nigelswift wrote: That amounts to meeting an unco-opeerative minority half way which doesn't feel right when the majority are willing to not climb it.
Yes there'll always be some who will go up come what may but I still think some psychological tweaks would reduce the numbers quite considerably. EH should try those first I feel, especially as they would cost peanuts..
I'm just trying to strike a sensible balance Nigel. If nobody is going to be taken to book for climbing the hill then all the talking in the world is not going to stop them is it. When I climbed the hill (twice) as a much younger man we had a recognised path that people followed and stuck to. I was never witness to any damage to the hill at that time because we had the path and didn't have to sneak in the back way and cause damage like what is happening these days. At weekends as many people who visited the WKLB also scaled the hill, unless of course they were too elderly or infirm. Left to their own devices and a path to follow the public of old never caused problems damaging the hill...blame the official excavations for that!
Reply | with quote | Posted by Sanctuary 9th January 2013ce 10:38 |
Silbury Hill trespassers (Littlestone, Jan 07, 2013, 09:49)- Re: Silbury Hill trespassers (Harryshill, Jan 07, 2013, 10:30)
- Re: Silbury Hill trespassers (Evergreen Dazed, Jan 07, 2013, 11:03)
- Re: Silbury Hill trespassers (Harryshill, Jan 07, 2013, 11:15)
- Re: Silbury Hill trespassers (bladup, Jan 07, 2013, 11:37)
- Re: Silbury Hill trespassers (Littlestone, Jan 07, 2013, 14:50)
- Re: Silbury Hill trespassers (harestonesdown, Jan 11, 2013, 20:42)
- Re: Silbury Hill trespassers (VBB, Jan 12, 2013, 07:30)
- Re: Silbury Hill trespassers (Sanctuary, Jan 12, 2013, 07:48)
- Re: Silbury Hill trespassers (nigelswift, Jan 12, 2013, 08:08)
- Re: Silbury Hill trespassers (Sanctuary, Jan 12, 2013, 08:53)
- Re: Silbury Hill trespassers (nigelswift, Jan 12, 2013, 09:19)
- Re: Silbury Hill trespassers (Harryshill, Jan 12, 2013, 09:42)
- Re: Silbury Hill trespassers (Sanctuary, Jan 12, 2013, 09:55)
- Re: Silbury Hill trespassers (tjj, Jan 12, 2013, 09:58)
- Re: Silbury Hill trespassers (harestonesdown, Jan 12, 2013, 12:55)
- Re: Silbury Hill trespassers (harestonesdown, Jan 12, 2013, 12:42)
- Re: Silbury Hill trespassers (harestonesdown, Jan 12, 2013, 12:49)
- Re: Silbury Hill...what's that? (Sanctuary, Jan 07, 2013, 19:47)
- Re: Silbury Hill trespassers (tjj, Jan 07, 2013, 22:32)
- Re: Silbury Hill trespassers (Sanctuary, Jan 08, 2013, 21:17)
- tma discusses Silbury rationally? (VBB, Jan 09, 2013, 17:25)
- Re: Sponsored signage? (VBB, Jan 11, 2013, 08:23)
- Re: Sponsored signage? (Steve M, Jan 11, 2013, 08:27)
- Re: Sponsored signage? (Sanctuary, Jan 11, 2013, 08:32)
- Re: Sponsored signage? (tjj, Jan 11, 2013, 08:50)
- Re: Sponsored signage? (Littlestone, Jan 11, 2013, 09:02)
- Re: Sponsored signage? (nigelswift, Jan 11, 2013, 09:06)
|
|