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 | 122 23 24 25 26 27 | Next ]
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
bladup
bladup
1986 posts

Re: tma discusses Silbury rationally?
Jan 10, 2013, 18:45
I must admit i was expecting a bit more from king Sil, no wonder his horse has bolted.
VBB
558 posts

Re: tma discusses Silbury rationally?
Jan 10, 2013, 18:48
tiompan wrote:
VBB wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
VBB wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
Steve M wrote:
bladup wrote:
No you've totally misunderstood, there was a collapsing tunnel, they even showed it on the telly, it will then take a few years [now] to see the effects of this collapse on the surface, if part of a tunnel collapes [it did] everything over it will also collapse over time, i say that's happening now, i hope i'm wrong but lets see what EH say over the next few years, i think you'll find they'll soon admit to slippage to do with the collapsing tunnel a few years back, a bit of backfilling just isn't enough to sort it out.


Ah, it was on the telly!
Remember - I don't have one.


LOL...well there you are Steve, look what you're missing out on :-)


How can you come out with that when all you watch is repeats of Allo Allo?


?


OK it might be repeats of Dad's Army or One Man and His Dog (if it's still going).
It's Homeland here, Borgen, Wallander, and Inspector Montelbano. But sometimes we have a change as I get to choose...!,


Borgen mmmmm.



Not sure if that's a "mmmmm" because of Sidse Babett Knudsen, but in case it is I will see your "mmmmm" and raise you "Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!"
Littlestone
Littlestone
5386 posts

An open letter to English Heritage
Jan 10, 2013, 18:53
Using your post ED (slightly edited) how about this on a separate thread entitled Trespassing on Silbury Hill: An open letter to English Heritage.


Dear English Heritage.

Following on from recent reports in the media, contributors to this board and elsewhere have become increasingly alarmed at the damage being caused to Silbury Hill by people ignoring your signs that ask them not to climb the monument. Many of us feel strongly that the signage is both inadequate and strikes the wrong note. We therefore suggest something along the lines of the following: a number of signs placed at sensitive points of (unauthorised) access to the monument, displayed in two or three languages and reading -

We know you might like to climb this ancient monument. We often feel the same. It is a magnificent, beautiful structure and its presence here, even after 4,000 years, is still breath-taking. We are so lucky just to still be able to come to this place to look at this hill and dream. We all do it. The people that love and care for our prehistoric heritage come here from all walks of life and from all parts of this country and the world.

Some, no doubt well meaning, old archaeological investigations, have compromised the integrity of this hill. At one point it was in a very real danger of collapsing. It is still in a very fragile state. Some people, in trying to feel as close a bond as possible, perhaps, to our ancestors and to our past, like to climb the hill. Many do not realise the damage that is done by what amounts to thousands of people walking on the hill over many years. We also know that most of those people would be horrified if they realised the damage they were inadvertently causing to such a precious monument.

We know you might like to climb this hill. We would too. But please don't.

We want it to still be here in another 4,000 years for others to marvel at as you do, and when you leave this place today we would like you to feel you have played your part in its survival.

Thank you and please enjoy your time here.



Can work in other suggestions, up until midday tomorrow, then I'm out of circulation for a bit. Would also suggest that the new thread is closed/locked in order to avoid one of those long, Silbury threads (if that’s OK with the eds and everyone else that is :-)
tiompan
tiompan
5758 posts

Re: tma discusses Silbury rationally?
Jan 10, 2013, 18:54
VBB wrote:
tiompan wrote:
VBB wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
VBB wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
Steve M wrote:
bladup wrote:
No you've totally misunderstood, there was a collapsing tunnel, they even showed it on the telly, it will then take a few years [now] to see the effects of this collapse on the surface, if part of a tunnel collapes [it did] everything over it will also collapse over time, i say that's happening now, i hope i'm wrong but lets see what EH say over the next few years, i think you'll find they'll soon admit to slippage to do with the collapsing tunnel a few years back, a bit of backfilling just isn't enough to sort it out.


Ah, it was on the telly!
Remember - I don't have one.


LOL...well there you are Steve, look what you're missing out on :-)


How can you come out with that when all you watch is repeats of Allo Allo?


?


OK it might be repeats of Dad's Army or One Man and His Dog (if it's still going).
It's Homeland here, Borgen, Wallander, and Inspector Montelbano. But sometimes we have a change as I get to choose...!,


Borgen mmmmm.



Not sure if that's a "mmmmm" because of Sidse Babett Knudsen, but in case it is I will see your "mmmmm" and raise you "Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!"


Yes an Homeric mmmmmmmm , the prog is also worthy of multiple mmms too .
VBB
558 posts

Re: An open letter to English Heritage
Jan 10, 2013, 19:28
Littlestone wrote:
Using your post ED (slightly edited) how about this on a separate thread entitled Trespassing on Silbury Hill: An open letter to English Heritage.


Dear English Heritage.

Following on from recent reports in the media, contributors to this board and elsewhere have become increasingly alarmed at the damage being caused to Silbury Hill by people ignoring your signs that ask them not to climb the monument. Many of us feel strongly that the signage is both inadequate and strikes the wrong note. We therefore suggest something along the lines of the following: a number of signs placed at sensitive points of (unauthorised) access to the monument, displayed in two or three languages and reading -

We know you might like to climb this ancient monument. We often feel the same. It is a magnificent, beautiful structure and its presence here, even after 4,000 years, is still breath-taking. We are so lucky just to still be able to come to this place to look at this hill and dream. We all do it. The people that love and care for our prehistoric heritage come here from all walks of life and from all parts of this country and the world.

Some, no doubt well meaning, old archaeological investigations, have compromised the integrity of this hill. At one point it was in a very real danger of collapsing. It is still in a very fragile state. Some people, in trying to feel as close a bond as possible, perhaps, to our ancestors and to our past, like to climb the hill. Many do not realise the damage that is done by what amounts to thousands of people walking on the hill over many years. We also know that most of those people would be horrified if they realised the damage they were inadvertently causing to such a precious monument.

We know you might like to climb this hill. We would too. But please don't.

We want it to still be here in another 4,000 years for others to marvel at as you do, and when you leave this place today we would like you to feel you have played your part in its survival.

Thank you and please enjoy your time here.



Can work in other suggestions, up until midday tomorrow, then I'm out of circulation for a bit. Would also suggest that the new thread is closed/locked in order to avoid one of those long, Silbury threads (if that’s OK with the eds and everyone else that is :-)


Someone not to be mentioned (not me) visited the site with EH on Sunday morning, having brought the problem to their attention. The grownups are gonna discuss it when we've all gone to bed, but if we're good we can stay up late tomorrow night and have an arrowroot biscuit. You being out of circulation, I would commit to saving it for your return, but I would only be fibbing because I'm likely to eat it!
Steve M
43 posts

Re: humour and passion - a success story
Jan 10, 2013, 20:34
Ack off yoo cheerful twat!
VBB
558 posts

Re: humour and passion - a success story
Jan 11, 2013, 08:12
Steve M wrote:
Ack off yoo cheerful twat!


Whale oil beef hooked! :)
VBB
558 posts

Re: Sponsored signage?
Jan 11, 2013, 08:23
Littlestone wrote:

Serious question (yes I know it is rare): with EH putting a hold on blue plaques (sort of) because they are skint, they could potentially claim they can't afford new/more signs. My reaction is Silbury can't afford not to have improved signage (and they should have taken note all along). Whilst I loathe the idea, and feel something of the spirit of place would be eclipsed, and it might even be counterproductive, what do people here think about signage potentially being sponsored?

Before anyone says that won't happen, the WHS road signs were always an embarrassment, have needed replacing for 5 years, and it looks like sponsorship might be the only way of achieving that. Yuk!
Steve M
43 posts

Re: Sponsored signage?
Jan 11, 2013, 08:27
Still prefeable to razor wire.
Sanctuary
Sanctuary
4787 posts

Re: Sponsored signage?
Jan 11, 2013, 08:32
VBB wrote:
Littlestone wrote:

Serious question (yes I know it is rare): with EH putting a hold on blue plaques (sort of) because they are skint, they could potentially claim they can't afford new/more signs. My reaction is Silbury can't afford not to have improved signage (and they should have taken note all along). Whilst I loathe the idea, and feel something of the spirit of place would be eclipsed, and it might even be counterproductive, what do people here think about signage potentially being sponsored?

Before anyone says that won't happen, the WHS road signs were always an embarrassment, have needed replacing for 5 years, and it looks like sponsorship might be the only way of achieving that. Yuk!


I suppose it depends on how 'pointed' the advertising angle was and possibly who the advertiser was. If it was very low key and didn't detract from the main subject line then I wouldn't have a problem with it personally. Shame it might have to come to this though.
Pages: 30 – [ Previous | 122 23 24 25 26 27 | Next ] Add a reply to this topic

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index