If you're referring to what I just said about a statement, tuesday, I don't quite follow you.

My point in making a statement is that it will be just that - a statement made from the platform of accepted standards of conservation. If others want to challenge that statement I'll refer them to the IIC or to similar conservation bodies in this country and abroad and they can do their own research on the matter there. If there are some at the Meeting intent on squabbling (or introducing the latest alien theory to the proceedings) that's both very sad and a waste of this valuable opportunity - I think that's what Jane was asking people <i>not</i> to do when she said, "The meeting is about Silbury so please do everyone a favour & leave any ill-feeling aside."

Like you, and probably many others here, we've spent plenty of time in and out of meetings and I think you'll agree that a meeting worthy of the name will keep a record of what is said. A clearly prepared statement should go on record - let's hope that in years hence someone going through those records won't stumble on the best suggestions for the future of Silbury and say, "That was a good idea - wonder why they didn't carry it through."

Peace

Littlestone

Part of the reason for confusion over what this meeting is about is I feel, that the reason for this meeting has changed and evolved. Being five years, inevitably we lose sight of certain aspects.

That at the beginning the public did not know what was going on following the collapse saw a demand for EH to inform the public, and as this was ignored a public meeting would have let EH know how the public feel about being overlooked.

EH's unnecessary covert behaviour incited such as locals, continental earth mystery investigators, and dangerous sports clubs to abseil into the void. The public at this point would have asked how this was allowed to happen.

That EH ignored advice to use tarpaulins and put a metal cover over the hole that then collected water that attracted ice and collapsed causing further damage was quite appalling, and I think the public would at this point have asked how this was allowed to happen.

This line of timely questioning can be added to :

Why did they leave the hole open ?

Why did they keep Skanska's report's secret ?

Why did they use polystyrene as a repair ?

How did a trench come to be dug without scheduled consent and a watching archaeologist across one of the first protected monuments that has been in state care for over a century ?

How could the "hole" have been repaired and topped-up by the state so many times without EH knowing about it, and why are there so few state records relating to Silbury before 2000 ?

Why are they discussing Silbury in private and not publishing minutes ?

Why was the website not updated ?

Why publish articles in a limited circulation magazine rather than newspapers ?

Why have you taken decisions involving huge public sums without informing, letting alone involving, the public ?

In other words, this meeting is not just the "update" EH are saying it is, because they have never told you anything until now.

Their website is now looking pretty comprehensive, but the spin in the articles is unbelievable – and you would only know that if you had been kept informed all the way through.

This meeting has been five years coming, don't forget all the questions you had up till now !

VBB

http://www.westpress.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=145809&command=displayContent&sourceNode=145792&contentPK=13412554&moduleName=InternalSearch&formname=sidebarsearch