Featured: How and why the ancients enchanted Great Britain and Brittany

How and why the ancients enchanted Great Britain and Brittany

Random Image


Hayden Butte

Stonehenge: The Story So Far, Julian Richards

Stonehenge: The Story So Far, Julian Richards

Who's Online

There are currently, 345 guests and 3 members online.

You are a guest. To join in, please register for free by clicking here

Sponsors

Moderated by : Andy B , Klingon , TheCaptain , bat400 , davidmorgan , Runemage , SolarMegalith , sem , Martin_L

The Megalithic Portal and Megalith Map : Index >> Stones Forum >> Petition to save the Stonehenge World Heritage Site from harmful road tunnels
New  Reply
Page 12 of 17 ( 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 )
AuthorPetition to save the Stonehenge World Heritage Site from harmful road tunnels
GarryDenke



Joined:
01-06-2004


Messages: 434
from General Delivery, Caddo, Texas 76424 USA

OFF-Line

 Posted 29-10-2020 at 16:14   
https://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/18815713.35m-archaeological-work-a303-stonehenge-site/

"Instead of fighting the enemy for a longer tunnel
British Archaeology's signing contracts? What?!"
~ Donna Stone

Remember, the Alamo.




 Profile   Reply
Orpbit



Joined:
24-06-2012


Messages: 1551
from Shropshire

OFF-Line

 Posted 29-10-2020 at 16:47   
Thank you Mr Denke, posts read.

Quite how I'm to get the "documents" I don't know - my home, email...
but I'll wait with interest. Your £144,000 that you say the particular organisation stole is but pennies to you I guess, but I always applaud anyone fighting on the matter of principle. They are corporations d/b/a "heritage protection agencies".

The principle of democracy is being taken away in front of our very eyes - started rolling 23 March 2020 - and everyone is "blind" to it, but they still claim to have 2020 vision!

If all is above board, I shan't be digging just photographing, but for free from within the circle, if documentaion shows such. Forgive me if I continue fighting in my own way, nothing is over until "the fat lady sings" as the saying goes. AROUND not THROUGH (whether over, on or under).

http://wagneroperas.com/indextwilight1.html






 Profile   Reply
GarryDenke



Joined:
01-06-2004


Messages: 434
from General Delivery, Caddo, Texas 76424 USA

OFF-Line

 Posted 30-10-2020 at 10:55   
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-stonehenge-world-heritage-site

So this thread's Petition was just a sham to jack-up that contract price
of archaeologists who agreed to the short tunnel all along and weeks
before Grant's so-called announcement. Nobody's fooled except the
114,222 plus signers lured into thinking they were saving the site.

G-D




 Profile   Reply
Orpbit



Joined:
24-06-2012


Messages: 1551
from Shropshire

OFF-Line

 Posted 30-10-2020 at 16:06   
Well, whatever, else with regard to previous forum posts, and you calling me a "willy wally", we do at least appear to be singing from the same "hymn sheet" at the moment, see my post on Stockdale's HSMF thread (top of page 66):

https://www.megalithic.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=Forum&file=viewtopic&topic=6869&forum=4&start=1300

More interestingly, some time ago - and again sort of relevant to the discussion as at thread above about the Egyptian Royal Cubit - I read somewhere that the ERC has an alternative name, namely "Covid". unfortunately I never found any information about this, not even in the Oxford English Dictionary nor lexicography sites anywhere. Now, any search term is flooded, even more than the biblical "deluge", with results referring to Covid-19 which interestingly now has indeed been included in the said OED above!

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/apr/15/oxford-dictionary-revised-to-record-linguistic-impact-of-covid-19

But I did find a site with, very strangely, the connection from the opposite direction:

https://cubitengineering.co.uk/

With Covid-19 matters clearly indicated in its banner. So I looked to see what expertise they had as registered at Companies House - and found something absurd, which is clear when you read this document to be found at:

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/06634964/filing-history?page=2

and the incorporation document at - with respect to the "Company's objects" - scroll to the very bottom and view the "Incorporation" 2008 .pdf file.

It's a "General Commercial Company" with a string of interesting objectives, none of them really with anything directly to point you to their trading name and promotional activities.

So at the collapse of the World economies in 2008 they set up a company which...(judge for yourself).

Now with HMRC on a 10-year programme of regionalisation:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/issue-briefing-hmrc-announces-next-step-in-its-ten-year-modernisation-programme/hmrc-announces-next-step-in-its-ten-year-modernisation-programme-to-become-a-tax-authority-for-the-future

And then the Government hot-footing to build regional "law courts", suggested by "conspiracy theorists" to handle the foreclosure of business properties expected as a result of going bust, and not being able to repay Covid-19 business loans...

some visionary thinking on the part of this company for the time being d/b/a as electrical and mechanical engineers. I'm watching out for a business name change to come...



[ This message was edited by: Orpbit on 2020-10-30 16:11 ]

Apologies, not ERC but "Cubit" generally = "Covid"

[ This message was edited by: Orpbit on 2020-10-30 16:18 ]




 Profile   Reply
sem



Joined:
12-11-2003


Messages: 2806
from Bridgend,S.Wales

OFF-Line

 Posted 31-10-2020 at 03:08   
Covid = Cubit according to this website, though I can't vouch for its veracity.
http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~rgrosser/history/amarna/neywetaten/measures.htm




 Profile   Reply
Orpbit



Joined:
24-06-2012


Messages: 1551
from Shropshire

OFF-Line

 Posted 31-10-2020 at 10:08   
Hi Sem, yes thanks, I found that one too, and confirmation at Britannica here:
https://www.britannica.com/sitemap/c/241 (scroll down the page a bit).

But still no actual information about the origin of the word! No Egyptian-Arab to English translator comes up with covid if you input cubit, nor vice versa.




 Profile   Reply
Orpbit



Joined:
24-06-2012


Messages: 1551
from Shropshire

OFF-Line

 Posted 03-11-2020 at 15:18   
And that's at most only some 15% of excavation and sieving to the 100% current standard. The 85% not excavated, nor recorded WILL be DESTROYED.

"Welcome to the Future of Heritage".

Development led destruction!

[ This message was edited by: Orpbit on 2020-11-03 15:18 ]




 Profile   Reply
marcgreenman



Joined:
30-08-2020


Messages: 265
from wroughton

OFF-Line

 Posted 09-11-2020 at 17:24   
sadly it looks as if the battle has now been lost, please see https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/nov/07/druids-face-defeat-as-bulldozers-get-set-for-stonehenge-bypass note that it does say may, although pessimism indicates that this development is likely.




 Profile  Email   Reply
Orpbit



Joined:
24-06-2012


Messages: 1551
from Shropshire

OFF-Line

 Posted 10-11-2020 at 16:21   
Garry Denke:

OK, towel apparently thrown into the ring, fair enough it's hard and strength/mind sapping work. But, why don't you offer Wessex Archaeology £70 million, NOT to do any excavations for Highways England, on condition for undertaking excavations elsewhere - under independent observation and scrutiny - which might really reveal more "secrets" of Stonehenge. Such as the New King Barrows.

A lot cheaper than the cost of the longer tunnel which you were prepared to pay for in full. Should this add to the evidence for enhancing the OUV, then the 100% loss by not doing any excavations along the tunnel corridor would, a) be more than compensated for, and b) would potentially embarrass the corporate "State" and its corporate agencies, for being so ignorant of what "setting" actually means in terms of OUV.

Personally I don't see the point of doing any excavations along the corridor, as I don't believe that any geophys evidence commands such an option. Just get the tunnel done as quickly as possible. Let Highways England contract some other archaeological trust to do it, if they wish, since Wessex Arch. were considered to have the greatest expertise. And let the world witness the local acrimony which will result between the selfish supporters from one particular community who think they will benefit - but most unlikely to from my experience of such developments - and the residents on the other side of the tunnel who will suffer the most appalling disruption and long-term damage.

This work preferably before or during the construction of the tunnel, notwithstanding that planning permission does not constitute 'approval' to go ahead. That's a matter for Parliament, as the State Party under contract with UNESCO to abide by their decision to not accept the short tunnel. Any such breach of contract should immediately lead to revocation of WHS status. That would be the outcome in any other analagous situation.

BTW, I haven't yet received any paperwork with regard to permission to enter your claimed land. I'm only interested in non-invasive research. Send me a PM to update.



[ This message was edited by: Orpbit on 2020-11-10 16:50 ]




 Profile   Reply
GarryDenke



Joined:
01-06-2004


Messages: 434
from General Delivery, Caddo, Texas 76424 USA

OFF-Line

 Posted 10-11-2020 at 18:29   
USPS Registered Mail No. R201172845
http://www.usps.com/
Royal Mail Reference No. NY826898
http://www.royalmail.com/

Good idea, Orpbit.




 Profile   Reply
Orpbit



Joined:
24-06-2012


Messages: 1551
from Shropshire

OFF-Line

 Posted 10-11-2020 at 23:55   
Many thanks!




 Profile   Reply
Orpbit



Joined:
24-06-2012


Messages: 1551
from Shropshire

OFF-Line

 Posted 12-11-2020 at 14:20   
Garry, are you in for paying for a judicial review?

https://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/news/18866743.a303-stonehenge-tunnel-plans-granted-development-consent/

Initial update:

Well the Examining Authority - the Planning Inspectorate - recommended to withhold consent and Shapps overturned it. Personally, I thought this would be the case from experience.

Jonm and I got named with a reference. Don't really know why I got mentioned in that section but at least that's quite an achievement for independent IP's. Well done Jon.

As for my concerns and submissions regarding cultural heritage, an overwhelming "no, no" to consent from the ExA. Some 90% of what I said was, in any case, covered by the objecting 'big guns', so I'm more than happy with the outcome in this first instance.

But, I followed up with the "Model" and now I can pursue further with two more submissions. The first I've been working on and was aiming to send in tomorrow, but Shapps beat me to it with the earlier decision (by one day!). Not to worry, I now have the advantage of knowing precisely what the ExA said. I've not yet read Shapps' response as to why he overturned the recommendation.

Whether or not my intended further submissions are sufficient to stand alone, by way of a case for judicial review, I don't know, until I read Shapps' decision. But it may well be useful for any other organisation, like Stonehenge Alliance or the Consortium of Archeaologists if they consider doing so. I can see a couple of potential gateways into justifying a case, but I need to read and analyse further - obviously I can't afford to do anything on my own.

Whether I have time to complete the second of my submissions within the six-week deadline to lodge a case, again I don't know, but in any case it was really intended for the WHS Committee in the context of what they are going to do about the WHS designation. This is where the ExA say they don't think that 'UK limited' has breached their contract, but I'm not so sure.

Lot's of concentrated reading to do now!



[ This message was edited by: Orpbit on 2020-11-12 18:38 ]




 Profile   Reply
marcgreenman



Joined:
30-08-2020


Messages: 265
from wroughton

OFF-Line

 Posted 12-11-2020 at 18:26   
They're going to go ahead it's just been confirmed see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-54919205 lots of public money will be spent whilst we are in the middle of a crisis where it could be better spent elsewhere, maybe on the nhs or on crucial supplies of vaccine.




 Profile  Email   Reply
STOCKDALE



Joined:
11-11-2015


Messages: 1016
OFF-Line

 Posted 12-11-2020 at 18:42   

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/nov/12/stonehenge-road-tunnel-given-go-ahead-despite-backlash?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard




 Profile   Reply
sem



Joined:
12-11-2003


Messages: 2806
from Bridgend,S.Wales

OFF-Line

 Posted 12-11-2020 at 23:23   
Marvellous isn't it!
£1.7b, 1.7 BILLION, not millions or hundreds of thousands of pounds spent to build a tunnel. No one will go anywhere faster, safer or more easily because of it and all to 'protect' a pile of stones that archaeologists have to go through hoops to seriously investigate - much of which involves investigating what previous archaeologists have investigated but not recorded correctly.
Ask any person involved in local archaeology if they want a couple of thousand (not billion) quid and they will bite your arm off.
Come to think of it, ask anyone in the NHS what they would do with 1.7 billion quid!









[ This message was edited by: sem on 2020-11-12 23:24 ]




 Profile   Reply
marcgreenman



Joined:
30-08-2020


Messages: 265
from wroughton

OFF-Line

 Posted 13-11-2020 at 12:49   
https://wildhunt.org/2020/11/pagans-react-as-stonehenge-a303-tunnel-project-set-to-move-ahead.html with the proprosed tunnel now underway the response have begun to come in. there are objections as expected, some of them slightly different but still understandable. the alignment of the tunnel has changed from the original plan and will not be casting light pollution in the way originally feared.




 Profile  Email   Reply
davidmorgan



Joined:
23-11-2006


Messages: 3090
from UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 13-11-2020 at 13:48   
So, what's the plan? Dress up Swampy in mesolithic attire and camp out at Blick Mead?




 Profile   Reply
jonm



Joined:
12-07-2011


Messages: 2323
from UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 14-11-2020 at 11:47   
Quote:
Jonm and I got named with a reference. Don't really know why I got mentioned in that section but at least that's quite an achievement for independent IP's. Well done Jon.



Thanks Richard.

The Simetrica survey could have set a precedent that it is now possible to selectively bias public opinion surveys, to value ('monetise') that bias and to then use that as justification for Treasury spending on projects that the public would not have supported. Potentially dangerous. Because the Inquiry recommended against the tunnel, Grant Shapp's approval of the project is not therefore based on Treasury guidelines. So this is a big win from that point of view.




 Profile  Email   Reply
jonm



Joined:
12-07-2011


Messages: 2323
from UK

OFF-Line

 Posted 14-11-2020 at 11:59   
Quote:
So, what's the plan? Dress up Swampy in mesolithic attire and camp out at Blick Mead?



I understand that a Judicial Review may be in progress. I don't hold out much hope for that to be honest. There might have been had the Inquiry had recommended the project (because of the Treasury issue.. but this just a personal opinion).

The only other thing that might change the status quo is some sort of major new finding about the place. Not all that likely.




 Profile  Email   Reply
Orpbit



Joined:
24-06-2012


Messages: 1551
from Shropshire

OFF-Line

 Posted 15-11-2020 at 12:10   
Jonm, yes I 'understand' also but only second/third hand that Stonehenge Alliance are considering it. Don't know about the likes of Consortium of Archaeologists, etcetera, and whether they might club together to make a claim jointly.

As regards individuals, there is the possibilty of submitting as an "Intervener". If there is public interest involved then there's a chance of not having to pay any costs, or the "evidence" could be taken on board via a main claimant/s.






 Profile   Reply
Go to Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17
New  Reply
Jump To

Sponsors