Re: Silbury Hill, the truth | Forum — The Modern Antiquarian

Silbury Hill 180

Image by juswin

To the Heart of the Matter

tjj Nov 10, 2007 14:20:26

Replying to wd

Hello Winterbourne Defenders

Speaking as someone who lives in a town near to Avebury, Silbury, the Winterbourne, Swallowhead Spring, WKLB and all the other magical (and sacred) places in that part of Wiltshire - I consider myself privileged to, on a day off, be able to take the 49 bus from Swindon to Avebury and wander through this wonderful land-scape.

I don't know anything about you and your name seems to be new to this forum - however, it seems to indicate the plural (as in Heritage Action). I just wonder, and it is only a thought, whether the constant hectoring of English Heritage is felt to be negative and counter-productive by others who read this forum.

Effective campaigning is not necessarily about insulting the other side and I do not recall Lord Avebury using language such as 'plonkers' in the heart-felt and erudite letter he wrote against the ill-advised time capsule project.

Lots of people who leither live near Silbury or who just visit the area a few times a year, care passionately about how it is conserved and protected. It would be really good if the campaigning work of Heritage Action could be bit more inclusive and little less elitist - becuse that is how it sometimes comes across.

I think at the end of the day we are all on the same side.

with best wishes
June Jackson (tjj)

nigelswift Nov 10, 2007 14:37:53

Replying to tjj

it seems to indicate the plural (as in Heritage Action)

Point of info:
Wd and Winterbourne Defenders aren't connected with Heritage Action.

wd Nov 10, 2007 17:50:39

Replying to tjj

Hi tjj,

I'm sorry if I come across as anti-english heritage, I'm not by any means. The majority of their workforce are only in their job for the love of it. Its not as if they are in it for the money or prestige. They work hard, long hours and get people like me inadvertantly abusing them on online forums. The EH I dislike is the Corporate EH. The ones that seemingly care more about their funding and PR than the stuff they are supposed to be protecting.

Personally I abhor the elephant in the room. All those hundreds of people; EH employees, Skanska employees, contractors, press, councillors, other random invitees. They've been inside, they've seen and heard the evidence, and yet apparently they keep schtum.

Way I see this, either the word on the ground is wrong or those people are really too ignorant, shallow or scared that they won't whistleblow to save Silbury.

In a years time are we going to need to reference these warnings to prove to some regulator or a suddenly interested newspaper that the collapse of the hill was predicted? known about? Will we really need to use the freedom of information act to get those emails between senior EH people to prove what they knew, to find out exactly why it was never released before it was too late? Lets hope not.

Littlestone Nov 11, 2007 12:59:07

Replying to tjj

If you're referring to the post above where I used 'bungling plonkers' to describe those at English Heritage (and elsewhere, past and present) over their 'conservation' policy at Silbury I'm afraid I fail to see the connection between that post and Lord Avebury's letter in The Guardian. I make no apologies for referring to those responsible for the delayed Silbury conservation programme as bungling plonkers because that is what they are (as were Atkinson, the BBC and others before them). Nor is there any doubt in my mind that it was the vigorous debate on TMA over English Heritage's 'ill-advised time capsule project' (as well as Lord Avebury's letter) that succeeded in forcing English Heritage to abandon the project. I'm afraid I don't agree with your statement that, "Effective campaigning is not necessarily about insulting the other side..." Effective campaigning is very often about insulting (or lampooning) the other side and showing it up for the incompetent institution or individual that it is. The likes of Bremer, Hislop, Humphrys and Merton insult and lampoon the 'other side' regularly - in a way they're running their own campaign and are applauded for doing so. You may find that sort of campaigning distasteful - I do not; in fact that sort of campaigning has been a pillar of our social conscience and an avenue for 'us' to express our dissatisfaction with the 'establishment' and people in power for centuries.

You may believe that, "...at the end of the day we are all on the same side." but the reality is that we are often not all on the same side. Public institutions are riddled with incompetence and the personal aggrandisement of some in them. By contrast there are people here and in other campaign groups who have the courage to call a spade a spade, take the flack that goes with it, and continue to call a spade a spade. Meanwhile others keep silent, make silly comments in an attempt to undermine the issue or try to score points and advance their own personal agenda - missing or ignoring the real issue in the process.

And the real issue here is the stability of Silbury - so let's get back to discussing that shall we. Those who have been inside the structure (especially recently) have a responsibility to share with us here, and with the wider public, what they have seen and what they know. Those at English Heritage have a responsibility to keep the public up-to-date (with at least weekly updates) on their progress at Silbury. Those updates should not only contain detailed information on the major issues of instability or the discovery of further voids but discuss less urgent (though equally important) issues such as the removal of the Atkinson/BBC door and lintel - an announcement on which could be made tomorrow if English Heritage so wished.