surprise | Forum — The Modern Antiquarian

Silbury Hill 180

Image by Moth

Trespass on SSSI sites

Rhiannon Sep 6, 2012 07:52:50

Replying to moss

"98% won't go up Silbury nor sit in Skara Brae, so we have to live with the 2% who think differently and be glad they exist to make us argue ;)"

Well I'm not glad about it Moss, I can't really understand why so many people (and strangely sudden upstarts like love-it-or-hate-it "marmite") are saying it's all great and we should all live and let live, yeah let people climb Silbury, what the hell, there's only a few of them, it won't make any difference, hey they're just expressing their individuality, good luck to them, etc.

To be picky 2% of 70,000 is (erm) 1400, so that's 4 people a night sitting in skara brae, I don't think so. I think we're talking a much much smaller percentage of visitors that consider they can disregard the wishes of the site's guardians (they've carefully considered it, mind). And I reckon there's an appropriate word that nobody's used yet for fear of upsetting this minority, well I think it's actually Selfish. As in wilfully determined to pursue your own advantage to the detriment of everybody else.

I'm really surprised that so many people on this website would be agreeing it's ok to walk on silbury or wander through Skara Brae. Bloody hell if people on this geeky forum don't really mind damaging these places, then what hope the general public. Oh no - actually virtually all the general public play by the rules and respectfully go along with what they've been requested to do. So it turns out, people on this website are actually MORE likely to damage ancient monuments. And those that don't do it, some of them actually think it's ok if the others do. What a disappointing surprise.

It's not just "us" that read this forum you know. This information's sitting out there for anyone to read. People may read this and think "well the geeks on the modern antiquarian think it's ok" encouraging them to do it as well.

Whatever.

nigelswift Sep 6, 2012 08:19:41

Replying to Rhiannon

Perfectly put. It's the message thats going out from here that's so unfortunate. It stinks. Standing up for rules has been labelled hateful dogmatism and the sneakers-in have even been wished luck in what they do!

Well, good luck to the millions who keep quiet, pay the entrance fees, keep to the rules, and think sneaking in at night is just wrong and tatty.

moss Sep 6, 2012 09:04:38

Replying to Rhiannon

"It's not just "us" that read this forum you know. This information's sitting out there for anyone to read. People may read this and think "well the geeks on the modern antiquarian think it's ok" encouraging them to do it as well."

Hey Rhiannon I was just addressing a point, one point, that I feel strongly about, I will not, I repeat not be bulldozed into views or statements because it is the right thing to do according to one side of the discussion! Silbury has the backing of the National Trust, English Heritage and presumably Lord Avebury who owns it.

You imply that TMA is the 'spokesman' for one part of heritage, namely prehistory, maybe so maybe not, like the statistics I quoted that is in the field of speculation and subjective to boot.

But strangely enough though I may be protective of heritage sites, I realise that complete protection is impossible, I entrust the care of monuments to the bodies that are meant to look after them, I will not 'nag' on principle, though I respect the people who do.

Do I believe this discussion has gone any further to enlightening the public sadly no, I think it is mostly 'sad geeks' (sorry everyone) that read TMA the public is in the minority, but I refuse to be brainwashed into having to say things I don't really believe are possible....

ps. I also know that certain points I've made will be pulled apart in an effort to justify some sort of reprisal for my views, let it be known that I am not very good at arguing ;)

Moss X

Mustard Sep 6, 2012 09:11:17

Replying to Rhiannon

Rhiannon wrote:

This discussion has ceased to be rational. I think I've said at least three times that I don't agree with people climbing Silbury. You're not listening to a word that's being said. You keep coming back with the same emotive accusations, despite those accusations already having been refuted with calmly made, polite, and reasonable points. You say things like "wilfully determined to pursue your own advantage to the detriment of everybody else", despite the point already having been clearly made that I (and I think others) believe no action should be taken if it is ultimately to the detriment of others. It is rude and ignorant to repeatedly and wilfully misrepresent the views of those you're debating with.

The point of difference between us is essentially whether we believe an action will ultimately cause detriment to others. It's entirely fare of you to argue your case if you believe such actions will cause detriment, but it is rude of you to misrepresent others by accusing them of not caring, when that is clearly untrue.

stagman Sep 15, 2012 01:41:30

Replying to Rhiannon

Gorgive me, but there are rules and regulations here being violated:

Rhiannon wrote:

Well I'm not glad about it Moss, I can't really understand why so many people (and strangely sudden upstarts like love-it-or-hate-it "marmite") .

http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/forum/?thread=58979

Apologies