Ship of Fools: Why train searchlights on the church if we’re not supposed to shoot at it?

Thread: Why train searchlights on the church if we’re not supposed to shoot at it? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026595

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

Not particularly bothered – I don’t pay for it, I don’t live next to it and it was happening before I moved here - but why?

Yes - it’s (largely) very old, yes it’s quite pretty (golden stone etc. but prettier and less menacing in sunlight), yes I’m sure that some parishioners are very proud of it and yes - I believe that the costs of floodlighting it are provided by donors.

On the other hand – it doesn’t need advertising - everyone knows where it is (its location makes it unavoidable) and knowing is not relevant because it’s closed at night, the rectory was sold years ago and the incumbent lives in town three miles away.

In an era when we are being (IMO correctly) urged to respect the environment is unnecessarily using scarce resources a suitable example? Inevitably there is a degree of light pollution – we complain about the much lesser glow from a trading estate a couple of kilometres away.

The money for the leccy and the bulbs could (should) be used for a better purpose?

Is it fashion, pride or marketing? I doubt it’s profit and it didn’t prevent someone half-inching the bottom seven feet of the lightning conductor.

Who benefits – and do those who like it think the benefits outweigh the negatives – and, if so, why?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

It may be to discourage vandalism.

Moo

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
It may be to discourage vandalism.

Moo

Didn't work re the lightning conductor - and nobody can see the (lit) south side - it overlooks only the cricket pitch and open fields.

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

Lots of nice looking buildings are lit at night.

M.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

So long as the relevant priest, mayor, CEO or whatever is fine with astronomers training high powered spotlights on their bedroom windows, I don't have any problem with buildings being lit by floodlights.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

And it's still got its lead roof?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

a picture?

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
It may be to discourage vandalism.

Moo

Yes. The church in the village where I grew up was instructed to install floodlighting as a condition of its insurance.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
It may be to discourage vandalism.

Moo
Yes. The church in the village where I grew up was instructed to install floodlighting as a condition of its insurance.

The one in the next village to me is now lit up like a Christmas tree for the same reason - getting the lead nicked once is regrettable as far as the insurers were concerned, a second time, not so much.

So, the village has actually genuinely been enhanced (I do mean this, it has), the electricity bill has gone through the roof, but one night in August two gentlemen were silhouetted against the night sky bathed in a halo of golden light, and, rather than assuming the second coming, the locals called the police and they were arrested before they could take anything (although some of it was a bit bent).

And, for those outside the UK, if it's a listed building (which very many/most rural churches are), yes it does have to be replaced with lead, and yes it is your responsibility to pay for it. So the onus is on deterrence - you can't just replace the roof with plastic/whatever...

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

I think I will categorise the complaint in the OP alongside the wailings and gnashings of teeth of the NSS when the subject of NHS chaplains is brought up: "Who benefits?" "What a waste of money!" etc etc...

Any public affirmation of so called 'religion' seems to elicit this kind of response from a certain constituency of offenderati, and frankly it's getting very boring.

One day this particular class of the perpetually indignant may work out that not everybody - not even a majority of people - shares their contempt for any viewpoint that happens not to conform to their precious interpretation of secularism.

Next...

Posted by Francophile (# 17838) on :

I think there is some merit in the OP.

We are exhorted to use low energy light bulbs at home and in some places street lighting is being extinguished during the early hours. There are also light pollution issues in our cities and towns (not so much an issue in remoter villages, but many villages are situated close to towns).

Obviously some buildings of national or major importance would be expected to be floodlit, but I wonder about the wisdom of the use of floodlighting for the average building of local importance. I can see the security issues involved but, as not all old churches are floodlit, this would not seem to be the major reason for floodlighting.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
I can see the security issues involved but, as not all old churches are floodlit, this would not seem to be the major reason for floodlighting.

Put your insurance assessor's head on for a second - I would suggest there's a direct correlation.

Never had your lead nicked? No claim, plausibly argue it's not necessary, everyone's happy.

Had your lead nicked? Obviously a legitimate target for theft in an area where people will do that sort of thing. Get it floodlit or we're not insuring you.

I can think of several cases where floodlighting has been mandated after lead theft, and at least one where a church in the next village was made to do it too even though they hadn't been touched.

I would suggest that, as lead is nicked from churches one by one, so the number of churches floodlit increases one by one.

Noe of this accounts for churches which may have chosen to floodlight for aesthetic reasons alone of course....

[codefix]

[ 03. December 2013, 11:10: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

The only church that illuminates is a burning church - Buenaventura Durruti (allegedly paraphrasing Pyotr Kropotkin) 1936?

[ 03. December 2013, 12:06: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

With an astronomy hat on, light pouring up into the sky is not a good thing. (I don't much like private security lights, either - they make pools of much darker darkness for lurking in, and zap my night sight so I can't see so well, as well as destroying the night sky.)
I think it should be possible to protect the lead with more directed lighting that has less light polluting effect.
The school I used to teach at, after 25 odd years of leaking felt after the original lead was nicked, finally replaced with new, which was then taken in broad daylight. It's wonderful what dressing the part can do to quieten any qualms among the locals. Lighting wouldn't stop that sort of thing.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
It may be to discourage vandalism.

Moo
Yes. The church in the village where I grew up was instructed to install floodlighting as a condition of its insurance.

If the only concern is theft/vandalism, the lights could be motion-activated.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

But they could be disabled, and no-one would know, because the absence of light would be the default position. (Notes the apparent change of argument side - but I did consider this before posting about directing the light differently.) Downlighters illuminating the surroundings, including the car park, would be better, I would think, with notices about CCTV, working out where the ladders would be put and making the ground unsuitable there, and alarming the doors with access to the roof from inside.
The church here has Smartwater protection, but that only works if the stuff is found. So much roof lead went hereabouts that I suspect it went straight into a container lorry and to export rather than to a local scrap yard.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

I really doubt light bulbs are the big drain on the church budget. It's certainly and item that parishes like to cut to save money, but really they are peanuts compared to, for example, the organist's health insurance.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Our church had the lead nicked from the roof several times and eventually English Heritage grudgingly agreed that we could repair it with stainless steel on the bits that you couldn't see from the ground.

It's an urban church in a fairly well-lit area - but it backs onto a park. The police thought the thieves were getting in via the park, and floodlighting that side of the church wouldn't have helped because there were no houses close enough to spot people on the roof on that side.

However, along with the stainless steel we installed several hives of bees. That may have helped. Plus we get to sell the honey at church fairs.

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :

A condition of the insurance cover might be the answer though if the insurers asked for it they presumably didn't do a site inspection.

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
And it's still got its lead roof? I believe it’s no longer lead

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
a picture? Try
THIS

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I really doubt light bulbs are the big drain on the church budget. It's certainly and item that parishes like to cut to save money, but really they are peanuts compared to, for example, the organist's health insurance. Fortunately any organist would already be covered by that evil, socialist, satanic wickedness called the National Health Service.

To EE - I read the first two words of your silly contribution and disagreed with you. I trust you have had a lie down and are feeling better.

To all others - thanks.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I like the bees idea. I understand that some temple roofs in Japan have a kind of urushiol oil shellac (from poison ivy) painted on the gold leaf to discourage acquisitive fingers. In our old parish, we were considering training the vines up the drainpipes that were always being stolen.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

I've sometimes thought that stinging nettle plants would make good burglar/trespasser deterrents.
[Devil]

Plus the bees mentioned might be able to make good use of them. I'm not sure what nectar the flowers might have; but the leaves are very nutritious, so the nectar might be, too. And the leaves are edible, when properly picked and prepared. (Not bare-handed!)

Of course, a church's insurer might look askance at this.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee
To EE - I read the first two words of your silly contribution and disagreed with you. I trust you have had a lie down and are feeling better.

I can't help wondering whether you would have bothered to start this thread if the building in question had not been a church. Only you know the answer to that question, but I have a pretty strong hunch that you wouldn't have bothered.

If you wish to correct me on that, then perhaps you would like to introduce a thread criticising the floodlighting of numerous 'secular' buildings. After all, the floodlighting of religious edifices is no more a drain on the national grid than the lighting of other buildings.

And the insinuation about the church advertising itself had a strong (and rather unpleasant) whiff of National Secular Society petulance. Hence my 'silly' post.

[ 04. December 2013, 09:50: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Our church is floodlit on the side away from the road. Only trouble is, it's the lights which then get vandalised.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

HughWillRidmee - your "first two words" contribution implies that EE is stupid.

EtymologicalEvangelical - you inply a contemptuous personal motivation behind the OP.

Leave such personal digs out, or take them to Hell. You both have been around long enough to know C3. Also, please avoid development or further development of a personality conflict (C4) which should also be fought out in Hell, or dropped.

Hugh, you are entitled to the OP. EE you are entitled to be as critical as you like about the ideas it contains. But cut out the personal snarking.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

A well deserved rebuke.

I realise that I should have just ignored this thread, instead of assuming it was just another atheist 'go' at religion. I apologise.

I jumped to a conclusion, which may or may not be true. So I should have just let it go.

[Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Not particularly bothered – I don’t pay for it
...

In an era when we are being (IMO correctly) urged to respect the environment is unnecessarily using scarce resources a suitable example?

The same could be said for any activity that uses fuel and you don't partake of. Motor sports, for example; or any flood-lit sports. Or daytime TV, or illuminated advertising hoardings, the list goes on. You were right first time - it's not your money, so you don't get a say.

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:

However, along with the stainless steel we installed several hives of bees. That may have helped. Plus we get to sell the honey at church fairs.

You want to be careful with that. Bee hives are far from cheap and can be targets for theft themselves. I was always advised not to strap the boxes together as it just helps the thieves remove them more easily - just put a couple of house bricks on top to weigh them down instead.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

The hives are up on the roof, which ought to discourage casual bee thieves. But it's a good point - I will pass the suggestion on to the parish beekeeper.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Thinking about today's weather warnings - I hope the hives are fixed securely against wind.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0