Bluebell boycott

This year Wansteadium is minded to boycott photographs of bluebells in Wanstead Park – we don’t want to be accused of encouraging people to walk on the bulbs to get pictures… walking on them destroys the flowers, compacts the soil, damages bulbs and can prevent flowers growing in future years. We know it’s a bit miserable, but we think the boycott is the right thing to do.

11 thoughts on “Bluebell boycott”

  1. Totally agree – went there on Sunday and couldn’t believe how many disrespectful people were trampling all over the bluebells. Really shocking and utterly stupid.

  2. So you are boycotting the showing of photos of the bluebells just because you think they would encourage the destructive behaviour?

    Don’t you think that’s a rather silly leap of logic?

    By all means show pictures of the bluebells, as long as they are accompanied by the very advice you have already included in your post about not wanting to show bluebells. . . .

    You are holding back publicizing them in order to prevent the bad actions of some people? That’s not the answer.

    1) They already do the bad things anyway as the bluebells are already well known. People are there right now trampling on them even without Wansteadium showing pictures.

    2) Show them and educate people what not to do. As you have.

    1. I was going to add — just don’t show pictures of kids sitting in them and dogs running around on them. There are plenty of lovely “bluebell only” pictures to be had.

    2. GB,

      Calm down! You can always look at last year’s photos (http://wansteadium.com/fabulous-bluebell-pictures/). It’s not like they’ve grown moustaches this year. They’re just the same as always.

      In any case, here is the logic that I see:

      Photos of local bluebells are similar to an advertising campaign. They are likely to inspire even more local people to take photos (e.g. for social media) than would otherwise make the effort.

      Wansteadium has a wide-ranging audience. Not everyone who reads Wansteadium is equally thoughtful or considerate about nature. Some people who might be prepared to trample on bluebells might also subscribe to Wansteadium.

      Wansteadium could advise people not to trample on the bluebells. However, when an article has pretty pictures, a lot of people might not read the words. In addition, people who are prepared to trample on bluebells are not likely to be the ones to follow advice.

      I see what you’re saying that boycotting photos effectively punishes the majority for the actions of a minority. However, I don’t think the idea of “educating people” is going to be effective either for the reasons described above. How do you propose to do that in a way that is actually effective (i.e. that would-be tramplers—those who currently have no qualms in trampling—actually listen to and heed the advice)?

  3. I just want to thank you, Wansteadium, for your wonderful, informative, and to top-it-all free website. Your posts are thoughtful and funny, and I appreciate what you do for our community.

    I’ve bought you a Larder latte to say thank you.

    1. Blimey peoples, only 10 of us have bought Wansteadium a coffee. If you saw Wansteadium on the street wouldn’t you treat him to a latte or a beer as a thank you for keeping us informed?

      I mean that post on cows in Wanstead alone was worth a couple of pints, surely.

      The link’s on the right ->

    2. If you are hinting that we should refrain from criticizing because the site is free, false logic again.

      Just because Wansteadium is the owner’s labour of love and yes, can be informative and interesting, does not put it above some honest feedback when something strikes one of us as ridiculous.

      I did it here and I’ll do it again if I see fit.

      1. Let him ban me, but to make a big deal of, by any other name: I’m not showing pictures this year because I got slapped on the wrist for showing kids sitting all over them is silly and whiffs of a passive aggressive flouncing.

Comments are closed.