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.