We’ve often claimed that official toleration of brandalism at monuments and precious places might erode respect for such places and create a mindset in some people that could lead them to commit damaging copycatting elsewhere. We wonder if this, on the South Downs, is an example?
.
(Ironically, the South Downs recently got £4.8m EU funding, some of which was probably spent on gates!)
.
[Hat tip to Anthony Pope @Plastic_Peloton for this.]
The Heritage Journal 
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
26/04/2017 at 12:45
Edwin Deady
Seen eighteenth carvings on ancient oaks, medival graffiti in churches, early English burials in Bronze Age Barrows, and your point is?
26/04/2017 at 13:19
heritageaction
Brandalism which is officially sanctioned.
26/04/2017 at 22:57
Edwin Deady
Show any correlation.
27/04/2017 at 06:08
heritageaction
There may be some. The history of brandalisation of hill figures is a disreputable mishmash of approved and unapproved actions. But yes, a direct causation is hard to prove. It’s more a matter of common sense. If officialdom allows something the likelihood of unofficial copycatting must surely increase. Why do it? (Especially the National Trust, whose reputation has sunk so low?)
27/04/2017 at 19:46
Edwin Deady
Additional member added to Long Man of Wilmington long before any brandalism.. So no correlation then.
28/04/2017 at 06:21
heritageaction
As said, an individual correlation is hard to prove but common sense suggests official guardians ought always to take the higher ground, lest others see that as license.