Silbury Hill forum 180 room
Image by texlahoma
Silbury Hill

did you just say what I think you said?

close
more_vert
VenerableBottyBurp V
VenerableBottyBurp Oct 29, 2005 14:01:15
Replying to tuesday

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

N nigelswift
nigelswift Oct 29, 2005 14:18:42
Replying to VenerableBottyBurp

Thanyyou VBB. That puts all the sniping and dismissal into it's proper context.

I'd add two further points:

First, if anyone is against this meeting they must believe that the proposed solution is the least damaging one. In fairness, they ought to reveal the source of their knowledge, and the thing can be cancelled straight away.

Second, if anyone thinks amateurs shouldn't be pushing for this meeting may I please refer them to EH's bosses at the DCMS. Are they professional enough to decide? They've just written telling me they're pleased that EH are holding a public meeting.

T tuesday
tuesday Oct 29, 2005 14:46:44
Replying to VenerableBottyBurp

just over an hour is going to be rather tight to cover all that don't you think? - and you might get derailed by a passing lizard......

it probably won't help to recriminate but there do seem so many important questions - could you not get EH to publicly agree that they will respond to all of them in writing - if they publicly commmit to doing that, they can be held to it..

P PeterH
PeterH Oct 29, 2005 21:58:57
Replying to VenerableBottyBurp

Five years a'coming and two hours to sort everything out to the satisfaction of all. Its a PR exercise - that's all. Enjoy.

L Littlestone
Littlestone Oct 29, 2005 22:31:47
Replying to VenerableBottyBurp

VBB - there's a lot of angst and passion in your post (which I respect tremendously) but I'm afraid a few things are going over my head - perhaps because I haven't been as involved with the 'Silbury Problem' for as long as you, Nigel and others.

For example, I'm afraid I don't quite understand what's behind your statement, "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?" (though I think I do understand the last bit :-)

The meaning behind all of your statement(s) is probably blindingly obvious to those close to the 'problem' but I'm now old and slow and stupid so I wonder if I could make a plea (both to you and everyone else involved in the future of Silbury) to be <i>really</i> clear and unambiguous in what you say (both on TMA and at the Meeting) otherwise, as Peter has just said, it will become just "...a PR exercise - that's all." and we, on this side of the argument, will lose the battle.

Thank you