|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Silbury Hill » Silbury Hill trespassers |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jan 08, 2013, 07:48
|
||
|
See here http://heritageaction.wordpress.com/2013/01/08/avebury-and-stonehenge-silburys-new-scars/
|
|||
|
67 Shelby Mustang 45 posts |
Jan 08, 2013, 08:48
|
||
'The Lions Of Silbury Hill' Great book title.
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Jan 08, 2013, 08:56
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: After giving a brief description of Silbury Hill on the warning boards it goes on to say:- 'The steep, slippery and irregular surface make it unsafe to allow public access and such access would damage the protected grasslandand archaeology of the monument. Please do not climb the monument'. That's nowhere near 'threatening' enough in todays world. Not a word about trespassing or it being illegal and of being presecuted. Why not?
|
|||
|
VBB 558 posts |
Jan 08, 2013, 10:55
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: nigelswift wrote: After giving a brief description of Silbury Hill on the warning boards it goes on to say:- 'The steep, slippery and irregular surface make it unsafe to allow public access and such access would damage the protected grasslandand archaeology of the monument. Please do not climb the monument'. That's nowhere near 'threatening' enough in todays world. Not a word about trespassing or it being illegal and of being presecuted. Why not? Threatening messages on signs would be counter-productive, it would be a red rag and has in any case been tried and failed. A staircase was rejected by the authorities on aesthetic grounds long ago, one only has to look at Fred Astaire's wooden hill inside the henge to see why, and from memory the last discussion ended on discussions of razor wire. Personally, I will press for an increased number of slightly larger signs around the fenceline and at key sites. The most important of these would be signs in the car park, and on the approaches, such as one mounted facing both directions on the new stile (so that one can't help but be confronted with it's message), as that particular stile is easily identified by the track from it as one of the actual causes of increased footfall towards Silbury from Avebury.
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Jan 08, 2013, 11:58
|
||
|
VBB wrote: Threatening messages on signs would be counter-productive, it would be a red rag and has in any case been tried and failed. I fail to see how a sign indicating that one would be trespassing and liable to prosecution if they climbed the hill counter-productive at all. What it needs is the culprits to be actually brought to book instead of everybody just mamby-pambying around them all the time. WHY is nobody being prosecuted? There is much more to this than meets the eye it seems to me. Maybe it's because while the NT are happy for the likes of Jim Leary to condemn people climbing the hill on their behalf, but allowing paying customers such as film crews to scale the hill for commercial reasons then they are going to win zilch in the courts on the grounds they claim. They can't have it both ways and are taking the piss at the hill's expense!
|
|||
|
Mustard 1043 posts |
Jan 08, 2013, 12:12
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: I fail to see how a sign indicating that one would be trespassing and liable to prosecution if they climbed the hill counter-productive at all. What it needs is the culprits to be actually brought to book instead of everybody just mamby-pambying around them all the time. WHY is nobody being prosecuted? You're thinking from the perspective of someone who is responsive to reasonable requests. There are plenty of people out there with a contrary nature who will react to a reasonable request by doing the exact opposite. I'm not sure HOW you expect prosecutions to take place? How will culprits be arrested, identified, and sufficient evidence gathered for a conviction?
|
|||
|
Evergreen Dazed 1881 posts |
Jan 08, 2013, 12:24
|
||
|
Mustard wrote: Sanctuary wrote: I fail to see how a sign indicating that one would be trespassing and liable to prosecution if they climbed the hill counter-productive at all. What it needs is the culprits to be actually brought to book instead of everybody just mamby-pambying around them all the time. WHY is nobody being prosecuted? You're thinking from the perspective of someone who is responsive to reasonable requests. There are plenty of people out there with a contrary nature who will react to a reasonable request by doing the exact opposite. I'm not sure HOW you expect prosecutions to take place? How will culprits be arrested, identified, and sufficient evidence gathered for a conviction? Of course thats not going to happen, for all the reasons you've pointed out M and more. Lets face it, if they want to stop people getting onto the hill they could reduce the number of people who do so dramatically by putting up big metal fencing with razor wire etc. Some would still manage to get over it, but it wouldn't be many. Job done. I'm of the opinion that the current situation is that EH are happy to turn a blind eye to a certain number of people climbing the hill, but they don't want to see an increase, and they'd rather it wan't during winter/wet when the turf can get easily churned up.
|
|||
tjj 3606 posts |
Edited Jan 08, 2013, 12:38
Jan 08, 2013, 12:33
|
||
|
Mustard wrote: Sanctuary wrote: I fail to see how a sign indicating that one would be trespassing and liable to prosecution if they climbed the hill counter-productive at all. What it needs is the culprits to be actually brought to book instead of everybody just mamby-pambying around them all the time. WHY is nobody being prosecuted? You're thinking from the perspective of someone who is responsive to reasonable requests. There are plenty of people out there with a contrary nature who will react to a reasonable request by doing the exact opposite. I'm not sure HOW you expect prosecutions to take place? How will culprits be arrested, identified, and sufficient evidence gathered for a conviction? I agree with what you are saying Mustard. I thought very much in black and white terms about this issue along the same lines as Roy until I met a woman late last year at a social gathering who admitted walking up there. Without going into too many details, 'ranting' at her would have been counter-productive and destructive so I just quietly stated the case for 'not'. I do strongly agree with Roy that EH should not be allowing film crews up there as they did a couple of years back (for Countryfile I think) with Jim Leary leading the way. He was just following the directive of his employers I'm sure but I for one was taken aback to see it. PS: Razor wire is horrible - hope never to see it at an ancient monument.
|
|||
goffik 3926 posts |
Jan 08, 2013, 12:50
|
||
|
That photo speaks volumes... I can't believe nobody's suggested astroturf! Hard-wearing, looks like grass from a distance - the idiots can climb it all they like then, without ruining it for the rest of us! :D G x
|
|||
|
Evergreen Dazed 1881 posts |
Edited Jan 08, 2013, 12:58
Jan 08, 2013, 12:56
|
||
|
tjj wrote: PS: Razor wire is horrible - hope never to see it at an ancient monument. Hardly ideal, but my point was that they could, if they absolutely *needed* to make sure people stopped climbing the hill, take that option. Thats why I qualified it with what I really believe is going on. I think the current approach is merely a limiting exercise rather than an absolute rule.
|
| Pages: 30 – [ Previous | 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 12 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
