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