Silbury Hill 180
Image by texlahoma
Silbury Hill

Trespass on SSSI sites

Rhiannon R
Rhiannon Sep 6, 2012 12:44:24
Replying to Evergreen Dazed

Why are you going on about "rules" as though that's what this discussion is about?
It's only been about =one= rule ie not going on prehistoric sites when you[ve specifically been asked not to, to prevent damage to the site.

It's irrelevant whether Nigel has trespassed just anywhere, because those places don't have this damage-mitigating rule.

Even if he had wandered all over Silbury in the past*, if that's not his stance any more it's pretty irrelevant to whether or not =you= can in a reasoned argument, justify your own trespassing on fragile sites now.

*which I can't imagine he has, right.

M Mustard
Mustard Sep 6, 2012 12:51:23
Replying to Rhiannon

Rhiannon wrote:
Why are you going on about "rules" as though that's what this discussion is about?
I believe it was you who said "do I have some special right to bend the rules that apply to everyone else". Well apparently it's OK to bend rules that you feel it's OK to bend, but it's not OK for anyone else to bend rules that you don't think it's OK to bend! If you can't see the inherent logical contradiction in that position, then I give up.

E Evergreen Dazed
Evergreen Dazed Sep 6, 2012 12:54:34
Replying to Rhiannon

Rhiannon wrote:
Why are you going on about "rules" as though that's what this discussion is about?
It's only been about =one= rule ie not going on prehistoric sites when you[ve specifically been asked not to, to prevent damage to the site.
I'm "going on" about rules, as rules are central to this discussion.

I'm being told I shouldn't break the rule regarding Skara Brae by somebody who breaks rules as and when they see fit.

© 2026 Head Heritage.

Unless otherwise stated, the copyright in each work is the property of the respective contributor. For usage or questions, contact [email protected].