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?
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?