Lets play a little devil's advocacy here...

The stones have apparently been there since around 3200BC. For most of this 5000+years, the place would have been visited by folk who could never have really known its history and original purpose. Many of which would have no doubt been impressed with the place, lit a fire and enjoyed the unadulterated landscape for what it was. During most of these 5000+years, there were no cities, no roads, no pylons, no traffic jams, no microwave pollution... just wild land.

Who's to say that those who came in the millenia before, lighting fires and leaving bits of stone axe lying around weren't 'desecrating' the place? If you were to ask our ancestors what they found more offensive; lighting a fire and 'celebrating' in an ancient site or bulldozing the landscape for a bit of gravel, I suspect I could guess their answer.

I'm not saying that I approve of what was going on, but in the long history of stone circles, I hardly think that having a bit of a hand-holding session and even lighting a bonfire constitutes desecration? Afterall, if they put back the turf then there'd be no trace of their visit within a few weeks, let alone centuries...

John - I'd love to know all about the people who, over the last 5000 years, had lit fires and performed wierd and wonderful rituals. Unfortunately, if you rip up the turf and disturb the ground underneath, you risk destroying any evidence of previous activities.

Last summer, I walked across bare rock in an area so strictly preserved in the name of archaeology, that I was required by law to pack away my walking poles! 

Paddy Dillon wrote (see)

Unfortunately, if you rip up the turf and disturb the ground underneath, you risk destroying any evidence of previous activities.

Not to mention disturbing the ancient spirits of the circle who having been woken from the ancient slumber will rise up seeking a blood sacrifice for the desecrat.... sorry, been watching too many crap horror films.

Ben Cockwell wrote (see)

Paddy Dillon wrote (see)

Unfortunately, if you rip up the turf and disturb the ground underneath, you risk destroying any evidence of previous activities

John - I doubt they put the turf back judging by the way the ripped it up. They did not take the turf up with sufficient soil for it to re-grow. That is as good as vandalism (of course the real vandals from history were actually more civilised than the stories the Romans propagated apparently, isn't that right Kate?).

I personally find pagans doing their rituals on these sights as a little offensive. If these were religious sites then the new pagan rituals might be a bit like an occultist (or devil worshippers as tabloids might call them) having a ceremony at Cantebury Cathedral! We don't know the old pagan religions so we should not use the old sites. IMO only and no offence intended. If there was a continuous practise from the time of building then it would be acceptable. These people are just showing off and making a spectacle of themselves, slightly damaging the area.

BTW - In case people have never been there, Castlerigg stone circle is in a beautiful area with good views. I have been there a few times and have been lucky enough to experience mist drifting across the site. It was probably the most beautiful sight I have seen in the Lakes due to the atmosphere. The builders chose the site well.

Case for human sacrifice perhaps?!

They sound like good horror films to me! Maybe the folk in the photos were in a 'race with the devil'

If these were religious sites then the new pagan rituals might be a bit like an occultist (or devil worshippers as tabloids might call them) having a ceremony at Cantebury Cathedral!

Indeed. What's wrong with that? Buildings should be multi-purpose in this day and age.

Glyn wrote (see)

Ben Cockwell wrote (see)

Paddy Dillon wrote (see)

Unfortunately, if you rip up the turf and disturb the ground underneath, you risk destroying any evidence of previous activities

I've now got an image of bodies buried under Paddy's lawn

BBC enforcers perhaps?

Paddy - I guess you know your rights with the BBC licences more than most, when do you need licences? If I watched TV on BBC iplayer over the internet do I need one? WHat about US programs over internet? Satelite channels from UK or overseas? I have a license since I have a tv and radio, but if I listen to bbc radio over internet at work does the company need a licence? I don't BTW if there are any bbc peoples about.

Don't make jokes! Some years ago I hired a couple of guys to completely strip my garden and re-lay it completely differently. Every time they swung a pick, they hit a rock, so I ended up with a drystone wall out of all the rubble. Then they started pulling huge bones out of the ground and it was a bit more worrying, but one of my neighbours pointed out that a previous occupant had been a butcher in the habit of taking work home!

PaulB - You don't need a license to listen to anyone's radio programmes in this country. The TV License is exactly what it says it is... a license to watch live TV programmes... regardless of whether they're BBC, ITV or whatever. You can listen to the radio at work if your boss doesn't mind, but if you wanted to watch live TV at work, then your boss will need to shell out for a TV License to cover his premises. Then again... no-one can prosecute you for watching a TV unless you're daft enough to let one of the BBC's Enforcers into your house, and sign a confession in his presence admitting to watching TV. Without your signed confession, they don't have the 'evidence' they need to prosecute you. Their so-called 'detector' equipment can detect the use of a TV on your premises, but that can't be used as evidence before a court. However, do bear in mind that the BBC's Enforcers have been found guilty in those same courts of law of fabricating evidence in order to get paid a hefty bonus. The BBC never lets you know about the criminal activities of their Enforcers, but other media outlets have covered them. So much for the BBC as an organ of truth and fair play. They'd like you to believe it was so, but the evidence is to the contrary.

I was listening to Radio 4 yesterday or this morning and they had two opposing arguments about reducing BBC's remit and the licence. One said that eveyone would end up listening and watching tv through the internet and with the modern multi channel tv there is now very little that the BBC does now that is special. SInce BBC is not producing much that is not done elsewhere then it should not receive as big a licence fee. The argument was that the bbc and the licence was originally a subscription fee for the first radio service. It has expanded to tv and had a remit to offer original programming.

I don't know the truth of this but maybe the licence fee should not be as high as the bbc is operating less and less as a public service broadcaster but more like a commercial broadcaster.

I think the bbc licence fee issue needs looking at properly. Maybe the government could get the audit office to look into value for money and whether bbc should go commercial (sorry more commercial).

Paddy - Re your lawn, was going to make a comment but last thing I want to hear about is a police tent in the garden of a well known travel writer. Unless it is a police tarptent from Henry Shires.

PaulB - my view on the matter is very simple.

For their crimes in persecuting innocent people, the BBC should be wiped off the face of the earth. I don't think anyone would seriously miss their programmes.

Back to the stone circle incident, does anyone recognise them? Keep us posted if you hear anything. Its one of my pet hates is the "use" of ancient sites by modern people for pseudo religious claptrap.

Isn't there another stone circle in the Lakes? I'm trying to remember but I am sure there is at least one more. Saw a smiley on the side of the hill when walking up Walna Scar road once, but I don't think it was an ancient site somehow. It was made out of noticably greener grass where the the smiley lines were.

> What crime or offence have these people committed?

I think that could easily be construed as 'aggravated trespass' under the terms of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act.  (Which is so loosely written as to be able to consider bending a blade of grass as a.t.).

If it's a listed archaeological site (which I'd suggest is likely), I'd imagine that disturbing the surface is an offence.  For reasons explained above.

I imagine they removed the turf in preparation for lighting their fire, intending to replace the turf afterwards.  Whether the turf would survive is a different issue.

Ignorance, rather than malice, I think.

Neo-pagans?  Neo-bobbins, more like.

PaulB wrote (see)

Back to the stone circle incident, does anyone recognise them? Keep us posted if you hear anything. Its one of my pet hates is the "use" of ancient sites by modern people for pseudo religious claptrap.

It would be difficult to identify the chap with his back to camera - the person who appears to be removing turf and therefore the only one who actually appears to be doing  anything wrong. 

I used to visit lots of ancient monuments in Cornwall when I lived there.  It wasn't uncommon to find an individual or group sitting quietly meditating or reading, I used to do it myself.

A few times I was lucky enough to stumble upon people singing, playing drums and dancing.  They were doing absolutely no harm to anyone and it was a a joy to find people celebrating these ancient sites in their own way.

One person's pseudo religious claptrap is another person's 'celebration of nature?' - I don't know exactly but I think it rather intolerant to knock it just because it might look or sound a bit different to what you're used to.

> I don't know exactly but I think it rather intolerant to knock it just because it might look or sound a bit different to what you're used to.

I'm knocking 'neo-pagans' because they claim some sort of continuous line of worship, and appropriate stone circles and the like for their 'pagan rituals'.  Which are all modern inventions of the last two centuries.  We have no real idea of the nature of genuine pagan rituals, only speculation.  And some rather lurid Roman accounts.  But then I've not seen any neo-pagans sacrificing children and drinking their blood...

However, if they want do do their thing, I've no real objection.  Unless they start mucking about with the archaeology, disturbing others, or causing criminal damage.

<sotto voce>
it's still bobbins, though...
</sotto voce>

I'd no problem with your post, Capt P, I hadn't seen it when I posted mine, but thanks for explaining your opinion further anyway.

 'Bobbins' comes across as fairly light hearted to me although I'm not entirely certain what it means 

It was Paul's pet hate -  the "use" of ancient sites by modern people for pseudo religious claptrap that I was taking issue with. Although to be fair it might just be his way of saying 'bobbins'.

Bobbins: nonsense, rubbish, useless... from Manchester rhyming slang meaning 'rotten' (cotton bobbins)

And yes, in this case, intended in a light-hearted way.

I do have a bit of a niggle about neo-pagans trying to claim exclusive or preferential access to ancient sites (e.g. Stonehenge at the solstice).  They've got no more right to be there than anyone else.