actually live in Britain, using the site.
This would of course be a hell of a lot easier had English Heritage not spent two decades colluding with the police and the Wiltshire establishment in brutalising those who wished to gather at the stones. An apology for their past behaviour may be a good start to building a relationship with groups wishing to gather at the stones.
12/06/2012 at 22:08
Pat
“The stones should be accessible at all times to whomsoever wishes to access them”
Even blokes with hammers and paint?!!
Thus it isn’t as clear cut and simple as you imply, nor is “Free Stonehenge”. There HAVE to be rules and constraints no matter how much you want to believe otherwise. We need less simplistic sloganising and more detailed realism.
12/06/2012 at 23:05
Welsh Andy
Lol, Pat, you ever heard of a strawman argument?
I could say that “Denying people access to the stones is another step towards fascism” but that would be as ridiculous as your comment is asinine.
During the whole period of the Stonehenge People’s Festival anyone caught damaging the stones was dealt with. People are there to enjoy and appreciate the monument. Do you think they would allow some wingnut to start damaging them?
12/06/2012 at 23:08
Welsh Andy
Also I don’t recall the last time I heard of someone taking a hammer to Avebury or the Rollright Stones. In fact I have a distinct memory of the sort of people who want to have a festival at Stonehenge spending a decade camped out near the Nine Ladies stone circle in Derbyshire in order to prevent a quarrying company destroying the landscape of said stone circle. Do you think these people would tolerate some numpty damaging Stonehenge?
12/06/2012 at 23:09
Welsh Andy
And another thing. Last I heard it was English Heritage vandalising the site with their god awful visitors centre and car park.
13/06/2012 at 07:20
Pat
“Do you think these people would tolerate some numpty damaging Stonehenge?”
But sadly, “Free Stonehenge” involves loads of OTHER people, that’s the problem. Take a look at the video of last year. No-one stopped him and a lot of the crowd encouraged him. Free Stonehenge is a completely unconvincing proposition if accompanied with assurances that no harm will result. No-one can say that with sincerity and no-one with common sense will believe it.
You are of course free to persuade the government, UNESCO, EH and the rest of the population that Free Stonehenge is the safe way to go. Good luck with that, you’ll need it as so far they remain totally unconvinced.
13/06/2012 at 08:25
Welsh Andy
So, how much damage was done to the Stones over the 12 years of the Free Festival? An event that attracted over 50,000 people.
Yes, last year a guy fell off one of the stones. And? Over 2010/11 171 people were killed at work and 200,000+ injured. Best we should ban work eh?
Over a period of 11 years, between 2000 and 2010 32,955 people were killed on Britain’s roads and over 2,000,000 were injured. Best ban cars eh?
There are reasons for the lack of free access to the stones but none of them involve the health and safety of those wishing to use the site. The control of access stems from bigotry within the establishment towards working class people celebrating their own culture, which is EXACTLY what the free festival movement was all about. The reason this control of access continues is a mix of this bigotry and English Heritage’s desire to milk the stones as a cash cow.
Your argument holds no water.
13/06/2012 at 08:56
heritageaction
Class warfare? I thought it was Parliament being unkind to those that stood outside the parliamentary system?
I hope HA locks this thread, it ought to be about protecting Stonehenge but all we’re getting is a political soapbox and the re-running of old battles.
13/06/2012 at 09:07
Welsh Andy
The Stonehenge Festival was started by travellers and other assorted counter cultural people but by the late 1970′s and early 1980′s it was attended by over 50,000 people. Many of them coming from nearby towns and cities and even from nearby military bases. Of course the ban was an act of class warfare and has to be looked at in the context in which it occurred, that being the government assault on the working class that was in full swing by 1985.
You want the thread locked because people disagree with you? I have a stake in the protection of heritage sites as I am a) a British person who loves archaeology, b) a traveller who has a strong cultural connection to prehistoric sites and c) soon to be, hopefully, working in the heritage industry.
Reactionary opinions like those expressed by some commenters here, and that are seen in the initial post, are harmful to both the archaeological academic discipline and the wider heritage industry. Archaeology exists in the present day. It is a part of our culture and people are genuinely interested in it. However some in the industry, and in academia too, seem intent on driving people away from experiencing archaeology. They then complain when there is a lack of funding for research and preservation. Of course there will be a lack of funding when you have spent decades telling people that their heritage isn’t theirs.
13/06/2012 at 10:03
heritageaction
You’re doing a grand job of illustrating what those who are officially charged with protecting Stonehenge (many of whom weren’t born at the time of the Beanfield) are up against. All they want – and all almost the whole population wants – is for no-one with hammers, paint or skinfulls of alcohol to have unsupervised access to Stonehenge. If you want to characterise that wish as political or historic or class based then that’s up to you but really it’s much, much simpler than that.
And no, I’m not trying to get you silenced, I just think you are expressing a minority view, Free Stonehenge, that is never, ever going to be taken seriously by the majority of people and in so doing you’re preventing discussion of practical ways Stonehenge can be protected – which is a real shame.
13/06/2012 at 10:19
Welsh Andy
So, over the 12 years of the Stonehenge Free Festival what damage was done to the stones? You never answered my question or responded to any of my points.
Your reference to my opinion as ‘minority’ is rather ridiculous. Should minorities not have their needs and desires taken into account? Because that’s what you’re saying.
“you’re preventing discussion of practical ways Stonehenge can be protected”
Are you actually reading what I’m writing? I, and others, have talked about ways that the monument can be protected by entering into a dialogue with those who wish to use the site. A way to facilitate the enjoyment of the site by all those who wish to do so.
Your strawman argument about ‘blokes with hammers and paint’ are just that, a strawman. You are constructing an argument based upon absolutely no evidence.
13/06/2012 at 15:14
paganronnie
How is expressing one view, whatever it may be, ‘PREVENTING’ anyone elst from expressing a different one? – what a load of old tosh that is!
And:
“At all times sincere friends of freedom have been rare, and its triumphs have been due to minorities….” Lord Acton
13/06/2012 at 15:29
paganronnie
The battle of the beanfield was an overt example of CLASS WAR – ordered by Thatcher and her cronies after she had finnished with the miners, the ‘hippies’ were next. The tories knew the festival was becoming a huge melting pot of ‘alternative types’ of people where they networked, shared ideas and planned amd organised all sorts of other things that the tories did not like; like other free festivals for example!
That’s why they introduced the criminal justice act – which forces organisers of festivals to apply for a license (often refused) and to pay for all the (largely unnecessary) policing etc which in turn forces them to charge money for the tickets – all of which are tax deductable – which is what the tories want of course: their cut! – ‘FREE’ was then and is now an alien concept for a Tory Government, especially when the would-be beneficiaries of that freedom would be people who are diametrically opposed to the Tory CLASS philosophy – which was as already mentioned in the case of the Stonehenge festival, MANY THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE – AND GROWING IN SIZE EVERY YEAR!
13/06/2012 at 16:56
Pat
This is our national icon. “It didn’t happen before” is an inadequate justification for taking a risk with it in order indulge a small minority, especially class warriors. I much prefer the views of moderate, sensible pagans who for whom protecting Stonehenge is the number one priority.
Anyhow, I’m tired of being attacked for merely voicing the common sense approach of the great majority so I’ll stop now. If you want an endless pointless argument go and tell the Dean of St Paul’s or the Head Groundsman at Wembley that you demand Free St Paul’s or Free Wembley, they could both do with a laugh. Meanwhile, I bet you a thousand of my corrupt class-based pounds there’ll be no Free Stonehenge this century.
13/06/2012 at 17:03
Welsh Andy
That it didn’t happen before perfectly illustrates that the risk is minimal and that the argument to preserve restricted access has little grounds in reality. The argument that access should be restricted because it is only a minority who seek it is ridiculous and reactionary. The people who seek free access may be a minority but they are a part of our society and their wishes have to be taken into account for our society to be able to deem itself as anything approaching civil.
I have at no point attacked you but have merely pointed out the baseless, and at points reactionary, nature of your concerns. This is not an attack on you it is a central tenet of civil discourse.
13/06/2012 at 18:47
paganronnie
And:
“At all times sincere friends of freedom have been rare, and its triumphs have been due to minorities….” Lord Acton
13/06/2012 at 18:50
Alan S.
Welsh Andy: “Also I don’t recall the last time I heard of someone taking a hammer to Avebury or the Rollright Stones.”
Short memory. Tires burnt at Rollrights, Shed destroyed by fire. Paint daubed around the circle (still visible today in parts) Tar daubed on stones in the Avenue at Avebury. There are some sick people out there.
13/06/2012 at 18:54
Welsh Andy
OK, good point.
However. We are discussing free access to Stonehenge over a festival period. A period when there would be many thousands of people not willing to allow that sort of thing to occur. Basically a volunteer police force protecting the stones who really care about protecting the monument.
13/06/2012 at 19:23
J S (@juamei)
I disagree Andy, the current volunteer force of stewards plus revellers don’t stop people climbing on the stones, putting themselves and others at risk, let alone potentially damaging the stones.
I think we are at an impasse in the comments on here of pragmatism vs idealism.
We should be looking for and discussing realistic possible solutions to prevent damage occurring that are achievable by the current stonehenge management, not wildly hoping for something that will never be allowed to happen whether right or wrong.
13/06/2012 at 20:16
paganronnie
“You can use your idealism to further your aims, if you realize that nothing is Nirvana, nothing is perfect.” Jon Stewart
13/06/2012 at 20:30
Welsh Andy
A few skinny hippies climbing on the stones isn’t going to damage them. they’ve lasted the last 4,000+ years pretty well despite the attentions of all sorts of n’er do wells.
Intentional damage to the stones is another matter however and that simply wouldn’t be tolerated by people attending.
I agree with a point that was made earlier about the brief duration of access almost encouraging daft acts like that pillock falling off last year. If a space away from the stones was given over to the festival for a few days to a week then there would likely be far less silly buggery.
If you look at old aerial photographs of the Stonehenge Free Festival then you will see that most of the activity was away from the monument itself. People only went to the stones themselves for sunset/sunrise.
http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/images/stonehenge1984.jpg
With most of the festivally activity going on away from the stones people will be less likely to climb on them.
I still hold that the possibility of intentional damage is little to none due to the massive amount of people willing to prevent it. Self policing was always a large part of the free festival scene and is much more effective that officially mandated stewards. Back in my more ‘bad attitude’ punky days I wouldn’t be inclined to listen to a ‘steward’ but a group of my peers would have been another matter. (Not that I would ever have damaged the stones but you see what I mean I hope)
Also @moderators. My comment from 13/06/2012 at 17:03 doesn’t seem to have been published yet making it look like I didn’t respond to pat. I did Pat.
13/06/2012 at 23:27
J S (@juamei)
“A few skinny hippies climbing on the stones isn’t going to damage them. they’ve lasted the last 4,000+ years pretty well despite the attentions of all sorts of n’er do wells.”
Might as well walk on the grass, it’ll only be me and I won’t do any damage. It saddens me that you don’t see anything wrong with someone climbing the stones. Do you think it would be acceptable for everyone to climb the stones? A million people a year trying to get up there?
But yes, a focus provided away from the stones is ideal in my opinion. English Heritage don’t want people there so provide the bare minimum, ironically making the issue much worse than it would be otherwise.
14/06/2012 at 16:50
Tone
“Back in my more ‘bad attitude’ punky days I wouldn’t be inclined to listen to a ‘steward’”
That’s the point. You used to be like that and many people these days ARE like that. I’m afraid I’m completely unconvinced with the idea of “community policing” – take a look at the videos – the stewards ARE the community but are often powerless. Plus the “crowd” seems to mainly egg on bad behaviour, not object to it. Ten thousand mostly boozy people from goodness knows where shouldn’t be held up as adequate stewards – they aren’t.
The problem, surely, lies in the word Free in Free Stonehenge. It involves far too many people inside with far too little vetting. Reduce the numbers and you reduce the risks and everyone is happy.
15/06/2012 at 08:19
Welsh Andy
Reduce the number and you end up with a bunch of people excluded from a site that belongs to them. Move the main festival site slightly away from the stones themselves, extend the period of the festival and free access and you are more likely to get a different experience and different behaviour.
As it is people only have access for a very limited period of time. Extend that time and have the main revelry away from the stones and hey-presto we have a totally different situation.
Self policing DID work before and it will work again but a situation like the one created by English Heritage is not conducive to that happening.
15/06/2012 at 10:09
Jefferson
“Reduce the number and you end up with a bunch of people excluded from a site that belongs to them”.
So what? Every public event has to limit numbers to operate properly, it’s common sense. And what are you implying – are you using the much used threat that they’ll misbehave if excluded? If so, they’re certainly not pagans or people that deserve to be let in.
Oh, and “the site belongs to them” defeats your whole case. It belongs to everyone, and most people don’t want the place thrown open without limit under the care of goodness knows who. It’s like calling for the turn styles to be removed at Wimbledon and saying everyone must be allowed to come in.
16/06/2012 at 18:10
Pagan wanderer
It’s simple. Set up a CCTV network around the stones and have security monitor the site from the visitor centre. Give free access to the stones but if anyone get’s silly, security steps in and sorts them out, AND they have the video evidence to bring about a prosecution.
The stones were erected by the people FOR the people and to deny access to them goes beyond all that we believe in as human beings.
17/06/2012 at 10:34
Jefferson
I should imagine there is already CCTV and other measures to obviate visits by nocturnal vandals and there will be more shortly, although the details are unlikely to be publicised for obvious reasons.
I don’t think there’s any opposition to access, only about the way access happens. For instance, unsupervised access or in in unmanageable numbers, which adds up to the same thing.