It is fragile and does need covering. Rivulets of rainwater are starting to wash it away. I think it would be a tactical error to deny that, since if it was a straight choice between leave it exposed and cover it with a road then the latter would definitely be best and the nasties would love that. Indeed, they're seeking to present it as that.
But of course, there are other options - exposing parts of it under protective glass and placing markers to show the route of the rest of it for instance. I think the conservation lobby should be explaining the benefits of those sorts of options to the public so that they thoroughly understand that the official line that "building the road over it will save it" is shown for the agenda-based baloney it really is every time its uttered.
|