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:
harestonesdown wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
harestonesdown wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
with no reason for that to change.

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.

That's why I favour the reinstatement of the path Geoff. You know what it's like, bloody hard work scrambling up the sides when you can easily walk up a path. Even an idiot would realise that and take the path route if he/she didn't have to hide around the back any longer!

I believe those using a reinstated path are a different breed to those who climb round the back, they simply wont want to pay, plus one of the "buzzes" is the fact you may get caught, though in reality that rarely happens i guess. You'll still have the erosion problem but with two approaches. Plus i'd personally hate to see the path reinstated myself, turns it into a fair ground ride imo.

They could hand out sacks for the ride back down.

Reply | with quote
Posted by bladup
12th January 2013ce

In reply to:

Re: Silbury Hill trespassers (harestonesdown)

Messages in this topic: