When Is A Pagan Stone Circle Not A Pagan Stone Circle?

Police are investigating the ‘malicious’ destruction of a pagan stone circle destroyed in what they fear was a religious hate attack.


Police believe the attackers could have used crow bars and pick axes, with speculation that the attack could have been religiously motivated.


Lampeter PC Richard Marshall told a town councillors meeting last week the site had been ‘maliciously taken apart’ and is now unsafe to use.He said: ‘It is disturbing. This is a place of worship. If this was a church I’m sure we’d be hearing more about it.’

I’m not. A mosque, certainly…

Stone circles and henges originated in Britain over a 2,000-year period starting in the late Neolithic period and continuing into the Bronze Age.

So….why isn’t English Heritage involved in this? I mean, if it’s a genuine Neolithic monument, then…

Oh. Wait

The group now hopes to secure funding for a complete rebuild at the current site to improve access and security, or to move to a new location.

Well, how could you possibly repair or move something so ancient?

Because it isn’t. It’s a modern ‘pagan stone circle’, about 14 years old…

Strangely, the ‘Mail’ doesn’t make that clear. Bit naughty of them.

9 comments for “When Is A Pagan Stone Circle Not A Pagan Stone Circle?

  1. mikebravo
    December 8, 2011 at 6:29 am

    I have a pagan rockery in my garden. It’s about 20 years old.
    Where do I apply for funding to move it to the other side of the garden for improved security and access?

    • December 8, 2011 at 10:27 am

      Ha ha – I have one of those too. Let me know if you get the funding. 😆

      • December 9, 2011 at 5:29 am


  2. December 8, 2011 at 9:49 am

    And I notice the Mainly Fail included the word ‘ancient’ so both the tab title and the URL include it. Still, how much is really that ancient? Stonehenge has got Victorian era concrete slapped all over it.

    • December 9, 2011 at 5:29 am

      Tru dat!

  3. Chuckles
    December 8, 2011 at 10:09 am

    It’s all in the ‘artistic interpretation’ is it? I believe the Incas were quite into heavy rock as well.

  4. Thornavis.
    December 8, 2011 at 11:31 am

    Here’s another little piece of jounalistic and archaeological exaggeration. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-16066680
    So this buried building is full of nineteenth century artifacts and just because it has a mummified cat, not that uncommon, it then becomes a ‘witches cottage’.

    • December 9, 2011 at 5:30 am

      The dumbing down continues apace….

  5. December 8, 2011 at 3:36 pm

    I’m underprivileged, having no pagan stone in my flat. Do you think I could get funding for deprivation?

Comments are closed.