24th March 2005, 12:22 AM
The recent statement from Tarmac should in no way be seen as "reassuring". They have simply said that they will not touch the henges as they are protected. They will however, no doubt excavate everything else around them leaving them as islands. This is a perfect illustration of how pathetic our current "laws" are. Their move to leave a ten year gap between now and when they start eating up to the very limits of the henges is designed to help us all to forget, calm down and leave them alone to secure their profit margins un-molested. A similar "ten-year" strategy is regularly employed by the good old IFA in order to avoid reality and take responsibility.Don`t let Tarmac treat you like muppets-propaganda and carefully penned words hide many a monster.......
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Read the latest Digger... then follow the links (to come soon) to the full picture..
Mr Campling as a COunty Archaeologist is working within the constraints of a govt system and has acted according to the highest standards... What Tarmac do and where they do it is a matter of personal feelings.. for example I do not want Tarmac to quarry around the Henges... (personal).... I realise that if they do quarry around the henges they will have to do full archaeoligical investigation... (professional opinion)
Mr Campling is doing his job... and doing it well.. so you know where BAJR stands.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
10th April 2005, 11:45 AM
Understood sir however, Mr Campling aside-Tarmac have not announced that they won`t be biting away at the landscape at all, simply allowed a ten year gap and hint that fieldwork carried out under commercial conditions will be satisfactory and, act as a virtual license for them to continue in ten years time.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2005
11th April 2005, 12:23 PM
"In a three-page letter to The Digger, Mr Campling says 'I have never asked the general public or non-planning archaeologists not to sign the petition,' although he admits he did ask fellow curators in a private email group not to sign because the petition demanded 'all quarrying' around the henges stop. 'No planning archaeologist could honestly take this stance,' he explains, because it would halt existing permitted development and pre-judge future applications."
No, he replied to a question "surely there are no plans to quarry round the henges" by saying there are no plans, proposals or even discussions to quarry round the henges. This is the statement that Private Eye called a lie. Did Neil comment on that?
Neil did not mention this latest reason for not signing the petition when he posted the response to John Wood back in September 2003. He said the campaign website was a fabrication and that Mr Wood should not sign this petition or he would have been taken in "hook, line and sinker".
So, has Mr Campling responded to those specific points, or has he just made something else up?
