Peaceful protesters sworn at by participants in Trinny and Susannah.

[theUrbanDryad]

here

Trinny and Susannah have decided to put clothes on the Long Man Of Wilmington.

Bless em.

well that is just stupid

"goodbye fuckers" makes no sense

you might as well say "goodbye aardvarks"

i'm going to start using aadvark as an expletive.

"vark off!"

Oh it's all made up anyway. Nobody has the faintest idea of the real origin of this figure. There is no evidence whatsoever it was created as a 'sacred' figure.
As for destroying it - the man as it stands is a wholly modern creation - the outline is in precast concrete blocks painted white for heaven's sake! Not very ancient. Nothing whatosever about it is original. And of course the programme makers would have got permission to access the site. The druids don't own it and frankly, could do with a makeover themselves.
And T&S cannot possibly be blamed because one woman got pissed off with some druids. As far as I can tell, they weren't even there!

fz

i think though from looking at the film that it's obvious who has come out of this looking dumb

i'm not blaming T&S themselves, i very much doubt they've the grey matter to come up with this, i blame the stupid people at ITV because someone must have said, "I know, let's turn the Long Man of Wilmington into a woman!" then hoovered another twenty grand's worth of coke up his nose.

you can argue that a church is just concrete blocks and mortar, that's not really the point, is it?

Come on those chaps look like utter Trekkies. I've never met pagans who REALLY wander around in flowing dust sheets.

Agree that it is just plain wrong to feck around with historial monuments though. And not very funny. The Angel of the North or the Willow Man in Somerset would have been a little more of a humourous target.

I am pointing out that from a 'conservation viewpoint' there is nothing ancient to conserve.
And I do not accept this this is a sacred or religious icon. There is no evidence for it whatsoever.
I could call the bit of pavement outside my house a sacred site and try to stop people walking on it, but it wouldn't make it sacred.

It doesn't have to be ancient to be worth conserving

T&S are clearly selfish, thoughtless nobs. How dare they damage such a delicate site?

As for paganism, clearly The Long Man has been significant to many people over many years, otherwise the grass would have grown over him and we wouldn't even know he existed.

Blimey, people who are not archaeologists can have attachments to places, you know.

It's not a delicate site though! The blooming thing is an outline of concrete blocks painted with Weathershield paint!
They would have got permission, so clearly the trust that maintains the site was happy that it would cause no damage. And it didn't.
The grass has grown over it many times in history.

The grass has As Much Right To Be There As Anyone Else

LOL Greensleeves.

OK Aloha, confess I didn't know about the blocks, being a Northerner and all that I'm more familiar with stone circles than chalk figures.

Stonehenge is original. The Wilmington Man is the equivalent of rebuilding stonehenge as a concrete reproduction.
I like it. It's a lovely landmark, but it does not belong to druids.

jesus christ, i still haven't seen it all... it's interminable. don't pagans know where the 'edit' button is?

it might not belong to druids but it certainly doesn't belong to Trinny and Susannah either.

They clearly had permission from the owners to be there though. Did the guys in the woolly beards and bedsheets?

I don't think the druids were claiming it belonged to them, were they? They were just saying please don't tramp all over this place, it's special. Doesn't seem like an unreasonable request, although take your point that the concrete blocks aren't historic or delicate.

it was suckers, absolutely not fuckers. no way.
t&s are wankers, but it'll have been some tossy director's idea. v poor show, i think, from the erosion and general taste perspective.

The site is owned by the Sussex Archaeological Society, and they did give their permission. This story made the front page of the local free rag this week...

Aitch - they actually said "funkers", to make sure they were acceptable for before the watershed.

what? i don't understand. the woman's voice, the one who walked past... it was suckers she said. honestly. that's why i watched the whole bloody thing, desperate for some actual proper swearing action.

It may not belong to the druids but, what about the significance of it? I think that can and should be respected. When something, no matter what, becomes important for an individual or group, and somebody meddles with it, the individual or group has/have every right to protest about it.

For example, your neighbour is building an extension that will ruin your view. That view is important to you and paid an extra for your house in order to enjoy that view. The land is not yours, nor the view but still you have every right (in this country) to challenge your neighbour plans.

I think the position of the pagans in the film is similar to the one above. They don't own the area but they have placed an special significance on the monument, they may not get up in arms about this, but have a right to protest and try for that valuable thing to be respected under the frame of the significance they have placed on it.

...in a nutshell, it is about respecting other people's feeling and beliefs

Or, should I have said, showing consideration for other people's feeling and beliefs?

Very poor taste. Extremely disrespectful. Tawdry little TV show rampaging around on a symbol which has been looked at by generations. A part of our heritage. They should not have been allowed.