It's my guess that 99% of people that climb on standing stones don't realise they shouldn't - which puts the blame squarely on the guardians. Yes there are sometimes notices saying don't but they don't say it clearly enough so that no-one can miss them. The French on the other hand -----
close
more_vert
S

nigelswift wrote:
It's my guess that 99% of people that climb on standing stones don't realise they shouldn't - which puts the blame squarely on the guardians. Yes there are sometimes notices saying don't but they don't say it clearly enough so that no-one can miss them. The French on the other hand -----
Yes I think there's a certain amount of truth in that Nigel. Kidz taken with parents who are there just for a day out but have no real interest have no reason to question anything so it becomes a playground...did it myself over and over as a kid. It is really down to the guardians as you say to provide wardens on the larger sites along with sign boards with decent and obvious notices on the 'lesser' ones as a minimum.
R
nigelswift wrote:
It's my guess that 99% of people that climb on standing stones don't realise they shouldn't - which puts the blame squarely on the guardians. Yes there are sometimes notices saying don't but they don't say it clearly enough so that no-one can miss them.
I would say then that the 1% who DO know they are doing wrong are thoroughly reprehensible, their behaviour is inexcusable and unjustifiable despite their plethora of excuses and self-justification. I suppose (just to contrdict myself) if any excuse can be said to be just cause...I'd probably lean to the "recording of markings"....but if this was genuine...could it be arranged so that some form of unobtrusive access be arranged under licence....I don't really know how feasible puitting up scaffolding, taking pictures off of ladders...or even some kind of cherry-picker hoist would be....others more expert in this field (NPI) might have more ideas.