Stonehenge Damaged by Protesters | Hacker News Reader

Stonehenge Damaged by Protesters

nbcnews.com

16 pointslando231933 comments

I was furious at the protesters until I read the article. Now I'm furious at the headline writer for scaring me (whether that's the HN submitter or possibly the NBC writer, if the HN title reflects an older version of the NBC title).

I think this goes beyond sensationalism and into lying. It sounds like this will have no long-term effect, much less one that would count as "damage", but who knows. Regardless, obviously the word "damaged" is very inappropriate at this time.

Edit: In case it's not obvious, none of this is a commentary on the protest itself.

This was flagged earlier, presumably for the bad faith editorialization. It's unclear why it came back, let alone unedited.

"According to Just Stop Oil’s website, the pigment was made of an “orange cornflour” that would wash away in the rain. "

Yeah, hopefully not requiring a power wash.

Attention seeking idiocy, but at least I didn't stop ambulances from getting to the hospital

The did the same at the Brandenburg Tor [1] in Berlin for which the rabble was sent to prison. They claimed it was 'the fault of the cleaning company that the colour did not come out because they waited too long before trying to get it off' but that excuse did not fly with the judge.

So no, it is not given that this colour 'will wash off with the first rain', that depends on the porosity of the stones. The Brandenburg Tor is made of sandstone which is very porous so that soaked up the colour like a sponge. I assume Stonehenge is made with granite blocks which are likely to be less porous but the outside layer of those megaliths are likely to be covered in lichen which is likely to soak up the 'wheatflour-based orange colour' they used.

[1] https://apnews.com/article/germany-brandenburg-gate-climate-...

This is the natural result of our media’s and society’s preference for flashy, sensationalist news. I’m certain these protestors have been doing peaceful protests for a while but have you ever heard of them before? Peaceful doesn’t get views.

They took advantage of an upcoming event to raise awareness in a way that is ultimately harmless. Had they not done this I wouldn’t know about the labor party’s lackluster climate plans.

Mission accomplished.

They've been making headlines + the television news with similar actions for a couple of years.

The article says the opposite of this invented headline.

EDIT: HN guidelines are to use the original title. It is: "Climate protesters arrested after painting Stonehenge monument orange". It does not claim damage was done and the article is vague on damage and so I think the HN headline is unjustified.

Not sure how you reached that conclusion:

"English Heritage, which manages the UNESCO World Heritage Site, said it was “extremely upsetting” and said curators were investigating the damage."

> According to Just Stop Oil’s website, the pigment was made of an “orange cornflour” that would wash away in the rain.

I assume the biggest impact here is that archaeologists will have to exclude orange corn flour as background noise from any future analyses

The assumption that it will wash away in the rain rather than find its way into cracks and pits in the rock is an awfully big bet to make vs permanent damage to history.

It survived 4500 years, it’ll survive a bit of cornflour

Cool. So you'd be fine with me coming over and spray painting something of my choice on your house, assuming I assured you (with absolutely no supporting evidence) that it would go away over some unspecified period of time?

I do not think so.

Anyone who's been around small children knows that some food dyes do NOT disappear when washed, even with detergent.

If this could "damage history" then we're way overdue putting the stones into a safe indoor storage facility.

It implies there's damage but it's a bit ambiguous:

"English Heritage [...] said curators were investigating the damage"

(investigating to see if there was damage or investigating to see how much damage?)

"Wiltshire Police said the pair were arrested on suspicion of damaging one of the world’s most famous prehistoric monuments."

(suspicion that it was them or suspicion that it was damaged?)

I'd go with "Climate Protesters Vandalize Stonehenge"

Vandalize is defined as "deliberately destroy or damage". I don't think a food grade powder that will wash away with the next rain counts, but I could imagine some municipalities disagree. Does sidewalk chalk count as vandalism?

> I don't think a food grade powder that will wash away with the next rain counts

Your evidence for it "washing away with the next rain" would be?

Ever see what a child can do with a glass of "cherry" Koolaid?

A dye being labeled as "food grade" has essentially no correlation with its permanence.

> Does sidewalk chalk count as vandalism?

Sidewalks aren't 4,500 year old World Heritage Sites.

Hmm... still not seeing any evidence.

Our definitions of vandalism are different. I would count graffiti as vandalism. I would also count racial slurs written on private property using sidewalk chalk as vandalism.

The article doesn’t say that there was no damage, the article quotes the vandals as claiming that their vandalism would “wash off in the rain.”

Personally I don’t understand the political value they see in this type of disruption. The acts are theatrical but don’t seem connected to the protestors’ political desires: they grab attention but they don’t do anything with it. It feels like these performative disruptions deepen the impression that the climate movement is unserious, self-absorbed and antagonistic—I’m sure they calculate that it that contributes to their cause, I just don’t understand how.

I've seen a lot of conspiracy types speculate that Just Stop Oil is actually a creation of the Oil companies as a controlled opposition group to basically make the climate protesters look so bad that they lose public support.

Personally, I haven't seen any compelling evidence of this, I think they really are just well meaning idiots who have no real idea or strategy of what they actually want to achieve or how to get there.

Nothing to see here. Climate nutjobs artistically protesting at monuments (without damaging them) and risking their futures to raise awareness of an impending doom because they have lost hope there is a future for the planet that is selfishly worth investing in.

Paint will come off in a couple of days. Some bits will remain as their mark on its history.

> According to Just Stop Oil’s website, the pigment was made of an “orange cornflour” that would wash away in the rain.

Sensationalist title. It also doesn't match the current title of the actual article:

> Climate protesters arrested after painting Stonehenge monument orange

If there were ever a good argument for bringing back corporal punishment, surely Just Stop Oil is making it.

Nobody deserves to have violence inflicted upon them for temporarily colouring a rock.

I'm not saying it's the ideal solution, but it is a solution. What punishment would you suggest that would be equally or more effective? I think your minimisation of their crimes only serves to perpetuate the problem. Indeed, there is a school of thought supposing that something like a public lashing or caning - carefully administered - is actually a more humane and effective deterrent than throwing them in jail for 5 years. Singapore would be an extreme example - they have very strict laws covering petty crimes with the punishment often being corporal - but they also do not suffer from the petty crime epidemic that the west currently is.

I find it very strange that you'd associate climate protestors with petty crime and suggest that their actions might be worthy of years in jail.

But they aren't protesting, they're vandalising one of the UK's most historic archaeological sites - and that's a crime. Previously, they've also vandalised historic and priceless works of art among other things. Their right to protest does not include vandalism and the destruction of property. I'd argue that it also does not include depriving others of their right to enjoy said monuments and artwork.

I noticed you dodged the question of how to effectively stop to the vandalism, so I'll ask again.

This action continues to be a protest regardless of our feelings about the methods used, or their legality.

>vandalised historic and priceless works of art

Are you referring to the paintings behind glass that weren't affected at all? I did read that some of the frames had minor damage.

I disagree that such actions require something with deterrence equal to or greater than corporal punishment to be inflicted, so I ignored your question.

> Are you referring to the paintings behind glass that weren't affected at all?

You mean other than being unavailable while they were being cleaned/checked for damage?

Some visitors likely traveled thousands of miles, possibly on a once in a lifetime trip, to see the paintings, which they weren't able to do thanks to a toddler-grade temper tantrum.

That's a strange definition of "not affected at all" you have there.

Try to respond honestly (and without sarcasm, petty insults, and other common internet-shitposting-style content) - the parent said the paintings were not affected at all, and they ostensibly were not, according the parent. That doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't a bad thing to do or didn't have real consequences. And regardless, the parent is speaking in the context of whether corporal punishment is justified, which obviously it is not (speaking in the usually-implicit context of morality/civilization). That's the topic of this thread.

> Try to respond honestly

Oh, do be quiet.

Trying to excuse this childish temper tantrum and exculpate the infantile perpetrators with "herp, derp, the paintings weren't damaged at all" is what was dishonest.

The fact that such hideousness can be provoked from ostensibly reasonable people is why we don't let victims sit on juries.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com