4th March 2005, 03:55 PM
We do have to be careful, and BAJR especially so - As it must remain a place where everyone trusts.
the PI article is damming.. but I will wait until I hear the other side as well. I hope that the IFA or Mr Campling will have something to say.
THere may well be good explanations for a 2% sampling... there may well be a reason behind the statement that ther is little or no archaeology. there may even be a good reason why Tarmac is pushing on with plans for the Moor - when they said they would wait for the EH consultation
(ps I have just been told that the consultation contract has been awarded - although now a year after it was first mentioned, I am sure it has nothing to do with Tarmac taking over 6 months to reply.
We must be careful, but I agree that we can't stand by and watch either - what matters is the archaeology, which is irreplaceable. I will keep my eye on this. :face-topic:
the PI article is damming.. but I will wait until I hear the other side as well. I hope that the IFA or Mr Campling will have something to say.
THere may well be good explanations for a 2% sampling... there may well be a reason behind the statement that ther is little or no archaeology. there may even be a good reason why Tarmac is pushing on with plans for the Moor - when they said they would wait for the EH consultation
(ps I have just been told that the consultation contract has been awarded - although now a year after it was first mentioned, I am sure it has nothing to do with Tarmac taking over 6 months to reply.
We must be careful, but I agree that we can't stand by and watch either - what matters is the archaeology, which is irreplaceable. I will keep my eye on this. :face-topic: