You are currently browsing the daily archive for 28/05/2019.
In 2018 there was a clear sign of how the three Establishment conservation bodies intended to approach the Stonehenge short tunnel:
“Historic England, the National Trust and English Heritage welcome the work done by Highways England on the design of the proposed A303 road at Stonehenge” and the options put forward “go a long way towards protecting and enhancing the World Heritage Site”.
.
Doubtless millions have been reassured by that. Why not, when those three conservation bodies say all will be well with a short tunnel. But the Government wants a short tunnel, Highways England is its creature and those three conservation bodies are in receipt of the Government’s funding or patronage. So here, by contrast is the five minute contribution by Paul Gossage, speaking as “an ordinary member of the public” with nothing to gain except the Stonehenge Landscape’s protection forever, for everyone.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“Im speaking as an ordinary member of the public, but with a great deal of respect for what archaeologists and scientists have revealed about the area around Stonehenge.
There are two sides in this debate about the tunnel road project ..those for .and those against . But who should we believe?
Well, lets just look at the claims of two organisations, who normally behave ethically, but who support the tunnel. English Heritage and Historic England. Theyre the national bodies who are giving the tunnel project, historical legitimacy. And its no coincidence…that they both stand to gain enormously from it.
Its best if I refer to them both jointly as English Heritage, as on the tunnel issue they are working in unison, and English Heritage are the organisation Ive had quite a lot of correspondence with, my last being just 3 weeks ago.
Well lets look at English Heritages claims .. to see if they are credible and truthful.
If you do a Google search using the key words English Heritage and Blick Mead, youd expect to get a lot of results from such a leading historical organisation, letting the public know about Blick Mead. I mean, its just over a mile from Stonehenge and obviously related to it in some way. However, the only result you get, from the whole of the Web, is just three sentences.
Could it perhaps be, that English Heritage dont want people to know about Blick Mead as then they might realise how important it is .and perhaps think it shouldnt be damaged.
Anyway, as regards the actual credibility of those three sentences. The first one says, quote, There is no evidence that the proposed tunnel will damage the Mesolithic site of Blick Mead .Come on English Heritage this is completely untrue and the Blick Mead team have already given an abundance of scientific evidence to refute it. And even without that, its obvious that Blick Meads going to be damaged. The dig sites only about 20 metres from the current road and the new road is not like a long roll of stair-carpet that you can just lift up and then lay down a new one. Especially as the building of the new road will require a wide corridor of construction access either side. So, I think its completely dishonest of EH to say, quote There is no evidence that the proposed tunnel will damage the Mesolithic site of Blick Mead
Coming to sentence two, quote The proposed tunnel and any infrastructure needed to improve the Countess roundabout are well away from the site (Blick Mead is 700m away from the roundabout). Well, EH have used this figure of 700 metres to imply that Blick Mead is a long way away from any danger. As I said earlier, Blick Mead is just 20 metres from danger, so this 700 meters figure they have used gives a completely false and misleading impression. Presumably, 700 meters is what they think is the distance from Blick Mead to the roundabout. In fact, that distance is 500 meters. So their 700 meters figure is wrong ..its actually an exaggeration of 40%.
And the rest of sentence two is incorrect as it says, quote, any infrastructure needed to improve the Countess roundabout are well away from the site. This is just not true, because emerging from the roundabout .500 meters away and NOT 700 will be a massive four lane flyover 23 feet tall .on a huge embankment as well as .. two slip roads feeding traffic in and out of this large flyover, and one of these slip roads will merge into the two westbound traffic lanes, right by the Blick Mead dig site. So its completely dishonest of EH to say .quote any infrastructure needed to improve the Countess roundabout are well away from the site.
Coming lastly to sentence three, EH say, quote,Highways England is aware of the water table issues and will be assessing any potential impact on the site. This really is just trying the buck onto Highways England. Its obvious that the site will dry out if the road is built .and its scientifically proven that this will result in the loss of carbon dating evidence. Of course EH know all this but they just dont want to admit the truth, as that would then weaken their case for the tunnel.
In summary, I think those three English Heritage sentences are a mixture untrue statements, deliberately misleading information and deceit. The fact is, this tunnel project wouldnt be going ahead at all, if it didnt have their approval But they simply cannot be trusted to tell the truth on this issue. Anyway, please judge for yourselves whos telling the truth … I know what I think but please judge for yourselves
Thank you.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
