Argument at National Heritage site

[EatGrassAndPuke]

Took DD to an abandoned Medieval village this morning. Nothing much there other than old foundations, info boards and the ruins of an old church dating back to 1200s.

When we got to the church there was a huge family there with kids running in and out of the church, slamming the (massive solid wood) door, climbing in and out of the windows screaming and running wild. DD asked if she could go and play in the church and I said no as it was very very old and needed looking after. DD obviously replied “but they are!” So I said “yes well they shouldn’t be”. Unbeknown to me one of their relatives was right behind me and asked if I had a problem with children playing. I said “not at all but I don’t agree with letting them slam the door and climb through the windows. There isn’t much left of the church as it is, we should be protecting it”. The woman then said “the church has stood here since the 11th century yet you think a group of small children can knock it down?”

At this point I tried to end the convo and said “knock it down, no. Damage it further, maybe. Bear in mind this is also a burial ground. Anyway, sorry if I offended you, I would just hate to see it get damaged”. I then started walking away. She followed and said I was out of order and it’s a shame my child isn’t allowed to play!!

WIBU?? I wasn’t rude, just didn’t agree with using an ancient ruin as a climbing frame!! But then I am a massive history geek so maybe I shouldn’t have said anything?

Fragile sites are protected. There are pretty strict rules laid down about that.

I work for Englsh Heritage. There are a great many sites where the public have unsupervised either partial or full access. That doesn't mean the site can't be damaged by the behaviour described in the OP! The public's ongoing access to them without the site being damaged does require implied behaviour rules are followed - and one of those is to not let your kids behave as the ones described in the OP. If they'd have behaved like that at a manned site I'd expect one of my team to have put a stop to it precisely because it could damage the building (and for their safety and everybody else's enjoyment). If I'd have happened to have been on site at the unmanned site when they we doing that, I'd have said something too. Open access unsupervised sites are there for the unstuffy enjoyment of all, but that doesn't make them an adventure playground.

Equally, I would teach her why I didn’t want her to without shaming someone else who made different choices

Oh please. It’s not about ‘choices’. It’s about right and wrong and behaving like hellions on fragile ruins is wrong.

I’m so sure I know where you went! YANBU

Similarly, protected species and wildlife sites are subjects of strict protective laws. You can go to prison for damaging or disturbing them. Each bird, each newt, each field does not have its own security guard, ever vigilant and enforcing these rules. People are responsible for not breaking the law, all by themselves.

Agreed, no choices about it. It's simply about protecting our precious heritage from harm and accidental damage. Keep off!

Causing damage to a listed building or a scheduled ancient monument is a criminal act, punishable by a fine or prison sentence. So don't fucking damage them.

@MintyMabel

Spectacularly missing the point about safety and playing on/in ruins

Spectacularly missing the point about safety and playing on/in ruins

Nope.

Not part of the cotton wool / everything is so dangerous brigade.

Just because I don’t agree with the nonsense, doesn’t mean I’m missing a point. Lazy argument to suggest so.

Oh please. It’s not about ‘choices’. It’s about right and wrong and behaving like hellions on fragile ruins is wrong.

Bollocks. It is about choices. “Right and wrong” is subjective. It is incredibly arrogant to suggest you are the one getting it right and others are wrong.

There are a great many sites where the public have unsupervised either partial or full access.

And none of them are so fragile that a child climbing on them will cause permanent long term damage putting the safety of the public at risk. You know that is the case, why would you argue otherwise?

The site is protected, it is an offence to damage it.

Physically protected. Making it impossible to access.

Just because I don’t agree with the nonsense, doesn’t mean I’m missing a point. Lazy argument to suggest so.

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. Historic sites such as the one the OP visited are protected under law, damaging them is a criminal offence. And allowing your bratty children to treat them like an adventure playground does damage them, the damage may be incremental but it is still damage.

We have an unmanned site like this near us, owned by Historic Scotland. It's not manned - and free to access - because it's relatively small, but you can't argue it's not fragile. It's Roman, ffs. 2000 years old and already a ruin with only foundations remaining. You cannot and should not let your little darlings rampage over it because they will cause further damage to an important site.

It is physically impossible for every single little site to be fenced off, behind bars, staffed 24 hours a day. There's not the money for it, and the general ethos is that heritage should be accessible. Luckily the number of people who thing no staff/fence = outdoor adventure playground for the children is fairly small.

Yanbu.

Woman should have minded her business and not interfered and surely shouldn’t have continued after you walked away. Her behaviour was unnecessary and telling you it was a shame you weren’t allowing your kid to run amok was uncalled for.

They'd probably be the first to sue if a stone fell and hit one of their feral animals kids so I'd have given the woman what for.

Soon ruins will be non existent or blocked off. Just one set of children playing on a ruin isn’t likely to damage it. The problem is the population density is so high now that sheer numbers are ruining for us as all. It’s a bit like the dog poo thing or so I’ve read. Flick with a stick is wrong due to the sheer number of dogs, wildlife would be devastated if we all used method.

A particular eejit is missing the point wildly.
It's not so much the possible damage, it's the complete lack fo respect for an historical site. Can anyone on here deny that the 'huge' family were disrespectful?
If so, I'd question their morals.

instead of teaching her child why it might not be a good idea, she was arguing with complete strangers about their behaviour

But the OP wasn't arguing with a complete stranger. The complete stranger confronted the OP and then followed the OP when she was trying to get away from the complete stranger as the OP didn't want to argue.

Obviously YANBU, but there’s a lot of self entitled parents out there who prioritise the enjoyment of their dcs' no matter what. If you try to curtail their feral behaviour the parents get enveloped in a red mist I’m afraid. I would have said exactly what you said.

That's true @Mookie81 but it has been interesting to hear that person try and defend these indefensible views. Of course, it has been done badly because there is no way to do it well.

It gives an insight into a particular type, albeit a depressing insight, that might help the bodies trying to care for these ancient sites.

Maybe a temporary solution might be to install massive signs telling people not to treat these sites as playgrounds, pointing out it an a offence and encouraging those who witness it to take pictures of car number plates.

It does seem that some people just cannot or will not police themselves or their children. They have neither wit nor soul to appreciate what lies around them, so they have to be policed.

Well done. OP for facing up to the ones you encountered.

I had a similar thing once where a couple had climbed on something at a National Trust site which shouldn’t have been climbed on. DS wanted to climb up too (I told him he couldn’t) and was told by the couple he couldn’t climb up there. DS quite righty looked at me and said ‘But they’re on there!’

I pointed out that firstly they weren’t to parent my child and that they couldn’t tell him not to climb on something they had already climbed up and were sitting on.

Those arguing against allowing their little angels climbing over the ruins should read thelittlebrownfox. post, who actually works for the English Heritage and is therefore better placed to know what is acceptable at these sites - and confirms it shouldn’t be used as a playground, and explains why. If DCs need to let off steam then take them to the many parks we have, and leave taking them to historic sites until they respect what they’re visiting and why they need to be respectful.

YANBU, medieval ruins are not playgrounds. If kids want to play, there are plenty of playgrounds for the purpose. And the other lady was being ridiculous anyway to be picking a fight with you about it. You weren't even having a go at her, you were merely telling your DD not to do what the other children were doing.

I was at a heritage site on the coast in Dorset a couple of years ago and the parents of some children were HELPING them carve their names into the rock face!!!

Bear in mind this is also a burial ground

So as well as allowing their children to run wild in a historical ruin, they also didn't care that their little darlings were probably racing over graves. Surely the one place where respect is a given is a flipping graveyard. Some people are just plain ignorant.

Other family were wrong but I do feel sorry for all the children inc ops been dragged to boring ruins.