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 7 | Next ]
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
nigelswift
7904 posts

Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 07, 2013, 15:00
Harryshill wrote:
This kind of behaviour stinks and I was hoping for something a bit more positive than nothing can be done


Of course it does, but no-one's to blame for the lack of prosecutions as there's no way a single person can be shown in court to have caused damage. It's just the way it is.

On the other hand loads more and better notices would help. EH have a responsibility not to say nothing more can be done until they've done all they can.
bladup
bladup
1986 posts

Edited Jan 07, 2013, 15:20
Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 07, 2013, 15:18
Littlestone wrote:
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.


I agree with pretty much all of what you said but it's not the feet that's going to make it collapse [think of all the feet over 4500 years] it's all the archaeologist's holes that'll make that collapse happen [horrible thought], so when a archaeologist say's that feet are doing the damage it gets my back up because it's not addressing the real problem in any way at all and at worse it's shifting the blame.
Sanctuary
Sanctuary
4787 posts

Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 07, 2013, 15:23
nigelswift wrote:
Harryshill wrote:
This kind of behaviour stinks and I was hoping for something a bit more positive than nothing can be done


Of course it does, but no-one's to blame for the lack of prosecutions as there's no way a single person can be shown in court to have caused damage. It's just the way it is.

On the other hand loads more and better notices would help. EH have a responsibility not to say nothing more can be done until they've done all they can.


Yes but that apart Nigel, what about the trespass, is that not prosecutional? If it's not then all the talk in the world is not going to stop the damage as long as one can walk in and just get on with it. If the hill can't be defended in the courts then it can only be done by secure fencing...and I mean secure, with human presence. It's about time all the talking and excuses stopped. If the Queen owned SH outright they'd son find some way of making it secure!
Mustard
1041 posts

Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 07, 2013, 15:25
Sanctuary wrote:
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.

Laws can't solve all social problems. It's just not possible without a police state and coppers on every street. How, just for starters, would you even go about apprehending people who were climbing the hill? Assuming you just captured them on camera, how would you identify them? Regardless of whether prosecutions SHOULD take place, it's simply not practical and will never happen.
bladup
bladup
1986 posts

Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 07, 2013, 15:25
Sanctuary wrote:
nigelswift wrote:
Harryshill wrote:
This kind of behaviour stinks and I was hoping for something a bit more positive than nothing can be done


Of course it does, but no-one's to blame for the lack of prosecutions as there's no way a single person can be shown in court to have caused damage. It's just the way it is.

On the other hand loads more and better notices would help. EH have a responsibility not to say nothing more can be done until they've done all they can.


Yes but that apart Nigel, what about the trespass, is that not prosecutional? If it's not then all the talk in the world is not going to stop the damage as long as one can walk in and just get on with it. If the hill can't be defended in the courts then it can only be done by secure fencing...and I mean secure, with human presence. It's about time all the talking and excuses stopped. If the Queen owned SH outright they'd son find some way of making it secure!


Not from me.
Mustard
1041 posts

Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 07, 2013, 15:27
Sanctuary wrote:
If it's not then all the talk in the world is not going to stop the damage as long as one can walk in and just get on with it. If the hill can't be defended in the courts then it can only be done by secure fencing...and I mean secure, with human presence. It's about time all the talking and excuses stopped. If the Queen owned SH outright they'd son find some way of making it secure!

I'd be quite happy to see Silbury fenced off. But it won't work. People would just cut or climb the fence. The only way you could keep people off the hill would be to have a permanent security presence - which costs money.
bladup
bladup
1986 posts

Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 07, 2013, 15:28
Mustard wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
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.

Laws can't solve all social problems. It's just not possible without a police state and coppers on every street. How, just for starters, would you even go about apprehending people who were climbing the hill? Assuming you just captured them on camera, how would you identify them? Regardless of whether prosecutions SHOULD take place, it's simply not practical and will never happen.


Very well put, and it's a great fact isn't it, i'd die fighting against any police state [we're not quite in one yet].
bladup
bladup
1986 posts

Edited Jan 07, 2013, 15:34
Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 07, 2013, 15:32
Mustard wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
If it's not then all the talk in the world is not going to stop the damage as long as one can walk in and just get on with it. If the hill can't be defended in the courts then it can only be done by secure fencing...and I mean secure, with human presence. It's about time all the talking and excuses stopped. If the Queen owned SH outright they'd son find some way of making it secure!

I'd be quite happy to see Silbury fenced off. But it won't work. People would just cut or climb the fence. The only way you could keep people off the hill would be to have a permanent security presence - which costs money.



People would still get up even with permanent security because some are faster than others, they could stand there and shoot people who went up??? You're right they'll never stop people going up if they really want to.
Sanctuary
Sanctuary
4787 posts

Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 07, 2013, 15:53
Mustard wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
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.

Laws can't solve all social problems. It's just not possible without a police state and coppers on every street. How, just for starters, would you even go about apprehending people who were climbing the hill? Assuming you just captured them on camera, how would you identify them? Regardless of whether prosecutions SHOULD take place, it's simply not practical and will never happen.


How about erecting an animal proof fence and housing half a dozen lions in there :-)
Sanctuary
Sanctuary
4787 posts

Re: Silbury Hill trespassers
Jan 07, 2013, 15:54
bladup wrote:
Sanctuary wrote:
nigelswift wrote:
Harryshill wrote:
This kind of behaviour stinks and I was hoping for something a bit more positive than nothing can be done


Of course it does, but no-one's to blame for the lack of prosecutions as there's no way a single person can be shown in court to have caused damage. It's just the way it is.

On the other hand loads more and better notices would help. EH have a responsibility not to say nothing more can be done until they've done all they can.


Yes but that apart Nigel, what about the trespass, is that not prosecutional? If it's not then all the talk in the world is not going to stop the damage as long as one can walk in and just get on with it. If the hill can't be defended in the courts then it can only be done by secure fencing...and I mean secure, with human presence. It's about time all the talking and excuses stopped. If the Queen owned SH outright they'd son find some way of making it secure!


Not from me.


See my lions comment!!
Pages: 30 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ] Add a reply to this topic

The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index