close
more_vert

In the context of Silbury religion and politeness aren't the issue, in fact they are diverting attention from it.

The statutory guardians have come to the conclusion that both the archaeology and the ecology are at risk and have consequently requested people not to climb. That's all. So from my point of view I think people ought to comply - unless they can conclusively show the statutory guardians are wrong.

With Silbury being the only 360 degree consistent slope SSSI in the country, filled voids still migrating upwards daily and primary archaeology only inches below the surface I don't think anyone will do that any time soon. So they should keep off.

nigelswift wrote:
In the context of Silbury religion and politeness aren't the issue, in fact they are diverting attention from it.
I wasn't talking about Silbury Hill. Didn't you bother to read Rhiannon's comment in the preceding post (which I did make a particular effort to quote)?

"The original post was about Uluru, I'd wanted to hear views on that rather than Silbury"

Do try and keep up, old bean.

nigelswift wrote:
In the context of Silbury religion and politeness aren't the issue, in fact they are diverting attention from it.

The statutory guardians have come to the conclusion that both the archaeology and the ecology are at risk and have consequently requested people not to climb. That's all. So from my point of view I think people ought to comply - unless they can conclusively show the statutory guardians are wrong.

With Silbury being the only 360 degree consistent slope SSSI in the country, filled voids still migrating upwards daily and primary archaeology only inches below the surface I don't think anyone will do that any time soon. So they should keep off.

Succinctly and eloquently put Nigel, hope my good friend HSD reads it.

Back out into the sunshine now ... making hay and all that :-)