NT stated at the time that the monuments would have been used anyway (via computer enhancement) so they thought they might as well cash in (my words - their sentiment). They also said that they needed to constantly review ways of generating income to help fund the 'preservation' of the sites in their care and gave the impression that this was one route they had decided to take.
In the previous thread, re: Uffington, there was a response from NT posted (I think) with this statement in it.
 Reply | with quote | Posted by FourWinds
24th January 2004ce
23:01 |
More Brandalism! (Pete G, Jan 13, 2004, 17:56)- Re: More Brandalism! (nigelswift, Jan 13, 2004, 19:00)
- Re: More Brandalism! (Visitor, Jan 13, 2004, 22:05)
- Re: More Brandalism! (third degree, Jan 13, 2004, 23:29)
- Re: More Brandalism! (Pete G, Jan 16, 2004, 16:39)
- Latest BBC report (Pete G, Jan 16, 2004, 19:12)
- Re: More Brandalism! (pure joy, Jan 18, 2004, 20:30)
- Re: More Brandalism! (Pete G, Jan 18, 2004, 20:32)
- Complain to Fiat I say! (Cursuswalker, Jan 20, 2004, 18:07)
- news soon (pure joy, Jan 22, 2004, 18:48)
- Re: news soon (nigelswift, Jan 22, 2004, 19:54)
- Re: news soon (pure joy, Jan 24, 2004, 22:29)
- Re: news soon (FourWinds, Jan 24, 2004, 23:01)
- Re: news soon (nigelswift, Jan 25, 2004, 05:36)
- Re: More Brandalism! (RiotGibbon, Jan 20, 2004, 17:06)
|
|
Head To Head 
Re: news soon (pure joy)