26th July 2012, 06:37 PM
Agreed Dino.... a bad move to act so harshly. As the result has been to make matters worse and to spotlight them... ( the company website is now " under construction while moving ) and people seem to be on a lot of annual leave
The site can even be found on a map from 1860 showing the crannog before it was buried when the lough was filled in. so in 1872 the area was a fearsome marsh.
So no reason to be surprised at the location of a Crannog. BUT
The Roads Service manager Seamus Keenan: "If we had known the crannog was in the area at the early stages we would have done everything we could to avoid it. In this case, we are dealing with an area which is a water logged bog essentially. It was only late in the day that we realised that the crannog was right there in the road line." (oh and he is on leave as well)
um... it is a registered site and there is an accurate map as to where it is. BIG surprise.! ??
and why it lay unexcavated and drying out for over a year..?
Too many questions....
Still the Minster for the DOE is preparing a statement which may be... and I stress may be... a compromise.
The site can even be found on a map from 1860 showing the crannog before it was buried when the lough was filled in. so in 1872 the area was a fearsome marsh.
So no reason to be surprised at the location of a Crannog. BUT
The Roads Service manager Seamus Keenan: "If we had known the crannog was in the area at the early stages we would have done everything we could to avoid it. In this case, we are dealing with an area which is a water logged bog essentially. It was only late in the day that we realised that the crannog was right there in the road line." (oh and he is on leave as well)
um... it is a registered site and there is an accurate map as to where it is. BIG surprise.! ??
and why it lay unexcavated and drying out for over a year..?
Too many questions....
Still the Minster for the DOE is preparing a statement which may be... and I stress may be... a compromise.