climbing of sacred hills

close
more_vert
harestonesdown H
harestonesdown Jul 12, 2013 14:46:45
Replying to tjj

tjj wrote:
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 :-)

It's kinda irrelevant anyway as i no longer have any desire to climb Silbury. :)

M Mustard
Mustard Jul 12, 2013 15:30:01
Replying to harestonesdown

harestonesdown wrote:
It's kinda irrelevant anyway as i no longer have any desire to climb Silbury. :)
It's also deliberate trolling, as young Nige is being intentionally provocative by trying to ignite an argument over Silbury in a sub-thread where it was explicitly stated that the intention wasn't to discuss Silbury :)