Re: Silbury Hill trespassers | Forum — The Modern Antiquarian

Silbury Hill 180

Image by thesweetcheat

Silbury Hill trespassers

Sanctuary Jan 12, 2013 07:48:25

Replying to VBB

VBB wrote:

harestonesdown wrote:

Evergreen Dazed wrote:

Hmmm. An unfailingly intense and contentious topic on TMA. Whilst I don't doubt it's worthwhile posting a link to the story, I think we all know only too well how threads about climbing Silbury tend to go here.
'Famous', in fact, for it's ability to bring mayhem to this community, i'd say.

The forum has been good lately, it would be a shame for this to turn into one of 'those' threads.

Some of us think climbing Silbury is ok and will continue to do it, others don't. We never seem to get any further than that, whether Jim Leary says its causing damage or not!

Absolutely, this is nothing more than another agm for the pointless thread society.

Well I think the astonishing length of this spat free thread says otherwise, as does the unified acceptance that there is an issue with damage caused by climbing, and that that is something that can only be minimised as it is impossible to prevent 100%. What that means is that people that have climbed Silbury or are about to can be brought to recognise that there is a problem, and something needs to be done to protect the monument and get folk to act responsibly. I think many people will think again once they have the message for sure. That is all that can and should be done.

Agree with you 100% VBB with regard to the acceptance by the majority that damage is being caused and also that it is almost impossible to eradicate the problem altogether unless there is a total blanket ban that is enforceable. A sensible and plausible compromise needs to be sought which is exactly what we have been discussing in a friendly and non inflamatory manner with no reason for that to change.

nigelswift Jan 12, 2013 08:08:53

Replying to Sanctuary

Yes, but I don't think a compromise is needed but a consensus. I'd suggest one has emerged, and it's this:

1. Some people think it's OK to climb because their individual action is harmless (and they're right)

2. Most think it's not OK to climb because the cumulative damage is harmful (and they're right)

3. The photos have emphasized how right group 2 is, so there's a growing view that whatever can be done to get most of group 1 to join group 2 should be.

4. It's mostly about better notices and it's really up to EH to address that issue. As someone who, in his time, put up dozens of notices there because they hadn't put up enough, and had them all removed by them without them adding to their own, I don't think there should be a request for them to do it but a public clamour.

harestonesdown Jan 12, 2013 12:49:13

Replying to Sanctuary

Sanctuary wrote:

with no reason for that to change.

Agreed.
Just bringing a bit of reality here Roy as signs wont work imo. I've spoke to dozens of people on their way to climb and nothing will stop them, in fact i tried to stop a friend going up last year but he wouldn't have it, indeed he went back twice more despite my words, people are drawn to it like a magnet and sensibility goes out the window.

Just to touch on sponsored signs, i believe the "hippies" for want of a better word will tear those down in no time due to the perceived sullying of their temple/sacred hill.