Silbury Hill 180
Image by pure joy

>> ... and there will be no need to even mention research dividends at the meeting since to do so would
>> clearly involve influencing opinion by reference to secondary issues that have zero bearing on
>> Silbury's structural welfare.

Well, there's no point in mentioning it unless you want to see it happen. If someone believes it is a cause as equally as important to stabalising the hill (I don't, but some might) then of course they should mention it and argue their case. Although I have no direct ideas at all about how this can/should be done for the best I can see that some will be able to argue that this (hopefully) will be the last time the hill is interfered with and that it is therefore of paramount importance to learn as much as we can with today's techniques.

"I can see that some will be able to argue that this (hopefully) will be the last time the hill is interfered with and that it is therefore of paramount importance to learn as much as we can with today's techniques"

... and I might agree with them, it's a noble sentiment.... providing it's not at the cost of otherwise avoidable major loss to the fabric.

But from all I've read, there may be a choice available: we can bequeath knowledge to the future at the cost of major loss or we can decline to do that and and bequeath a monument sans that major loss.

EH say there is no such choice available, Silbury MUST bear the loss and the knowledge gathering is an incidental compensation. My modest request is that they must explain very clearly to the public how that opinion is supported by the published facts.