Motoring Discussion > Stonehenge	Miscellaneous
Thread Author: Zero	Replies: 43

Fri 30 Jul 21 17:58   Stonehenge - Zero

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-58024139 Offs, clearly a tunnel is the best solution to return stonehenge to nearer its original setting, and with little or no destruction to artefacts. What an earth have these people achieved apart from continuation of a scared landscape. Reply to this message | Report message

Fri 30 Jul 21 18:11   Stonehenge - No FM2R

There are people who deeply need to protest. Very few of them care about what they are protesting against, they just find it self-validating. Trying to explain to them about the alternatives and what is sensible would be like explaining to my cat why s***ting in the tomatoes is bad. Reply to this message | Report message

Fri 30 Jul 21 21:42   Stonehenge - Bromptonaut

The full judgment is here: www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2021/2161.pdf It's 77 pages and not yet had time to read/absorb the summary of the facts in full. It seems however that the grouse is that various heritage organisations provided advice which the Minister chose to downplay. Reply to this message | Report message

Fri 30 Jul 21 22:26   Stonehenge - Biggles

The plaintiff won on a couple of narrow legal points with most of their arguments being rejected. Point 5(iii) seems to carry the most weight and would require an extension of the tunnel. Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 31 Jul 21 14:36   Stonehenge - Bromptonaut

>> The plaintiff won on a couple of narrow legal points with most of their arguments >> being rejected. Point 5(iii) seems to carry the most weight and would require an extension >> of the tunnel. IME of reading Judicial Review cases there's no oddity in the Claimant making multiple points that are arguable and only succeeding on one or two. Failing to take account of options (ie 5(iii)) is not, IMHO, a minor or narrow point. It's possible the Minister can re-make the decision properly by dealing fully with that point. On the other hand it's possible that if he traverses and rejects them the decision becomes irrational. I wonder indeed if that was the legal advice he had and it was hoped that 'overlooking' them may be a wing/prayer route to getting the work going. It's possible that only way to protect Stonehenge is by having the surface level impacts wholly outside the World Heritage Site. If that is not the case and they interfere with the World Heritage site then Stonehenge could, like Liverpool's waterfront, lose its UNESCO status. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 31 Jul 21 at 14:38 Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 31 Jul 21 14:59   Stonehenge - No FM2R

>>If that is not the case and they interfere with the World Heritage site then Stonehenge could, like Liverpool's waterfront, lose its UNESCO status. I think that is most unlikely unless the road goes through the stones themselves, I'm also not sure what difference it would make anyway. >> I wonder indeed if that was the legal advice he had and it was hoped that 'overlooking' them may be a wing/prayer route to getting the work going. Well, that level of stupidity wouldn't exactly be unusual in a minister these days. More likely though he's just rubbish at his job. Hanlon's Razor and all that. It may be frustrating when the law is applied in minute detail, but rather than than laws being stepped around. They can change the law or do their job properly, that's their choice. In this case, it seems that the result will be a decision made correctly and probably a better, albeit perhaps more expensive, solution. The worry of course is that nothing will be done. Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 31 Jul 21 15:10   Stonehenge - Bromptonaut

>> I think that is most unlikely unless the road goes through the stones themselves, I'm >> also not sure what difference it would make anyway. HAs the fact that Liverpool's waterfront has lost its Unesco World Heritage made the news you see? Seems that various buildings in the vicinity were the part cause. The straw that broke the camel's back was Everton's new stadium; that's not close to the three graces. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/21/unesco-strips-liverpool-waterfront-world-heritage-status Until then I'd have agreed about the scale of interference required to see Unesco pull recognition. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 31 Jul 21 at 15:12 Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 31 Jul 21 15:13   Stonehenge - No FM2R

>>HAs the fact that Liverpool's waterfront has lost its Unesco World Heritage made the news you see? I did see it, but as far as I could tell it was a continuing course of events rather than one, and after they had ignored many communications and warnings each time? Stonehenge is *so* important, that I cannot believe they would do anything unless the stones themselves were impacted. Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 31 Jul 21 15:43   Stonehenge - Duncan

The main quibble on the part of the objectors is that they want both tunnel entrances to be outside the World Heritage site. Well, that's ok? Isn't it? It's only money. Reply to this message | Report message       1

Sat 31 Jul 21 16:33   Stonehenge - martin aston

The monument the public knows and loves is only the most visible part of a unique landscape and artefacts. Every few years they come up with discoveries that extend the area of interest beyond the stones. There is a history of poor decisions and near misses that we should not repeat. In the context of Stonehenge decisions need to be judged in the context of millennia. It’s only just over a century ago that the RAF wanted to move the stones to make way for aircraft flights. Before that the local blacksmith used to hire out hammers for tourists to chip souvenir chips from the stones. Nobody at the time seemed to think this was an issue. Non-invasive ground survey techniques will no doubt develop in the next few years or centuries that may reveal more than we can find now. Let’s not unintentional degrade it meantime. We should do the minimum of groundwork in the wider landscape. If that means a longer bypass or tunnel then it’s a cost worth paying. In Stonehenge terms a need for road transport is a blink of the eye. With luck and good planning it’ll be here long after we are gone and road vehicles are themselves museum pieces. Reply to this message | Report message       1

Sun 1 Aug 21 11:51   Stonehenge - sooty123

It’s only just over a century ago that the RAF wanted to move the stones >> to make way for aircraft flights. Not heard of that before, what's the story with that? Reply to this message | Report message

Sun 1 Aug 21 12:20   Stonehenge - Zero

>> It’s only just over a century ago that the RAF wanted to move the >> stones >> >> to make way for aircraft flights. >> >> Not heard of that before, what's the story with that? Its an urban myth, with no records to back it up. There was a WW1 airfield very close by, and in fact the airfield put an end to cultivation around and up to the stones, and removal of the airfield started the process of preserving the greater site and returning to a state that hadnt been observed for centuries. Which makes the objection to moving the road underground even more laughable, being the very least worst thing thats happened at that site. Reply to this message | Report message

Sun 1 Aug 21 13:02   Stonehenge - sooty123

> Its an urban myth, with no records to back it up. There was a WW1 >> airfield very close by, and in fact the airfield put an end to cultivation around >> and up to the stones, and removal of the airfield started the process of preserving >> the greater site and returning to a state that hadnt been observed for centuries. Which >> makes the objection to moving the road underground even more laughable, being the very least >> worst thing thats happened at that site. >> Thanks, I did wonder, it doesn't really make sense as a story. Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 31 Jul 21 16:34   Stonehenge - Terry

The Guardian also reports that: “The government should look again at its roads programme and take action to reduce road traffic and eliminate any need to build new and wider roads that threaten the environment as well as our cultural heritage.” it seems likely that the outcome from their protests is at best an indefinite delay to any improvements to the A303. At worst they may have consigned the tunnel to a "sometime or never", status perpetuating the current shambles. They may have won the court case and lost the battle! Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 31 Jul 21 16:36   Stonehenge - Bromptonaut

> it seems likely that the outcome from their protests is at best an indefinite delay >> to any improvements to the A303. At worst they may have consigned the tunnel to >> a "sometime or never", status perpetuating the current shambles. Hasn't A303 improvement round there been 'sometime or never' for 30+ years? Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 31 Jul 21 18:20   Stonehenge - Zero

>> The Guardian also reports that: >> >> “The government should look again at its roads programme and take action to reduce road >> traffic and eliminate any need to build new and wider roads that threaten the environment >> as well as our cultural heritage.” Thats was a comment the protest organisation said. It carries no weight or relevance to this case. Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 31 Jul 21 16:35   Stonehenge - bathtub tom

Why not put a large, high fence around the place? I don't care if I can't see it. Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 31 Jul 21 18:26   Stonehenge - Zero

>> Stonehenge is *so* important, that I cannot believe they would do anything unless the stones >> themselves were impacted. Isnt the fact that a major road more or less within the boundaries of the henge is being removed from the visible environment a major improvement? And now it remains. And probably will. Foot=shot Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 31 Jul 21 at 21:12 Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 31 Jul 21 20:10   Stonehenge - Bromptonaut

>> Isnt the fact that a major road more or less within the boundaries of the >> henge is being removed from the visible environment a major improvement? >> >> And now it remains. And probably will. Foot=shot Or alternatively you let the government get away with the easiest cheapskate scheme it can, one that does massive ADDITIONAL damage to the WHS, rather than actually protecting the whole job. Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 31 Jul 21 20:26   Stonehenge - Zero

Oh its suddenly become *massive* ADDITIONAL damage. Git the line from the report that catalogues this *massive* damage? Still I accept your "its s*** lets keep it s*** argument, its makes heaps of sense. Last edited by: Zero on Sat 31 Jul 21 at 20:27 Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 31 Jul 21 20:47   Stonehenge - Bromptonaut

>> Still I accept your "its s*** lets keep it s*** argument, its makes heaps of >> sense. I'm not saying that. Government, in the words of school reports passim, could do better if it tried. Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 31 Jul 21 23:44   Stonehenge - Stuartli

Most of us on Merseyside who have learned of the UNESCO decision have barely raised an eyebrow as it will make little or no difference to the city's future. If UNESCO seems to think that heritage awards are only given to cities or sites that remain unchanged over the years, then it is mistaken. You must make progress and that is exactly what Liverpool has done over the years, with some superb new building additions in particular to the Pier Head waterfront area. To say that Everton's new stadium alters the status to far too great an extent is no excuse - the ground will be a mile further to the north and, over the next few years, will not only help to completely rejuvenate a very large area, but also provide many, many thousands of new jobs. Liverpool's history will never be forgotten, but it's a case of onwards and upwards and that should be the case anywhere in the UK. Reply to this message | Report message

Sun 1 Aug 21 00:22   Stonehenge - No FM2R

>>If UNESCO seems to think that heritage awards are only given to cities or sites that remain unchanged over the years, then it is mistaken. If that's who UNESCO thinks heritage awards are given to, then I expect it's stop on. What with them being the ones awarding them and all. And if you think about it, taking it away from a changing area is not illogical. It may be better, it may be higher quality, it may be what people want, but if the old site is gone then it's difficult to see where the "heritage" would come in. I'd think that Heritage Awards should only be given to sites that must not be changed, such as Stonehenge. To give one to a living and changing area seems a nonsense. As for not making any difference, I am sure you are quite correct. Nor should it. Reply to this message | Report message

Sun 1 Aug 21 08:53   Stonehenge - Zero

Here is a list of the UK UNESCO World Heritage sites. whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/gb You look through that list and you wonder "what do most of those places mean to, or have changed world history. The answer is, for most of them, BA. I would probably list two. Ironbridge, because it did change the world and Stonhenge, because its a dramatic relic of a world we know little of. The rest should never have been there on the list Last edited by: Zero on Sun 1 Aug 21 at 08:54 Reply to this message | Report message

Sun 1 Aug 21 10:28   Stonehenge - R.P.

The former slate quarries in north west Wales have just been added. I sometimes wonder why Reply to this message | Report message

Sun 1 Aug 21 11:09   Stonehenge - Zero

>> The rest should never have been there on the list Checking again, I guess Hadrians wall should be there, as the Northern defended border of a pan european/near east/ north african culture that dominated for a couple of centuries it is of global significance. Reply to this message | Report message

Sun 1 Aug 21 14:22   Stonehenge - No FM2R

>> The rest should never have been there on the list I agree, but I think I don't entirely grasp the purpose of the list. I assume that the Buddhas of Bamiyan were on the list and it didn't help them much. Is the purpose to try and make Governments around the world protect and preserve something that left to their own devices they might not? Do they have some legal powers of authority? I guess I need to looking the organisation a bit more because it sounds like a fairly pointless list. Reply to this message | Report message

Sun 1 Aug 21 14:39   Stonehenge - Bromptonaut

>> I guess I need to looking the organisation a bit more because it sounds like >> a fairly pointless list. It is what it is, a list of sites which experts believe are of particular significance. They have significant, and in some cases exceptional, Educational, Scientific and Cultural significance. I doubt Unesco has any legal power but its interventions might shame some governments into action. They might even play a part in the UK government's glacial progress in sorting out Stonehenge. And I don't just mean the A303. What about the Buddhas of Bamiyan is just that; whataboutery. There will always be discussion about what should, or should not, be on the list. I'd add the Calanais sites on Lewis. On the other hand they've already got as many vistors as they can cope with and putting them a list that encourages more may not do anyone any good. Reply to this message | Report message

Sun 1 Aug 21 14:53   Stonehenge - No FM2R

>>What about the Buddhas of Bamiyan is just that; whataboutery. What a remarkably silly comment. Your use of the word "whataboutery" when you can't think of anything useful to say, but feel the need to say something, is right up there with your frequent and petulant use of "whatever". In case you are really struggling, I was trying to understand the impact of being listed, since I genuinely didn't know. Seemingly from your reply, neither do you. Reply to this message | Report message

Sun 1 Aug 21 17:36   Stonehenge - sooty123

> In case you are really struggling, I was trying to understand the impact of being >> listed, since I genuinely didn't know. >> I always thought it was a profile thing. Get more tourists, possibly funding for something related to it etc. Reply to this message | Report message

Mon 2 Aug 21 12:39   Stonehenge - Bromptonaut

>> In case you are really struggling, I was trying to understand the impact of being >> listed, since I genuinely didn't know. I thought the first para of my post a 13:49 yesterday was a reasonable precis but if you want the 'full Monty' then UNESCO has a site of its own: whc.unesco.org/ On the Buddas you seemed to assert that as the Taliban demolished them anyway the general purpose of Unesco listing was somehow undermined. In a what about the Buddas sort of sense. If that was not what you meant then I withdraw the suggestion of whataboutery. As to 'Whatever' I use it where people, usually you or Zero, have decided to go on either a personal attack or to reduce to the absurd. If saying sod this for a game of soldiers is petulant then so be it. Reply to this message | Report message       4

Mon 2 Aug 21 14:02   Stonehenge - No FM2R

Whatever. Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 31 Jul 21 20:45   Stonehenge - Mapmaker

Having driven past there a good number of times over the last year or two, on Friday evenings, I should suggest that the best solution is a big fence so that drivers cannot see the stones. Then the traffic would not slow down... Of course, I think the A303 is one of the best roads in the country on account of the spectacular view of the old stones. Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 31 Jul 21 21:13   Stonehenge - Terry

First you do a detailed archeological survey followed by a dig of the whole site with priority attached to the proposed route of the tunnel. Having completed this excavation the authorities can be assured that anything there is to be discovered or unearthed along the route will have been found. After the science, rather than simply fill in the hole with the earth they have excavated, they create a tunnel. This will hide a horribly intrusive road which can be restored to its natural state - trees, grass etc. Win-win for both sides of the argument - archeology, preserve any legacy of the past, tunnel, eliminate surface pollution of the site. It will look like it did 3000 years ago. Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 31 Jul 21 21:38   Stonehenge - Zero

>> First you do a detailed archeological survey followed by a dig of the whole site Stop. You cant do that. Not allowed, has to be left undisturbed according to the tree hugging druids. Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 31 Jul 21 21:46   Stonehenge - Bromptonaut

>> You cant do that. Not allowed, has to be left undisturbed according to the tree >> hugging druids. You make the tunnel long enough that it's entry and exit points are outside the WHS. It might cost a bit more but the Covid crisis has totally debunked the idea that a few billion of borrowing over and beyond that planned before will turn the UK into Venezuela. Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 31 Jul 21 at 21:47 Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 31 Jul 21 22:21   Stonehenge - Zero

>> You make the tunnel long enough that it's entry and exit points are outside the >> WHS. It might cost a bit more but the Covid crisis has totally debunked the >> idea that a few billion of borrowing over and beyond that planned before will turn >> the UK into Venezuela. Oh WOW, the country is deep int he mire and your kids and your grand kids will have few benefits and higher taxes to pay for it, so its OK to make it worse. You really are a dick. Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 31 Jul 21 22:23   Stonehenge - Zero

Sorry that was a bit over the top. I should have said raving mad lunatic left wing dick. Reply to this message | Report message

Sun 1 Aug 21 11:05   Stonehenge - Bromptonaut

>> >> Sorry that was a bit over the top. I should have said raving mad lunatic >> left wing dick. You're just being offensive now. I've made my case and I'll leave it there. Reply to this message | Report message

Sun 1 Aug 21 11:11   Stonehenge - Zero

You have earned your ridicule and your opinions and case are clearly pretty devalued after that one. Last edited by: Zero on Sun 1 Aug 21 at 11:12 Reply to this message | Report message

Sun 1 Aug 21 11:18   Stonehenge - Bromptonaut

>> You have earned your ridicule and your opinions and case are clearly pretty devalued after >> that one. Whatever. Reply to this message | Report message

Mon 2 Aug 21 00:34   Stonehenge - Stuartli

>> First you do a detailed archeological survey followed by a dig of the whole site>> The "archeological survey" has, in fact, been done, but it only applies to the areas needed for the proposed tunnel's entrances and exits. Best mate's offspring was responsible for overseeing the work entailed in the operation. Reply to this message | Report message

Sat 31 Jul 21 21:39   Stonehenge - Zero

>> Having driven past there a good number of times over the last year or two, >> on Friday evenings, I should suggest that the best solution is a big fence so >> that drivers cannot see the stones. Then the traffic would not slow down... >> >> Of course, I think the A303 is one of the best roads in the country >> on account of the spectacular view of the old stones. Move them. No roads in the centre of Salisbury Plain, move it there. Reply to this message | Report message

Sun 1 Aug 21 11:22   Stonehenge - Zero

>> Of course, I think the A303 is one of the best roads in the country >> on account of the spectacular view of the old stones. I love the A303, every inch of it. Its a good road, nearly every part of it has memories both current & going back to early childhood motoring experiences. The first view of Stonehenge from the A303 is awe inspiring, and its little wonder motorists brake and cause accidents. Done my Stonehenge shift, so its avoidance and the the diversion through Tidworth camp is now an inclusive part of any of my A303 journeys Reply to this message | Report message