You are currently browsing the monthly archive for September 2021.
See this: “Hello, we don’t allow illegal activity on our land, and if there’s clear evidence of illegal activity, this should be reported to the police, in addition to reporting to our staff.” But if there isn’t any, why warn people about what to do if they see it? Clearly, the Trust can’t pull the wool over the public’s eyes. They have very good eyesight and they understand there’s a massive difference between not allowing it and it not happening.
Explosive revelations contained within leaked Zoom webinars involving those at the heart of the fox hunting lobby appeared to reveal trail hunting is nothing but a “smokescreen” for chasing and killing of foxes and in the wake of that the Trust temporarily suspended trail hunting licences on its land. But only temporarily. It could come back after next month’s AGM.
If you don’t want it to, and you’re a Member, please support the following resolution, submitted by Dr Denise Taylor: “That the members agree that the National Trust will ban trail hunting, exempt hunting and hound exercise on their land, to prevent potential illegal activity in breach of the Hunting Act 2004 and the protection of Badgers Act 1992 and to prevent damage to other flora and fauna by hunts, their hounds and their followers.”
You can vote in person or by post or go to the voting website where you can appoint the Chair of the meeting to vote on your behalf, but it is vital you instruct the Chair how to vote, otherwise it will be left to their discretion, and last time they used that discretion to keep the activity on Trust land. Please don’t let happen this time.
.
It’s endlessly claimed that “the tunnel will stop the stones being choked by traffic fumes” …
Choked by fumes? Really? See this:
Chances are, the air is cleaner at the stones than at YOUR house! And definitely far cleaner than inside a tunnel.
This week a detectorist on a forum has made mention of a previous idea that landowners will need to apply for permission for detecting to take place on their land. One of his colleagues responded: “This is the most drastic form of a license. Totally ridiculous.”
But is it? As a country we entrust a precious public resource to farmers to decide who should interact with it, yet we give them very little knowledge on which to make the right decisions, often with very damaging results. If they were obliged by law to apply for a license to allow detecting they could be automatically alerted to areas of their land that might be best not disturbed, and why, and which people or rally organisers might be best not given permission. Plus, what they might reasonably require of anyone who WAS allowed on the land.
How does it not make sense for the landowner to be guided by advice from professionals with no vested interest rather than by goodness knows who from goodness knows where with a huge vested interest in him saying yes? Most metal detecting, while legal, is “under the official radar” and many rally owners deliberately withhold the event locations until the night before to ensure archaeologists don’t have time to object. Perhaps those involved in the reform process should consider the merits of this idea?
.
__________________________________________
More Heritage Journal views on artefact collecting
__________________________________________
National Highways insists that the estimated cost for the Stonehenge tunnel scheme remains at £1.7bn, despite staying that way for years and government contract figures now putting the scheme way above £2bn. And if you think that will be the end of it we have a bridge to sell you.
National Highways maintains that the contract values have not risen and that the total cost of the scheme remains at £1.7bn. Despite this, a National Highways spokesperson confirmed that the cost of the scheme will end up “towards £2bn” when non-recoverable tax is factored in. The spokesperson added: “[The] total estimated cost for the A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down upgrade past Stonehenge remains at £1.7bn, although incorporating non-recoverable VAT will take this figure towards £2bn, as noted in the company’s Annual Report. “This £2bn value represents all of the project’s estimated costs, of which the main works contract is a part.”
Got it?
This nonsense comes on top of the recent re-brand from Highways England, cost unknown, only six years after its last multimillion-pound rebranding. There are only three certainties in life: death, taxes and the fact the tunnel scheme will eventually cost an eye-watering amount.
Following our recent complaint about the National Trust’s failure to remember the word “everyone” when it comes to keeping its land free from trail hunting, we received this comment by S Keene:
“They did the same thing voting over the Stonehenge A303 improvements. Members’ motion at the Trust’s 2017 AGM asked Trustees to reconsider their position. Despite some 22,000 postal votes in favour, the motion was lost after the Chairman’s c.6,000 proxy votes were added to those against the motion, rather than for it.”
Imagine if next month the National Trust’s members instructed it to reject the tunnel! Watch out for every trick in the book being employed to prevent that happening!
By Nigel Swift
.
You hear it all the time from archaeologists and some detectorists: licensing will improve behaviour as the official code will be adhered to and finds will be recorded not concealed.
I think it’s tripe, whoever proposes it. £100 is well worth paying if you’re minded to conceal finds from a farmer in order to avoid sharing them with him or splitting a hoard into small elements to avoid the need to tell the coroner. Plus, “I’ve got a license” is a powerful certificate of false valour to show to landowners which could only increase the number of permissions given, including to crooks.
It’s to be hoped the forthcoming reforms don’t include licenses, unless for participation in an archaeology led project. All else will surely make a dire situation worse. There’s hardly a crook who isn’t a member of a club and NCMD and assures farmers they report everything to him and PAS. The stats show a different story. Why make it worse?
.
__________________________________________
More Heritage Journal views on artefact collecting
__________________________________________###
.
Matthew Anderson@MattAndersonNYT …
.
.
__________________________________________
More Heritage Journal views on artefact collecting
__________________________________________
Despite having temporarily banned trail hunting as a result of bombshell revelations the Trust has put the issue back on its agenda for a members’ vote at next month’s AGM. The question is why? Why should a temporary ban not be permanent one?
The previous AGM gives a clue: then, the board used discretionary proxy votes to defeat a motion calling for a ban despite a majority of Trust Members and 89% of the general public wanting a ban. Trust land doesn’t belong to the Board or even Trust Members and certainly not the pro-hunting pressure group that has joined as members.
It’s land that is everyone’s and for everyone to enjoy without encountering a diguised blood sport happening in front of them. But don’t take our word for it being everyone’s land. Take the Trust’s word:
.
The Heritage Journal 
You must be logged in to post a comment.