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.
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.
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.
"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?)
"English Heritage, which manages the UNESCO World Heritage Site, said it was “extremely upsetting” and said curators were investigating the damage."
I assume the biggest impact here is that archaeologists will have to exclude orange corn flour as background noise from any future analyses
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.
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.