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.
Reply | with quote | Posted by nigelswift 12th January 2013ce 08:08 |
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)
|
|