Stonehenge: the “worth it” mantra has finally been demolished

Today UNESCO’s absolute opposition to the short tunnel has been fully expressed, no ifs or buts. Yet sadly it can be confidently predicted that the Government and it’s agencies will react by reiterating their simple mantra that whatever the downside, the tunnel is “worth it”.

.

But that has now become doubly difficult, given UNECO’s clarity and the National Audit Office’s recent criticism of the Government’s figures and methodology (people were asked how much they’d be willing to pay to enjoy the advantages of the scheme but weren’t properly informed of the heritage downside – the tactics, frankly, of a dodgy saleman).

.

Paul Gossage (whose submission to the Examining Authority we featured recently) illustrated how incompetent and dishonest that approach is rather neatly: “If a survey was done on a group of children then most would say “Yes” to an offer of an ice cream, but “No” if they were told they would be smacked whilst eating it.”

.

Three Government controlled conservation bodies and a Government road agency are telling the public the tunnel will “enhance and protect” the site. UNESCO and proper analysis suggest that’s far less than half true.

.

Stonehenge: remember how US scientists put Britain’s conservation bodies to shame?

Back in 2014 NASA announced that the archaeological remains at the Apollo lunar landing site are important to mankind and a priceless human treasure and must be protected – and said they wanted to establish a Lunar Heritage Protection Zone of at least 1.2 miles round them. Bravo!

Apollo 17 Lunar Heritage Site: protection limit 1.2 miles

The voluntary guidelines they devised for that and other lunar sites include no-go buffer zones, heritage “precincts” and recommendations about how to fly around sites to avoid stirring up destructive dust.

“No-go buffer zones“! …. “Important to mankind and a priceless human treasure and must be protected“! Compare and contrast English Heritage, Historic England and The National Trust who are supporting and advocating the building of massive dual carriageways within the Stonehenge landscape within a kilometre of the Stones and almost on top of Blick Mead!

Farmer Brown: bumpkins and heroes

Dear Friends,

Here’s a metal detecting rally organiser who makes loads of money out of denuding Britain’s archaeological record, blatantly boasting he uses Google Earth to target the places his customers from “around the world” can denude it the most.

No point repeating it, either you think that’s an outrage or you don’t. But as a farmer, one thing annoyed me a lot. He says they found a hoard at one event and when they told the farmer he just responded with “whatever”. Now, maybe that’s true, but what gets me is that exact that type of story has been told hundreds of times on detecting forums, always painting farmers as bumpkins, ignorant and disinterested, enlightened and guided by hero-detectorists.

Well Friends, as you know, to run a farm these days you need to be very  smart and educated and multi-skilled whereas to sweep a toy over soil for thousands of hours for half your life you don’t, to put it mildly. Just read some detecting forums and some farming ones to see the truth of that. So it seems to me if something as precious as heritage is to be protected, it ought to be done by farmers. And it would be, if only PAS directed its outreach away from stoney ground.

Silas Brown
Grunters Hollow Farm
Worfield
Salop

.

__________________________________________
More Heritage Journal views on artefact collecting
__________________________________________

Metal detecting: the pity of it!

..

.

When it comes to metal detecting, the pity of it is twofold: unlike egg collecting it’s a one way process, what’s taken stays taken, and unlike egg collecting Britain doesn’t try to stop it – and even tells the public it can be “responsible”!

.

We’ve been complaining about knowledge theft through non-reporting for 20 years now and the problem persists: today alone over 800 recordable finds won’t be reported and the knowledge they contain will thereby be stolen. Lest you doubt it, listen to the proprietor of a large detecting forum who boasts to his readers “I don’t record“ and (just this week) “I own what I find” and ….

.

“If you want to show the world that your a great guy by making the right noises about recording, you go for it. I’ll carry on calling things as I see them and for the most part, detectorists are hypocrites. They spew forth the mantra of showing the farmers everything they find, but they are selective in what they show the farmer. they spew forth the mantra of recording, but they are selective in what they record. if you think that they way forward is to promote hypocrisy then you have my pity.”

.

So, while PAS tells the world the vast majority of detectorists are “responsible”, Mr xxxxxxx, who is perfectly placed to judge, says no, “for the most part” detectorists are “selective” in both what they show the farmer and what they record. That’s the pity of it.

.

__________________________________________
More Heritage Journal views on artefact collecting
__________________________________________

Stonehenge diminished

Here are two travellers, let’s call them Joseph and Benjamin, enjoying a view of Stonehenge, in about 1885. For Free.

A few decades later their grandsons, Joey and Ben (plus a host of other visitors from all over the world) began to PAY to see that view. Currently it’s nearly £20 for the right to park and to take a trip on a small crowded bus with Step into England’s story on the side in very curly writing to remind you its historical!

But England’s Story doesn’t end there, it’s to be diminished, for soon it seems gt. gt. gt. grandsons Jay and Benj, off to Cornwall for surfing with no time to stop – and millions like them – will never see the stones at all! How is that progress? And how, if millions and eventually tens of millions won’t ever see the stones, is that not theft?

What’s happened to the old fashioned moral imperative to simply do what’s right by people both now and in the future? Quangoed?

Stonehenge: hired words versus facts.

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.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

“I’m 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. They’re the national bodies who are giving the tunnel project, historical legitimacy. And it’s no coincidence…that they both stand to gain enormously from it.

It’s 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 I’ve had quite a lot of correspondence with, my last being just 3 weeks ago.

Well……lets look at English Heritage’s claims….. to see if they are credible…… and truthful.

If you do a Google search using the key words “English Heritage and Blick Mead”, you’d expect to get a lot of results from such a leading historical organisation, letting the public know about Blick Mead. I mean, it’s 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 don’t want people to know about Blick Mead……as then they might realise how important it is….and perhaps think it shouldn’t 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, it’s obvious that Blick Mead’s going to be damaged. The dig site’s 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 it’s 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 it’s 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. It’s obvious that the site will dry out if the road is built….and it’s scientifically proven that this will result in the loss of carbon dating evidence. Of course EH know all this……but they just don’t 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 wouldn’t be going ahead at all, if it didn’t have their approval……But they simply cannot be trusted to tell the truth on this issue. Anyway, please judge for yourselves who’s telling the truth…… I know what I think……but please judge for yourselves………

Thank you.”

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

 

Wow! Farmer Brown has set an embarrassing cat among the pigeons!

Dear Fellow Landowners,

Blimey! All I said yesterday was we farmers should ensure detectorists have been vetted. A number of detectorists have responded with fury! They say they don’t need vetting as detecting is a matter of trust! So priests, doorstep salesmen and doctors need vetting but not them! And warnings to the public not to let unverified people into their houses (or computers) doesn’t apply to strangers searching your fields for your property!

Funny, isn’t it, how a blindingly simple suggestion by a notional octogenarian farmer has instantly exposed a truth – for show me a person who resists being vetted and I’ll show you a person who needs vetting! Oh, and I now hear PAS says it can’t do the vetting as they don’t know most detectorists personally. Which begs the question: why have they spent 20 years implying to farmers almost all detectorists are fine to have on their fields?

Would any PAS employee, including their top man, have “Wayne from Wigan, no exact address” searching unsupervised in their back gardens? No? Why not?!

Regards
Silas Brown
Grunters Hollow
Worfield
Salop

.

__________________________________________
More Heritage Journal views on artefact collecting
__________________________________________

Farmer Brown: a foolproof way to ensure metal detectorists are honest!

Dear Colleagues,

I’ve just seen this Heritage Journal Comment from a member of the public, Andy Heaton, about a press article, “Mystery of Shropshire Iron Age coin hoard detectorists” :.

---

“Bonkers Britain indeed ! Take a look at the ‘facts’ – of which there are few! Two detectorists ‘Andrew’ & ‘Charlie’ and ‘possibly from Kent’, dug up a number of coins and kindly gave them to the farmer. Realistically, they could be called anything and they could be from anywhere; oh yes, the mobile phone number that they gave to the farmer doesn’t exist. Take note, that they ‘gave’ the coins (that they didn’t own in the first place) to the farmer – was that all the coins, or just a few? we shall never know.“

---

.

But of course we all DO know. People called ‘Andrew’ & ‘Charlie, possibly from Kent, with a non-existent mobile number are not there to help any farmer or Britain. Nor are any people with any name from anywhere who claim to be amateur archaeologists yet put finds in their pockets.

It’s simple, friends:
Ask the Portable Antiquities Scheme  mlewis@thebritishmuseum.ac.uk or your local archaeologist or museum to vouch in writing for anyone wanting to metal detect on your land. If they won’t, don’t allow it. How can that possibly not be fair and sensible?

Regards,
Silas Brown,
Grunters Hollow,
Worfield,
Salop

.

__________________________________________
More Heritage Journal views on artefact collecting
__________________________________________

Fair’s fair, English Heritage & Co !

English Heritage’s renovation of the Iron Bridge is marvellous!

.

And the National Trust’s care for Lindisfarne Castle is superb

‘

And Historic England’s Conservation Advice and Guidance is exemplary …..

.

So how come all three are now cheerleading for massive new damage to be created for a mile across the Stonehenge Landscape against UNESCO’s wishes?

.

What’s more, did Highways England massage the Stonehenge figures?

As already announced by the National Audit Office, the project will deliver “£1.15 of quantified benefit for every £1 spent”, which is “a significantly lower benefit-cost ratio than is usual in road schemes” and in their experience “this ratio could move to an even lower or negative value.”

You might think that’s bad enough but now it transpires that the £1.15 figure was reached because Highways England included a monetary value for “cultural heritage” in the costings and they worked that out “by asking the public how much it would pay to have the road removed from the site”. Yet that’s a false and misleading approach: it’s not just that a road is being removed, it’s that a mile of new road is being constructed, causing vast new damage. You can be sure Highways England didn’t stress that to those it canvassed, or the fact that UNESCO says that cultural loss is unacceptable.

In any case, cultural value can never be reduced to monetary terms as the value depends entirely on who you ask. In anticipation of that criticism Highways England said they had used “approved methodologies” to get to the figure. The National Audit Office politely said “calculating benefits in this way is inherently uncertain.” We prefer to call a spade a spade: it’s baloney. If it isn’t, let’s see them use their method to calculate the cultural value of The Pyramids, Hamlet or a sunset.

If a positive cultural benefit has been falsely represented in the figures then the “£1.15 of quantified benefit” must be lower and the project is already in a negative benefit situation.