aw come on! that's a really bad reason. for a start it assumes the money would have to come from the public purse rather than from some rich dude patron type - like it used to - but even if it was public money , if you extrapolated that argument, as peter says, you wouldn't have any arts funding at all...and what an impoverished society we would live in.

isn't that what the daily mail always do? - calculate the number of nurses you could theoretically employ for the price of one (non) wobbly bridge.....(whilst crying for taxes to be reduced)

but i was simple wondering what the latest position on this issue is - it seems such a remarkable and magical thing that they found these things - I didn't even realise!

i mean you wouldn't argue that the mary rose should stay sunk because its sinking was part of its history would you?