Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal History Blogs -> Common Lawyer

Legal History

: Common Lawyer

Non-travel writing

By G.C. Seabourne

I am pioneering a new type of very green travel writing - NON travel writing. It's all about saying why one is choosing not to go to a particular place, and today's non-destination is.....Littledean Jail in the Forest of Dean.
    On a very enjoyable family outing to the Forest of Dean Heritage Centre (interesting snippets about forest law, freeminers and the job of Deputy Gaveler of the Forest), I picked up a variety of leaflets for other tourist spots in the area, of both scenic and historical interest. The big writing and picture of a late eighteenth century/ early nineteenth century prison building suggested something historical and educational. I have enjoyed visits to other historic jails (or, at least found them interesting - there is always a real chill about such places). Lincoln was, perhaps, the best I have seen.This might, I thought, be similarly worthwhile. I was even musing about taking my students there. Then I read more carefully, and it became clear that this is not a place which should be supported.
    Why not? Well, it's not particularly the 'Alcatraz of the Forest' slogan - er, wasn't there some sea involved in Alcatraz? - I don't mind a bit of showbiz. It's other things which  are calculated to  raise the hackles. You have to worry when  you see boneheaded abdications of responsibility like 'Warning: please kindly note if easily offended or of a sensitive disposition then please do not enter Littledean Jail'. What could be so offensive that it is necessary to give a warning? Look more closely - you will see that such delights as Nazi memoriabilia, Ku Klux Klan uniforms, apparently  presented 'without fear or favour' [Ooh - how terribly brave!]. And the boast that this is 'Britain's most infamous and politically incorrect Black Museum' (my emphasis). That witless swipe in itself is enough to earn it a place in the non-travel vortex of shame. Children, apparently love the museum, though one may wonder at the suitability of 'bizarre fetishes and fantasies' exhibits, and the more violent content. It's OK though, because it's at the discretion of parents whether or not to bring them.
    Then there's the fact that we have to be told twice in one short leaflet that the current owner is '(some say) controversial'. This historic site is in private ownership (by, some say, a controversial figure). Its current owners, due, presumably, to their purchase, use the titles of 'master' and 'matron' of the gaol.  This seems a point of legal historical interest, as well as being utterly ridiculous -  such titles may, of course, be 'anchored' to land  in  some feudal remnant,  though there could well be arguments against having a titular master and matron of a non-functioning institution.
    The annoying thing is, that I would like to see the jail. It is a significant historic building. I'm just not prepared to get involved with such an irresponsible and unnecessary concern. So that's where I'm not going today. Where will I not go next?

Common Tourist

Full post as published by Common Lawyer on October 08, 2007 (boomark / email).