Actually, it is well documented that after those cartoons of Mohammed a couple of years ago a Large portion of the
Muslim community were upset.
And Rightly so. It was disrespectful to their beliefs.
What I was attempting to point out, and it seems that all intelligent people understood, was that as we are
“Tree Huggers” as was so succinctly put by marc (I wonder if he would call some Muslims Rag heads?) our point of view are worth
less that others.
There was a huge amount of uproar caused to the catholic community when Sony used the image of Manchester
Cathedral in a video game!
Is that better for your mind to grasp Monitor?

My example was not directed at one group in particular just used to point out that ITV would not dare do what they dud
to a cathedral or graveyard or other sacred image.
That however is the main quote focused on my the media.
And also I never actually said that!
I said “Imagine if ITV Mocked Mohammed, or put breasts and a wig on JC”

Regards.
Greg “Tree Hugger” Draven

“Following an inspection of The Long Man of Wilmington in East Sussex (WED,) English Heritage believes that archaeological remains did not suffer any significant damage during the filming activities that took place there recently. During our visit we did note damage to the turf in some areas, which appears to be very recent and might have been caused during filming, and that two to four of the modern concrete blocks that delineate the head are missing, although we cannot say whether they were lost during the filming or whether they had been previously lost. In both cases the damage is superficial and can be repaired.”

Response to the EH statement:

1) There is no question of the missing concrete blocks having been removed during the filming, from what I saw and heard of the event.

2) The opinion of archaeologists seems to be that on a site like this most significant archaeology ends up at the bottom of the hill, where the 2003 dig took place. However damage having been caused cannot be ruled out, even if significant damage can be. How does one define “significant” by the way?

3) There is a very good chance that some or most of the damage to turf was caused during filming, again going by my own observations and those of others I have spoken to. It would be serious turf-damage indeed that could not be repaired!

I am just waiting for those involved to leap on this statement as proof that they are off the hook. It does not do that. Avoidable damage to the turf on the Long Man is unacceptable under any circumstances and this WAS avoidable. Of course we may never know if archaeology has been damaged, but again deliberately placing the site in a situation where it might be is unacceptable under any circumstances.

Since ITV undertook to pay for all repairs to the Long Man during filming, can we now assume that they will pay ALL the costs of repair, in material, fuel, wages etc., to the penny?

The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

Others use similar statements with a different implication: some Muslims react violently if their beliefs are disrespected, so you’d better watch out because we might react violently too.

This argument is even less worthy of acknowledgement.

Sometimes both arguments are implied simultaneously. However you spin it, it’s a bullshit argument.