Re: Silbury Hill trespassers | Forum — The Modern Antiquarian

Silbury Hill 180

Image by wysefool

Silbury Hill trespassers

more_vert

VBB Jan 8, 2013 10:55:23

Replying to Sanctuary

Sanctuary wrote:

nigelswift wrote:

See here
http://heritageaction.wordpress.com/2013/01/08/avebury-and-stonehenge-silburys-new-scars/

After giving a brief description of Silbury Hill on the warning boards it goes on to say:-
'The steep, slippery and irregular surface make it unsafe to allow public access and such access would damage the protected grasslandand archaeology of the monument. Please do not climb the monument'.

That's nowhere near 'threatening' enough in todays world. Not a word about trespassing or it being illegal and of being presecuted. Why not?

Threatening messages on signs would be counter-productive, it would be a red rag and has in any case been tried and failed. A staircase was rejected by the authorities on aesthetic grounds long ago, one only has to look at Fred Astaire's wooden hill inside the henge to see why, and from memory the last discussion ended on discussions of razor wire. Personally, I will press for an increased number of slightly larger signs around the fenceline and at key sites. The most important of these would be signs in the car park, and on the approaches, such as one mounted facing both directions on the new stile (so that one can't help but be confronted with it's message), as that particular stile is easily identified by the track from it as one of the actual causes of increased footfall towards Silbury from Avebury.

Sanctuary Jan 8, 2013 11:58:32

Replying to VBB

VBB wrote:

Threatening messages on signs would be counter-productive, it would be a red rag and has in any case been tried and failed.

I fail to see how a sign indicating that one would be trespassing and liable to prosecution if they climbed the hill counter-productive at all. What it needs is the culprits to be actually brought to book instead of everybody just mamby-pambying around them all the time. WHY is nobody being prosecuted? There is much more to this than meets the eye it seems to me.
Maybe it's because while the NT are happy for the likes of Jim Leary to condemn people climbing the hill on their behalf, but allowing paying customers such as film crews to scale the hill for commercial reasons then they are going to win zilch in the courts on the grounds they claim. They can't have it both ways and are taking the piss at the hill's expense!

nigelswift Jan 8, 2013 13:06:04

Replying to VBB

VBB wrote:

[Personally, I will press for an increased number of slightly larger signs around the fenceline and at key sites. The most important of these would be signs in the car park, and on the approaches, such as one mounted facing both directions on the new stile (so that one can't help but be confronted with it's message)

I think that would make a big difference. Most people, if confronted, would say they didn't see any notices. If they don't have that option a lot would not go up I reckon. EH need to employ a psychologist.

I'm not a big fan of saying EH archaeos go up there and they let the occasional Druid and film crews up there, so either everyone or no-one should be allowed up. It's all about limited numbers because damage is in proportion to numbers - and being organised.

Plus I'm willing to bet that if 15 respectable people approached EH for an accompanied group visit they'd be accommodated. If so that rather undermines the "my right to do what I like" sentiments that some use as justification. Maybe EH should advertise such trips, like they do at Stonehenge.