Sorry to be a bore, but since TMA is probably the most noticed source of popular opinion on matters relating to ancient heritage and is no doubt peeked at by an awful lot of heritage professionals, rather than simply dismissing English Heritage’s support for what may soon be perpetrated at our premier ancient icon as cack, I should like to cite two plain facts alongside what they are saying. It's right that the inconsistency is out in the open for all to see - and/or for EH to be asked to explain, if they can.

1. EH say that the improvement, even if a tunnel, “needs to be delivered in full if the UK is to fulfil its responsibilities under the World Heritage Convention”

2. Yet (in the words of Save Stonehenge) “even with the tunnel, over two miles of brand new, four-lane highway would still be bulldozed through the World Heritage Site.” http://www.savestonehenge.org.uk/homepage.html

3. And (as reported by Kate Fielden for Rescue News) at the public enquiry last December EH “accepted that all of the designated World Heritage Site (WHS) is of outstanding universal value and that the WH Convention, committing the Government to conservation, preservation, rehabilitation and presentation, applies to the whole of the designated area.” http://www.savestonehenge.org.uk/rescuespring07.html

Whatever EH’s reasons for supporting the tunnel scheme it seems they simply cannot logically claim that it “needs to be delivered in full if the UK is to fulfil its responsibilities under the World Heritage Convention” since it would do precisely the reverse.

Pass it on!