I have to admit I'm a fence-sitter at the moment, but it's good to see people so passionate about sites like this.

Why wouldn't they be? This is arguably our most spectacular prehistoric asset and it's in severe trouble. It sounds a tad patronising to express pleasure that the public are passionate about it.

I can't see what fence there is for anyone to be sitting on. Either the hill is theirs and the money is theirs and they have a perfect right to make crucial decisions involving its welfare and the removal of many extra cubic metres of it without fully explaining it all.... or the reverse is true.

So what do you think - is the information flow commensurate with the situation? Are monthly updates an adequate amount of information to be offering the public about how the public's money is being spent on the public's hill? Bear in mind the EH Chief Executive wrote to me several years ago acknowledging the information flow on Silbury had NOT been adequate and assuring me he would do something about it.