Silbury Hill forum 180 room
Image by thesweetcheat
Silbury Hill

Grrr​…

close
more_vert
Sanctuary S
Sanctuary Jul 20, 2010 17:29:31
Replying to moss

moss wrote:
Mustard wrote:
[But not everyone appreciates the consequences of their actions. I imagine that it's simply never occurred to many people that a bloody great big hill like Silbury is actually suffering from structural problems. Sure, I imagine there's a few selfish people who would just climb it regardless, but it's not a good idea to assume that everyone is that way inclined. I've had friendly chats with people in the past who I've seen behaving in inappropriate ways, and often, they've not understood why their behaviour was a problem until it's been explained reasonably to them. I find it often helps to look for the best in people rather than assuming that you'll find the worst.
An argument that goes on for ever! Surely a large sign at the bottom of Silbury and a fence round it tells people that this hill is not for climbing should suffice.
Its impossible for you or anyone else to stand guard under Silbury having friendly chats with people saying 'please do not climb'. But perfectly logical to expect people not to climb with a well worded permanent sign that tells them NOT to.....
I would think you could put up as many signs as you could find room for...electrify the fence...lay landmines and have ya snipers waiting to pick them off, but you'll always get someone who doesnt care a stuff and has no regard for authority whatsoever who will walk up the hill. I'm glad I went up there, claimed my biscuit...kept one in safe-keeping for Nigel later on when he has a moment of weakness...and went up while it was not such a big issue. There are things in this world much much more important than Silbury Hill (and I'm it's number one fan) which involved real living people who are really suffering. Maybe we should all spare a thought for them now and again instead of just worrying about a lump of chalk and earth that will still be there for another 4,500 years if the archo's promise to leave it alone! THEY are responsible for it's part demise NOT Joe Public.

End of rant!

N nigelswift
nigelswift Jul 20, 2010 18:32:07
Replying to Sanctuary

There will indeed always be some who who don't care a stuff and ignore notices, but I doubt I'll be one of them. The trick is not to be an idealist (too many snipers out to take cheap shots) but equally not to be a do-nowt defeatist who talks as if individual eedjits have the right to act as they alone choose towards communal assets. Trying to do something to improve things is better than doing nothing.

J'Accuse EH of the latter at both Silbury and Stonehenge. At Stonehenge they COULD stop shits clambering on top of the stones. And at Silbury they COULD find ways of reducing the number of ditto sliding straight down the hill on their backsides bringing material down (forever, remember!) shouting to me "It's OUR TEMPLE maaan". No it's not, donkey, it's everyone's including the future's ;)

One easy thing they could have done is when it was at it's most vulnerable and dangerous, and they had only six signs round the base so if you approached it from many angles you couldn't see a notice at all, they could have desisted from removing (and not replacing) all the ones I put up in the gaps over a period of weeks.