8th December 2005, 12:38 AM
Serious again (couldn't find a suitable Smillie).
English Heritage have got themselves into a muddle.
Because if they say this site is of national importance and should be scheduled (which doesn't always prevent ploughing anyway I was told)They lay themselves open to demands for the same scheduling for countless archaeological sites of various periods across the whole of Britain.
And we all know of sites in an 'ideal world' that could be scheduled.
And of course if they were brave enough to schedule Thornborough (and I think they should) I guess they would face a lengthy court battle with Tarmac with an uncertain outcome.
But I don't think they have got the guts.
They could also (if they were a dynamic heritage and archaeological site lobby group) tap into the European Unions policy of taking land out of production and press for a new law preventing ploughing around important archaeological sites (at the very least until the multinationals who are now running most farms pay for the archaeology).
But I don't think they will do any such thing.
I have not been working in British archaeology very long, so I will stand corrected if I have got the wrong idea. But it appears to me that EH however much good work they do, are basically a government quango tied to the governments support for development and therefore dependent on government funding[?]
I don't know I haven't been here long.
But they don't seem to conducting a very coherent argument against the quarry.
I think I could produce a better argument against the quarry than they do.
They just seem to keep shouting "National Importance" and not expanding on their argument.
Or have I got the wrong impression?
Arthus
English Heritage have got themselves into a muddle.
Because if they say this site is of national importance and should be scheduled (which doesn't always prevent ploughing anyway I was told)They lay themselves open to demands for the same scheduling for countless archaeological sites of various periods across the whole of Britain.
And we all know of sites in an 'ideal world' that could be scheduled.
And of course if they were brave enough to schedule Thornborough (and I think they should) I guess they would face a lengthy court battle with Tarmac with an uncertain outcome.
But I don't think they have got the guts.
They could also (if they were a dynamic heritage and archaeological site lobby group) tap into the European Unions policy of taking land out of production and press for a new law preventing ploughing around important archaeological sites (at the very least until the multinationals who are now running most farms pay for the archaeology).
But I don't think they will do any such thing.
I have not been working in British archaeology very long, so I will stand corrected if I have got the wrong idea. But it appears to me that EH however much good work they do, are basically a government quango tied to the governments support for development and therefore dependent on government funding[?]
I don't know I haven't been here long.
But they don't seem to conducting a very coherent argument against the quarry.
I think I could produce a better argument against the quarry than they do.
They just seem to keep shouting "National Importance" and not expanding on their argument.
Or have I got the wrong impression?
Arthus