The Modern Antiquarian. Stone Circles, Ancient Sites, Neolithic Monuments, Ancient Monuments, Prehistoric Sites, Megalithic MysteriesThe Modern Antiquarian

Head To Head   The Modern Antiquarian   Silbury Hill Forum Start a topic | Search
Silbury Hill
Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
295 messages
Select a forum:
thesweetcheat wrote:
Way more people would climb the hill if you put a designated path in. Way, way more. People (the majority of people anyway) generally stick to footpaths when out in the countryside, there is a strong fear of "getting caught" that most people have. Clearly there are exceptions and as we have discussed plenty of times before, people draw their personal line in different places across different contexts.

Putting a little post up with a "this way to climb Silbury" sign on it will generate a huge increase in people who will climb it. I think it would take the numbers from several dozen a year well into the hundreds.

I personally think it's the way forward but quite happy to accept other peoples opinions and reasons.

Now, to bring the dreaded H&S into the equasion. If an approved path was laid how liable would the NT be if somebody's kid fell whilst playing silly buggers?
Conversely, if things remained as they are, could a trespasser who fell and got injured claim on the grounds that the NT didn't have secure fences up and the signs didn't say it was illegal to climb the hill? In other words, did the NT go to enough lengths to prevent JP from climbing it?

Reply | with quote
Posted by Sanctuary
7th January 2013ce

In reply to:

Re: Silbury Hill trespassers (thesweetcheat)

Messages in this topic: