Thanks once again for your measured reply fitz. Couple of points. You say, "Can I suggest that before calling for the resignation of the EH board that you sit back and re-evaluate what has actually been achieved by EH."

Well, sitting back and revaluating several things still brings me to the same conclusion I'm afraid - ie that English Heritage sat on their hands for seven years before doing anything to conserve Silbury, during which time the condition of the structure can be proved to have deteriorated. Also, their appalling waste of public money for the Stonehenge project is yet another example of their seeming ineptitude to address and resolve issues concerning our heritage. When English Heritage did decide to do something for Silbury some of their decisions were peculiar to say the least - their idea for a 'time capsule' being one, where they seemed more concerned with a PR exercise than the conservation of the structure.

Sorry to appear to be one of those continually criticizing English Heritage but they are, after all, our employees and I feel we have the right to bring them to book if they do not perform their duties as we expect them to. Just to clarify one point, I didn't call for the resignation of the EH board - I said that, "Those responsible at English Heritage for allowing this non-conservation grade synthetic material to be introduced into the structure should submit their resignations forthwith!" There is a difference, and I stand by that call for resignations (once again, these people are public servants, supposedly acting in the public interest, but in this case seemingly failing to do so).

At the end of your thoughtful post you say that, "Perhaps the new year could herald some kind of new start, water under the bridge and all that, and a more of a responsible approach to posting from all concerned on TMA.

"Here's a suggestion.
Most of the anti-EH folk seem to be HA members, so why not re-open the HA forum and take some of the pressure off TMA?"

Well, responsible posting and courtesy to fellow posters is always desirable. Might I add however that TMA (and I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong here) is not just about recording the latest rock art find or putting up another stunning photograph, it is also about discussing the damage, conservation and possible meaning of this aspect of our heritage. TMA is a wonderful place to do that, and I'm constantly amazed at the patience of the TMA eds for allowing discussions to continue when they often become so heated. If anything, that is the strength of TMA, and to siphon off, or isolate one particular aspect of the megalithic subject would, in my humble opinion, be a step towards diluting that which makes TMA so strong and so interesting.

LS