"I can't see much wrong with that. Someone enlighten me if that's a problem."
FW, a couple of things, briefly, to avoid my being sniped at, as might happen.
"re-enter Silbury Hill via the tunnel dug to its centre in 1968" is a nice way of saying boring a much bigger, entirely new tunnel. Words, eh?
There's more than this press release. A big chunk of material. Arrived Friday. Press release Monday. Timing, eh?
(Still, they've taken to calling me Nigel, which is nice.)
The likely collateral damage for each option is further explained. Guess which will cause VASTLY the most collateral damage? Yep, tunnelling.
Guess which will be VASTLY the most expensive? Yep, tunnelling.
Guess which THEY have chosen? (Before showing the data to you the concerned person or me the taxpayer?) Yep, tunnelling.
Oh and as a piece de resistance, having shown that tunnelling is by far the most damaging on the basis of their ASSUMPTIONS, they then admit that the amount of collateral damage that will happen in terms of collapses adjacent to the new tunnel actually CANNOT be known!
If they put the options before a hard bitten parliamentary accounts committee that asks them to PROPERLY explain why the most damaging and most uncertain and most expensive solution is being proposed, then fine. I don't think this press release or the data that lies behind it will do it for them though.
