This time it’s at The Long Man of Wilmington (yet again!) …..
It seems that no permanent damage was done this time (or has it?) but it might be expected that people who object to fracking would have more respect for scheduled monuments and be aware that damaging copycatting may be generated. We were in two minds whether to give it publicity but felt that we should, lest they thought they’d done no harm. They probably have – and they certainly haven’t helped the anti-fracking campaign!
Protestor Mike Laloë said, “We did our homework to make sure we didn’t do any damage to The Long Man. What we did was totally legal and the police were really supportive.” We doubt that.
8 comments
Comments feed for this article
19/10/2015 at 13:13
mike dando
I doubt Scheduled Monument Consent would have been needed (unless of course the ground was broken with pegs)! And some sheets aren’t likely to damage the grassland habitat. Mock outrage has ensued though!
19/10/2015 at 14:38
heritageaction
Well the megarak community IS very protective, it’s the one thing they do, so outrage can be expected (and sincere, not mock). As for us, our continuing concern is copycatting, whether or not there’s specific damage. In addition, The Long Man has been brandalised many times, including when the surroundings were set on fire and we wish people would just leave it alone. It’s a shared space but surely messing it around is not sharing it’s taking.
20/10/2015 at 10:06
Billy
A good Job well done it is very important that we stop fracking NOW
20/10/2015 at 13:11
Carl Morton
Although I agree with no fracking I do not agree with this latest publicity stunt. Although the fact we are talking about it will no doubt please some of the anti-fracking folk. I doubt this stunt will have made many friends?
20/10/2015 at 16:30
Middenmaid
My view is that it has achieved its objective by being reported on this journal. There is no such thing as bad publicity. As for provoking copycating, surely this IS the copycating by definition is it not?
20/10/2015 at 18:10
heritageaction
“My view is that it has achieved its objective by being reported on this journal” – and the press, yes. It can’t be denied we’ve added to the process – which is why we were in two minds whether to mention it. In the end we felt someone with a fair sized archaeological (as opposed to general) readership ought to be grumbling about it.
“As for provoking copycating, surely this IS the copycating by definition is it not?”
Well no, copying the act would be copycatting. What if the next lot held the canvas down with tent pegs? Not far-fetched, it had already happened at Uffington – https://heritageaction.wordpress.com/2012/03/09/the-uffington-jockey-a-comment/
20/10/2015 at 18:48
Middenmaid
The brandalism itself is the copycatting. It need not be an EXACT reproduction of the act, merely the act of using AM’s for commercial and promotional purposes.
20/10/2015 at 19:29
heritageaction
Quite. And unfortunately some of those most likely to indulge in it (bookmakers, Trinny and Susannah, Channel 4, Countryside Alliance supporters and Fathers4Justice) aren’t necessarily there primarily to look after the monument or well-briefed about how they should behave. So broadly copying a harmless act can sometimes result in damage.