Also interesting is the fact that EH are happy to receive your monitor reports. We (HA) suggested such a scheme to them quite some time ago, (2005/6?) but were rebuffed on the grounds that such reports would not be up to the standard required and they did not have funds for training volunteers to provide the requisite information. Good to hear that, at least down there, they seem to have changed their tune on this one!
The 'Big Society' at work?
The 'problem' with the organised clean-ups is that they mainly take place at weekends when maybe you can't attend, so getting out there at random times like I do now I am retired and doing your bit is more viable for many people. They had no problem with me doing a bit of 'gardening' but to let them know if more needed doing. I suspect that's pretty par for the course but nice to be given the green light. I would imagine that once you are 'on-side' the chances of getting things done is much more likely within limitations.
Quite why people like you, or anyone else for that matter, can't be trusted to hand in reports up to an accepted standard is beyond me. All one can do is report on what one observes with regard to the condition of the sites, the damage seemingly being caused by stock or vandals, the vegetation growth and the access conditions to the site. Photographs compliment any report and often tell the whole story so it's not exactly rocket science is it, so I can see how disappointed you must have been.
I'm not there yet with Craddock Moor because I know that for as many people who will approve, just as many will appose (bit like TMA really LOL). If they appose then nothing gets done and the circle disappears altogether. That can never be right can it so things will change I'm sure if we all keep on pushing for it to. Let's not make a lack of funds an excuse for JP not to take a more active part in the survival of our heritage.
