Why yowling moggy? Because a series of misrepresentations (17 so far) may suggest a concerted agenda.
Baroness Jones just asked “whether Highways England plan to investigate using a tunnel which avoids visual and physical damage to the Stonehenge, Avebury and Associated Sites World Heritage Site and its setting”. It was an easy question for the Government to deal with. Simply saying “yes, it’s one of several options” would answer the question but not bind them to it. But no. Lord Ahmed of Wimbledon said: “Highways England are considering a number of options for improving the section of the A303 close to Stonehenge, which include a variety of tunnel options. The results will be available for consideration at a public consultation to be held in 2017.”
The question called for just “yes” or “no” not “a variety” which means nothing. So we can safely infer a non-damaging option isn’t being considered. Had it been he would have been delighted to say so. We can also predict that only damaging options will be offered at the public consultation. Logic dictates it’s true. Which is more than can be said of Highways England’s reported statement after their recent Workshop that they “hope” the new A303 would avoid the WHS”!!
.
[To see the others put ‘Yowling’ in the search box.]
The Heritage Journal 
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
14/11/2016 at 12:26
Andrew Heaton
Nigel, Surely, the most desirable outcome for Stonehenge, is for what has been coined the ‘long’ tunnel, with the entrance and exit placed well outside the world heritage site (WHS) ? Such scheme would mean the roads could be returned to the environment and the whole setting of Stonehenge would be greatly improved. However, the inference here, is that the ‘long’ tunnel is therefore at the upper-end of what is needed and that it is ‘reasonable’ to make a compromise and go for a shorter tunnel. Is the ‘long’ tunnel proposed for Stonehenge really long ? And by comparison with what, exactly ? How about comparing it with the 24.7km bored tunnel which was suggested for HS2 under the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty ? – something for which the National Trust, actively campaigned. Perhaps the Stonehenge ‘long’ tunnel should be re-named as a ‘modest’ tunnel ? Regards, Andy
From: The Heritage Journal To: pubrunner2000@yahoo.com Sent: Monday, 14 November 2016, 8:02 Subject: [New post] A 17th yowling moggy: the parliamentary answer that said nothing and everything. #yiv1818385263 a:hover {color:red;}#yiv1818385263 a {text-decoration:none;color:#0088cc;}#yiv1818385263 a.yiv1818385263primaryactionlink:link, #yiv1818385263 a.yiv1818385263primaryactionlink:visited {background-color:#2585B2;color:#fff;}#yiv1818385263 a.yiv1818385263primaryactionlink:hover, #yiv1818385263 a.yiv1818385263primaryactionlink:active {background-color:#11729E;color:#fff;}#yiv1818385263 WordPress.com | heritageaction posted: “Why yowling moggy? Because a series of misrepresentations (17 so far) may suggest a concerted agenda. Baroness Jones just asked “whether Highways England plan to investigate using a tunnel which avoids visual and physical damage to the Stonehenge, Avebu” | |
14/11/2016 at 12:39
heritageaction
Fully agree Andy.
It is of course not ‘reasonable’ to make a compromise on Stonehenge, hence all the “yowling” to obscure that inescapable truth from the public.