I'm not going to get too far into this, but feel I need to reply to a couple of points here:

>>I genuinely feel that those of us (esp those like Nigel & VBB) who have taken a big interest in Silbury over the years

>thanks for forgetting all the demo's I've organised and the letters I've written to Eh and the local press etc etc etc

Well, I'm sure I missed out lots of people who've made a lot of effort for the Hill. I did say 'those of us' and 'those like', so I'd've said you were all included there. Sorry I didn't give you a namecheck if it's so important to you. But I thought my friend Pete G organised the demos anyway.... ;^)

>>But the Silbury problem is an ENGINEERING problem
>Um... And an archaeological problem. After all its an ancient monument as well as a building.

Yes, but, again as my friend Pete G used to think before he suddenly seemed 'wowed' by the promise of 'new' archaeological discoveries, many of us feel that the structural integrity of Silbury is paramount. If archaeology can be investigated at the same time, using the best and safest method of repair for the integrity of the Hill, then fine - that's exactly what we want to hear at the meeting and we'll all go home happy!!!

But if Silbury's integrity is paramount, it makes it primarily an engineering issue. Which also makes it seem logical to wonder why EH are chosing an option that they seem to acknowledge is more invasive than other options and which may carry higher risks of unintended damage to the Hill than others.

As Nigel said - if EH'd just state publicly and clearly that the method they've chosen has been chosen because engineers say it's the best way of structurally fixing the Hill, and that investigation is a fantastic bonus, then many of us wouldn't see a need for a meeting!

love

Moth