Rather than moaning about the cost of the tunnel and the potential damage
it might cause to the WHS why don't we actively propose a cheaper
Even better why don't we set up a consortium to tender a more competitive
solution? After all we are supposed to the experts within this heritage
preserving thing and so one might expect at least the public to listen.
It isn't even that we haven't got the technical knowhow or capabilty of
producing a cheaper alternative such as a landscaped road widening project.
I think it could prove highly profitable even at half the proposed cost as
labour costs could be kept to an absolute minimum.
We could employ forced..sorry..voluntary labour from subsistence paid
navvies..sorry..archaeology undergraduates to do most..sorry..all of the
The road widening could be done under the guise of some meaningful
archaeological exploration. The landscaping could be conveniently
considered as an experimental archaeology project recreating past
We could even get the navvies..sorry undergraduates..to lay the road too as
an experimental project into Roman road building. If anyone asks why we are
using tarmac the answer could be, "The Romans would have used it had they
had it!" I think most undergraduates would fall for that.
We ought to use the resources we have to hand and I cannot see one
archaeology undergraduate being not willing to work on this valuable
project. Even if they are prompted with the possibility of not gaining
ther degree if they fail to comply. If anything it would give them a
realistic understanding of their future prospects within an archaeological
career, whilst the rest of ys could all retire with millions in the bank!
On 2 Dec 2014 10:41, "John Wood" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> If cynicism is the order of the day I would say that yesterday's political
> antics at the rocks was political manouvering.
> In the early hours, before dawn, Nick Clegg was asked by the reporter from
> the BBC whether the plan for the tunnel was a reality. Clegg's answer,
> which I thought to be a wee odd, was that he wouldn't have been down at the
> rocks at such an early hour if it wasn't. But why was he down at the rocks
> at such an early hour, after all it wasn't a solstice which would normally
> attract such timely visits. There was no need for him to announce the plan
> to BBC Breakfast more than any other news bulletins.
> Later David Cameron turned up and appeared on the BBC lunchtime news. I
> thought he looked a bit miffed as if someone had taken the wind out of his
> sails. He had turned up only to offer 'old news', as if he had missed the
> I wonder if Clegg had got a whiff of Cameron's visit and had hoped to take
> the political credit by getting there before him.
> Clegg's political future doesn't look too good at the moment so he needs
> every photo opportunity between now and the election. It is such a pity
> that once again archaeology, our heritage, becomes a political football.
> On 2 Dec 2014 09:25, "Michael" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> To be really really cynical - it was probably much the same reason why
>> Stonehenge was built in the first place.
>> Some big wig promised a massive project prosperity for all, etc.
>> On 02/12/2014 08:50, John Wood wrote:
>>> Of course on could be more cynical and wonder whether the Tory hierarchy
>>> have interests in a construction company that possesses a soon to be
>>> redundant, after Cross Rail is finished, tunnel boring machine.
>>> On 2 Dec 2014 08:42, "Cerridwen Connelly" <cerridwen.connelly@
>>> They will never spend all that money for a long tunnel. Just like 2002
>>>> over again.
>>>> Widen the road by two lanes. Badaboom! Problem solved and very little
>>>> archaeology disturbed to go to Salisbury Museum. How wide is a lane?
>>>> Not a