| Author |
Priddy Circles damage |
TheCaptain
Joined:
30-10-2003
Messages: 1491
from near Bristol
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 23-07-2011 at 18:14
So that this does not get lost amongst all the other news, I'll start a thread here.
A petition calling for the "Support Legal Action Against People Who Deliberately/Recklessly Damage Heritage" campaign can be found and signed
here, at http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/protectukheritage
 Profile
 Reply
|
ledgehammer
Joined:
29-06-2011
Messages: 747
from Surrey
OFF-Line
| Posted 23-07-2011 at 18:46
Captain,
Good call - much disgust amoungst the Dowsing community on this one... I believe Andy from the portal made a comment on this...
think it absolutly insane the landowner thought he would get away with it
Tom
Profile
Reply
|
caradoc68
Joined:
24-06-2010
Messages: 34
from Yeovil
OFF-Line
|  Posted 04-08-2011 at 18:12
Already signed Captain, thanks for link
Profile
Reply
|
Runemage
Joined:
15-07-2005
Messages: 2425
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-08-2011 at 00:17
Have there been any further news releases on why it was done, it all seems to have gone very quiet.
Rune
Profile
Reply
|
TheCaptain
Joined:
30-10-2003
Messages: 1491
from near Bristol
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-08-2011 at 01:08
Not heard anything for a while now. Last I knew was Somerset County Archaeology Department is working with EH investigating Priddy Damage.
There is a facebook group set up which has regular postings from people with any info, at https://www.facebook.com/groups/protectthepriddycircles
One of the more recent, and perhaps more telling posts was as follows:
"the reason for the seeming silence that surrounds this issue is that the affair is currently under investigation by the relevant authorities, and no-one wants any information leaking out which could prejudice the case and damage the proceedings. The silence has been mistaken for inaction, however it is probably a good indication for how seriously the case is being taken".
Profile
Reply
|
Runemage
Joined:
15-07-2005
Messages: 2425
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-08-2011 at 11:14
Thanks Martyn, that's very helpful.
I agree re the silence, it's necessary under the circumstances. Let's hope it doesn't take too long to find the facts and agree what can be done to rectify the damage.
Perhaps there are things that need to be looked at in the long term in a general way for landowners who have a site on their property. Some form of Guardianship scheme, whereby they could not only have all the facts and figures about what's on their land, but be encouraged to actively participate in its conservation. Maybe host an occasional school or business trip if it's on private land, something that would make the landowners feel it's a privelege to have the site, not a nuisance.
Rune
Profile
Reply
|
karloff
Joined:
20-10-2006
Messages: 605
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-08-2011 at 11:46
Quote:
|
On 2011-08-05 11:14, Runemage wrote:
Thanks Martyn, that's very helpful.
I agree re the silence, it's necessary under the circumstances. Let's hope it doesn't take too long to find the facts and agree what can be done to rectify the damage.
Perhaps there are things that need to be looked at in the long term in a general way for landowners who have a site on their property. Some form of Guardianship scheme, whereby they could not only have all the facts and figures about what's on their land, but be encouraged to actively participate in its conservation. Maybe host an occasional school or business trip if it's on private land, something that would make the landowners feel it's a privelege to have the site, not a nuisance.
Rune
|
|
Hi
There is a scheme in place called Monument Management through which EH will supply some funding for conservation etc. I have written a few of these for landowners which include public access, displays and good practice use of the monument (sheep grazing etc as well as good visitor management).
So like all good ideas Rune, somebody has already thought of it
However, the scheme is voluntary (you can't really make a law demanding people sign up to a management scheme) so people like this landowner just don't sign up to them. Also EH has a register of Heritage at Risk and to qualify for mon man funding the site/building has to be on that list.
In these sorts of cases the Archaeological Areas and Monuments Act 1976 is the best way of dealing with landowners who have the arrogance to think they can destroy internationally important archaeology!
Profile
Reply
|
Runemage
Joined:
15-07-2005
Messages: 2425
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-08-2011 at 12:03
Thanks Karloff, that's really interesting to know there's all of that safeguard in place already and for the most part that it's working well. You've been hiding your light under a bushel on that one
Seriously, it wouldn't harm your cause to publicise that a little 
Rune
Profile
Reply
|
TheCaptain
Joined:
30-10-2003
Messages: 1491
from near Bristol
OFF-Line
| Posted 05-08-2011 at 13:26
Also see Tessa Munt MPs page here
http://www.tessamunt.org.uk/2011/07/13/tessa-munt-mp-appalled-by-the-desecration-of-the-priddy-circles/#more-1857
Profile
Reply
|
TheCaptain
Joined:
30-10-2003
Messages: 1491
from near Bristol
OFF-Line
| Posted 08-08-2011 at 19:49
A comparable case?
http://heritageaction.wordpress.com/2011/08/08/vandalism-at-priddy-what-should-be-the-punshment-r
Profile
Reply
|
Runemage
Joined:
15-07-2005
Messages: 2425
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 08-08-2011 at 20:50
Hardly.
Just Anonymous Action making some tenuous links and blowing hot air and speculation.
I do wish they'd drop the underlining and bold in their articles, are they aimed at children or just deliberately patronising?
Now if they'd compared Priddy to say Lismullen, or found other cases of serious damage to prehistoric sites in similar circumstances, it could have been interesting.
Rune
Profile
Reply
|
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 7050
from Surrey, UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 09-08-2011 at 00:58
Interesting judgement, and very different from the usual fines you get in metal detecting cases. I think this is because judges (if you'll forgive being a little over simplistic) understand the importance of historic buildings, just because of their educational background and suchlike, if you get my drift.
So full marks for trying, HA at maximum 'puff' there (I can hear the wheezing from here) but I just don't think judges (or the CPS) 'get' archaeology in general and prehistory in particular. I'm not going to speculate on what I think will happen but it's a million miles from that judgement.
[ This message was edited by: Andy B on 2011-08-09 01:00 ]
Profile
 Email
Reply
|
optilith
Joined:
27-10-2008
Messages: 1
OFF-Line
| Posted 14-08-2011 at 13:28
It is encouraging that the Priddy circles damage has an increasing amount of attention over the past month or so. I'm sure many people like myself would like to know more but EH are quite properly limiting comment.
We will all have to wait to find out how it will be resolved but emailing MP's and English Heritage will at least demonstrate the amount of public concern. When The Captain first drew attention to the damage I emailed EH and had a reply from Robert Iles (Inspector of Ancient Monuments).concluding:
'You will understand why we cannot answer further questions while investigations continue.' I imagine that is all anyone will get for now.
What underlies the concern about this particular case is the future protection of Ancient Monuments in both private and public ownership. What are the punishments that would would deter this sort of destruction? The Kingston-Upon-Thames case referred to above resolves in what a first seems at first like substantial fine but in reality it must have been peanuts to someone able to buy a million pound house and knock it down in order to build a new one.
I read the relevant parts of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 to try and work out what fines or sentencing are available. The act is available online in it's original form and in an interactive form linking to hundreds of updates from other related acts. As one wades through it you realise why decisions to prosecute take so long and why lawyers are so rich.
The relevant part is as follows:
A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or both; or
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding two years or both.
The statutory maximum meant (in the 1979 version) '£1,000 or another sum fixed... to take account of changes in the value of money.'
There may well be more twists and turns in the acts and amendments that I haven't noticed but I think it raises interesting points to discuss...
Does the Judicial system care about the sites? We will have to see.
If the criminal is wealthy how big does a fine have to be before it matters?
Does that only leave imprisonment? Confiscation of the land in question might be a more meaningful option. In the meantime a new push of the Monument Management scheme might be a good idea. It has the merit of being inclusive and may help open up some sites by raising interest with landowners.
Profile
Reply
|
Runemage
Joined:
15-07-2005
Messages: 2425
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 14-08-2011 at 15:53
Hello Optilith and welcome,
Does the Judicial system care about the sites? We will have to see.
I don't think the Judiciary have the option to care or not care whilst hearing cases, they are there to interpret and uphold the Law, which no matter what their private feelings, they must do.
If the criminal is wealthy how big does a fine have to be before it matters?
Again, often that's not taken into consideration, nor is it (in some cases unfortunately) for the Judge to decide on a whim. Many crimes have a standard and pre-set level of fines or terms of incarceration etc. and fall very short of what the general public would call Justice, particularly when the perpetrator is a wealthy individual.
As you've seen from your investigations, it's not often easy for the layman to find out what the range of sentencing options for a particular crime may be.
In the meantime a new push of the Monument Management scheme might be a good idea. It has the merit of being inclusive and may help open up some sites by raising interest with landowners.
That may well be the way to proceed, I have a feeling results will be achieved a lot quicker that way rather than trying to have new laws passed which would threaten severe punishment. Landowners' awareness that other people value the monuments on their land will be raised more by that route I think. Unfortunately, as Karloff said above, as the MonMan scheme is voluntary at the moment, then disinterested landowners have no incentive to join. Perhaps there's a way of presenting it so that it's more in the landowner's interest to join rather than ignore.
Rune
Profile
Reply
|
Runemage
Joined:
15-07-2005
Messages: 2425
from UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 14-08-2011 at 16:12
In the US, things are handled differently, see this report from our vigilant Bat400
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=28051#comments
A 17-year-old Las Vegas boy was sentenced to nine months of supervised release and ordered to pay a nearly $24,000 fine for spray-painting graffiti over prehistoric etchings at Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area in Nevada.
He was charged with unlawful defacement of archaeological resources and willfully injuring federal property for defacing the etchings at the scenic federal preserve about 17 miles west of the Las Vegas Strip in November.
Bureau of Land Management officials say they painstakingly restored the native art.
See AP report at: http://www.8newsnow.com.
$24,000 is £14,759 at today's Foreign Currency Exchange rate. I've not heard of a 17 year old in this country being fined that amount for anything.
[ This message was edited by: Runemage on 2011-08-14 16:13 ]
Profile
Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 319
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 16-08-2011 at 00:23
In America we take these things very seriously. Though the UK & US Justice Systems ultimately originate from more or less the same place (with about 300 years between) our tradition of precedent is almost as heavy as yours - except when new statutes arise. For example: the defacement of historical sites or artifacts.
We really drop the hammer on bad-guys with this stuff - especially with the pre-Columbian sites out west.
Now, on to the matter of this thread. Question ...
Is the "Priddy Circle" the same as "Hetty Peggler's Tump" - a neolithic truncated gallery grave, vandalized late last year?
I have a close associate who works at SH (big surprise there, right?) and he's off to visit this site tomorrow. He tells me it's been completely restored and is looking forward to seeing it.
I hate the confusing myriad sites over there! LOL - you have Stonehenge, Tintagel and Hadrian's Wall ...
We have frikken Johnny Appleseed!
Best from this side!
Profile
Email
Reply
|
Andy B
Joined:
13-02-2001
Messages: 7050
from Surrey, UK
OFF-Line
| Posted 16-08-2011 at 07:48
Completely different types of site
Priddy Circles
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=7704
Hetty Pegler's Tump
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=79
20 May 2008: Uley (H.P.T) is (was) one of the latest Neolithic monuments to be badly damaged by those who visit it. Candle wax and soot stain the interior and many metal tealight bases litter the floor and walls. If fact, much of the interior of the chamber is now inaccessible and has been filled with wooden scaffold to support it. This is, in part, due to the instability caused by people re-arranging/removing parts of the interior stone wall in order to create nooks into which candles or offerings can be placed.
Profile
Email
Reply
|
Feanor
Joined:
11-05-2011
Messages: 319
from Cape Cod Massachusetts, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 16-08-2011 at 22:40
Thanks Andy - yes, I looked them both up.
lol - why am I not surprised to see your name prominently mentioned in both accounts?
Keep up the good work, friend!
Profile
Email
Reply
|
TheCaptain
Joined:
30-10-2003
Messages: 1491
from near Bristol
OFF-Line
| Posted 27-08-2011 at 11:06
The report from 2008 Archaeological dig by Jodie Lewis and David Mullin can now be found here:
http://www.ubss.org.uk/resources/proceedings/vol25/UBSS_Proc_25_2_133-163.pdf
This excavation was on a part of Priddy Circle 1 which is in the field to the east of where the circle has now been bulldozed, where it is still very much in good condition.
Profile
Reply
|
MikeAitch
Joined:
03-06-2008
Messages: 156
from Par, Cornwall
OFF-Line
| Posted 27-08-2011 at 12:55
Very interesting thank you Martyn.
On a side note I'm surprised that no high profile household names (F Prior, M Parker-Pearson, P Harding, M Aston, T Robinson et al) have not joined forces and spoken out about Priddy. Obviously there are the pending legal issues but atleast more public awareness and pressure would surely have been generated. 
Profile
Reply
|
Main News