28th July 2012, 07:49 AM
I should say that currently - there is a statement intended for Monday.
The Engineering company AME is in control of the archaeology and the intended meeting on Friday was rescheduled. and in is obvious that pressure is having an effect.
The archaeologists on site carried out work, took samples (when told not to) and kept records when told not to. so held up a mirror that showed these brave archaeologists put archaeology above all else.
According to here: http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/roads/a32c...tlink.html the original EIS was prepared in 2005. It would be nice to see this too.
2008 now: http://www.drdni.gov.uk/publications-det...docid=4108
The more questions that are asked.. the more they will take this seriously.
I do not want to prejudice things just now.
The Engineering company AME is in control of the archaeology and the intended meeting on Friday was rescheduled. and in is obvious that pressure is having an effect.
The archaeologists on site carried out work, took samples (when told not to) and kept records when told not to. so held up a mirror that showed these brave archaeologists put archaeology above all else.
According to here: http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/roads/a32c...tlink.html the original EIS was prepared in 2005. It would be nice to see this too.
2008 now: http://www.drdni.gov.uk/publications-det...docid=4108
The more questions that are asked.. the more they will take this seriously.
I do not want to prejudice things just now.