Silbury Hill forum 180 room
Image by photobabe
Silbury Hill

Heritage Action and EH

close
more_vert
VenerableBottyBurp V
VenerableBottyBurp Sep 18, 2004 08:32:40
Replying to Steve Gray

My reading of the script for the meet is placed a little unfairly next to EH's vision of the scenario by Nigel as this merely shows the present difference betweeen thr non-believers and the conformists. So it is not a national disgrace (yet).... But I stand by the church scenario as it is a bit like being preached at then you get to shake hands withthe rector and offer a small comment if you can gird yourself after sitting in a pew for hours.

HA will have sympathisers (non-believers) at the meeting, so although as Pete rightly points out I think that the boat has left, all is far from lost.

However, while I don't want to presume to tell HA how to conduct itself but from a personal point of view I think there is room 4 some thoughts for future meets in that a policy needs to be sorted so there is no similar situation if called upon in the future (that was a mouthfull).

If you still feel you should have done something, I don't suppose someone wants to make some seld adhesive badges with "HA SAYS - SILBURY HILL FIX IT NOW" or SILBURY - WE WANT A FIX or some such wittyicism. I am sure we can find people to turn up and offer them to delegates as they enter. It would have to be something the believers would agree with to work, and not something objectionable.

VBB

V VenerableBottyBurp
VenerableBottyBurp Sep 18, 2004 08:34:44
Replying to VenerableBottyBurp

Sorry, that was self adhesive badges,

I SELD omake that mistake...

VBB

N nigelswift
nigelswift Sep 18, 2004 12:37:33
Replying to VenerableBottyBurp

VBB, I do think it might be appropriate for you to clarify your posting, lest people get the impression that you think the process is a valid one that is designed to do what it says on the tin, which I suspect you don't.

To me it is the context of the meeting that is the national disgrace, the unwavering refusal to provide a proper account to the public. The meeting itself, in my opinion, is merely an irrelevant though blatant attempt to get off that simple hook of public accountability.

Whether the public can gain even a shred of it's entitlement from this event is a matter for faith or lack of it. "All is far from lost" is your expression of a hope, but I don't share it. Where is there the least evidence that the necessary step-change in the corporate behaviour of the past 4 years has happened? How can it change, when proper disclosure will cause outrage?