Why are you going on about "rules" as though that's what this discussion is about?
It's only been about =one= rule ie not going on prehistoric sites when you[ve specifically been asked not to, to prevent damage to the site.
It's irrelevant whether Nigel has trespassed just anywhere, because those places don't have this damage-mitigating rule.
Even if he had wandered all over Silbury in the past*, if that's not his stance any more it's pretty irrelevant to whether or not =you= can in a reasoned argument, justify your own trespassing on fragile sites now.
*which I can't imagine he has, right.
|