Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
The Modern Antiquarian Forum »
Silbury Hill »
Silbury Hill trespassers
Log In to post a reply

Pages: 30 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ]
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Harryshill
510 posts

Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 07, 2013, 12:45
I disagree. When i here talk about the odd venture up there I'm inclined to turn a 'blind eye' to it. Having said that the photo's I have seen of late seem to indicate that there is more damage than I thought, but that aside. This is about dreadful weather and poor ground conditions and people are still going up there.

It should be quite obvious to them that damage is occurring and that they will create more. This kind of behaviour stinks and I was hoping for something a bit more positive than nothing can be done, because, if thats true, then, that also stinks I
Evergreen Dazed
1881 posts

Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 07, 2013, 12:47
nigelswift wrote:
Sure, but the morning that "spectacular damage" to Silbury is publicised on the radio by a prominent archaeologist is a very good time to mention it again.


Yes. Perhaps in the news section.

I'm not trying to stifle debate, it's just that this subject always goes nuclear at some point and its no good for the forum or site as a whole.
nigelswift
7904 posts

Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 07, 2013, 12:56
No, not in the news section. It's a matter of central concern and every time damage is caused people ought to be able to express disapproval here. As I said, there may be differing opinions but the facts of the damage aren't open to dispute, i.e. it's real and regrettable, and there's no reason to steer clear of them.
Harryshill
510 posts

Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 07, 2013, 12:56
The way I see it is. I have kept out of dozens of threads, they don't interest me, I have nothing to add to it, anything I have to say will generate argument etc, etc.

I don't see this as the same subject and I do wish to discus it with people that might have an answer. If people believe they have heard or said enough then they don't have to join in.

I can't believe that any of us here doesn't care that the monument is reported as being damaged by others that can almost certainly see the damage they are doing are what others have recently done.
Evergreen Dazed
1881 posts

Edited Jan 07, 2013, 13:05
Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 07, 2013, 13:03
Nigel, Harry, you're free to say whatever you want to say, discuss whatever you want to discuss, i'm no authority. I'm simply following logic.

Forum thread to do with damage caused by climbing silbury = Trouble, everytime!

Perhaps i'm wrong. But in any case, i'll stop now so you can get on.
Harryshill
510 posts

Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 07, 2013, 13:04
Obviously that should have had the bit about the weather and ground conditions..
bladup
bladup
1986 posts

Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 07, 2013, 13:05
Evergreen Dazed wrote:
nigelswift wrote:
Sure, but the morning that "spectacular damage" to Silbury is publicised on the radio by a prominent archaeologist is a very good time to mention it again.


Yes. Perhaps in the news section.

I'm not trying to stifle debate, it's just that this subject always goes nuclear at some point and its no good for the forum or site as a whole.



The voice of reason.
Sanctuary
Sanctuary
4787 posts

Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 07, 2013, 13:08
Harryshill wrote:
The way I see it is. I have kept out of dozens of threads, they don't interest me, I have nothing to add to it, anything I have to say will generate argument etc, etc.

I don't see this as the same subject and I do wish to discus it with people that might have an answer. If people believe they have heard or said enough then they don't have to join in.

I can't believe that any of us here doesn't care that the monument is reported as being damaged by others that can almost certainly see the damage they are doing are what others have recently done.


To me the answer is quite straight forward. If illegal trespass is creating the damage then that trespass has to be stopped! If it can't, then there must be a severe weakness in that trespass law or it simply isn't being tested.
Harryshill
510 posts

Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 07, 2013, 13:14
I know, I would like to know what was going through their minds. With the depth of water around Silbury at the moment the access to the hill must be limited.

Wish the NT would send teams out randomly to interview them when they come down, just to find out why they would damage that they probably love.
Littlestone
Littlestone
5386 posts

Edited Jan 07, 2013, 14:51
Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 07, 2013, 14:50
Evergreen Dazed wrote:
Hmmm. An unfailingly intense and contentious topic on TMA. Whilst I don't doubt it's worthwhile posting a link to the story, I think we all know only too well how threads about climbing Silbury tend to go here.
'Famous', in fact, for it's ability to bring mayhem to this community, i'd say.

The forum has been good lately, it would be a shame for this to turn into one of 'those' threads.

Some of us think climbing Silbury is ok and will continue to do it, others don't. We never seem to get any further than that, whether Jim Leary says its causing damage or not!



Your argument seems to be based on the premise that, because an issue has been debated before it shouldn’t be debated again because it can and does result in strong disagreement (and as you say, in the worst case, mayhem). However, that’s a little like saying issues such as abortion, or the ordination of women bishops etc, shouldn’t be debated again and again because they may/will cause a degree of rancour. I also disagree that similar issues should be posted on one or more of the original threads; there really is no advantage to doing that as original threads can and do run into hundreds of posts and people (especially newcomers) might not want to scroll through them all. So, perhaps to avoided any possible mayhem, let’s agree to keep it civil right from the beginning.

Getting back to the main point, it might be worth remembering that Silbury came perilously close to collapse a few years ago when high levels of rainfall threatened its very survival. May of us held our breath at that time, genuinely very, very worried that it was going to collapse. I hope you’ll forgive us then for feeling a similar degree of concern now, after one of the wettest years on record, as well as a degree of anger towards those who, over the years, have brought Silbury to such a sorry state, and to those too who continue to treat it with such disrespect.
Pages: 30 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] Add a reply to this topic

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index