|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Stonehenge and its Environs » Highways England Consultation - A303/Stonehenge |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
tjj 3606 posts |
Mar 06, 2017, 08:49
|
||
https://heritageaction.wordpress.com/2017/03/06/statement-on-the-stonehenge-short-tunnel-by-21-experts/
|
|||
jonmor 150 posts |
Mar 06, 2017, 11:03
|
||
|
tiompan wrote: I think you mean highlighting logical fallacies rather than using them Jon . Hehheh. Touché
|
|||
|
jonmor 150 posts |
Mar 06, 2017, 12:49
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: And yes, "development" takes a different view so there's a struggle (with ground rules laid out recently by the Government that favour the latter. .... and if they lose they won't deserve to. Given the assumptions in one segment of the TAR studies, some people would be absolutely astounded at the claim that the ground rules are stacked against the archaeos. If, buried deep within the TAR, an opaque pro-archaeology bias existed, then questioning the "ground rules" could give opponents ammunition. But it's obviously something that people who are in favour of the 21's argument would not discuss on a public forum so, even if it existed, we would not get to discuss what that might be. The 21 archaeos are the experts and, no doubt, will have taken all this into account. If any opaque bias in their favour already exists, they will probably be researching and developing their arguments so that they enhance that position rather than force a re-evaluation.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Mar 06, 2017, 14:08
|
||
|
You speak, yet again, as if it's a process of balancing transport needs against heritage needs. It's not. It's a fight between two agendas with zero means to render each into units of comparison. And yes, I can assure you the ways in which heritage value is measured by guardians has been doctored horribly in the past few years to boost the likelihood that "development" will mostly win. This is a Tory government after all. It's what they're about.
|
|||
|
jonmor 150 posts |
Mar 06, 2017, 18:36
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: You speak, yet again, as if it's a process of balancing transport needs against heritage needs. It's not...... You may be right Nigel. But if you are wrong, the Heritage lobby needs to quickly understand where the soft spots in the assessment are and then how to shape the "Expert 21" comment so that additional value materialises to work in favour of their arguments. On the other hand, if you are right, they can ignore all that.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Mar 06, 2017, 18:44
|
||
|
jonmor wrote: the Heritage lobby needs to quickly understand where the soft spots in the assessment are and then how to shape the "Expert 21" comment so that additional value materialises to work in favour of their arguments. Agreed.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Mar 07, 2017, 08:26
|
||
|
Jon, here's a soft spot - the World Heritage Convention which the Tories have been unable to alter in favour of development and which has enabled ICOMOS UK to deliver this body blow today - “To suggest that this damage can be mitigated by benefits brought by the tunnel to the centre of the WHS, is to fundamentally misunderstand the commitments made to sustain OUV at the time of inscription of the property on the World Heritage List” https://heritageaction.wordpress.com/2017/03/07/now-icomos-uk-totally-condemns-the-short-tunnel-at-stonehenge/
|
|||
|
jonmor 150 posts |
Mar 07, 2017, 10:19
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Jon, here's a soft spot - the World Heritage Convention which the Tories have been unable to alter in favour of development and which has enabled ICOMOS UK to deliver this body blow today - “To suggest that this damage can be mitigated by benefits brought by the tunnel to the centre of the WHS, is to fundamentally misunderstand the commitments made to sustain OUV at the time of inscription of the property on the World Heritage List” Might indeed be a body-blow to the study team Nigel. Another possible, perhaps outlandish, interpretation is that the study team might respond that ICOMOS may not have understood that the CVS takes account of the perception of OUV within the WHL and that to bring in additional assessment criteria would be double counting: Forbidden under TGB principles. If they did say something like that, it would instead provide evidence that Britain's commitment to sustain the OUV of the WHS using the interpretation put forward by ICOMOS might not be based on proper valuation methods. This might set a precedent that ICOMOS would not hope for.
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Edited Mar 07, 2017, 10:55
Mar 07, 2017, 10:54
|
||
|
"Another possible, perhaps outlandish, interpretation is that the study team might respond that ICOMOS may not have understood that the CVS takes account of the perception of OUV within the WHL....@ Not so outlandish - as yes, the Govt is bound to argue the World Heritage Convention allows them to go ahead. We'll hear that shortly no doubt. The powers that be have already made the British side of the equation short-tunnel friendly - https://heritageaction.wordpress.com/2016/03/30/are-they-preparing-a-preposterous-gap-to-squeeze-the-short-tunnel-through/ In additionI expect there'll also be high level phone calls to UNESCO which we won't hear about! It's a dirty game.
|
|||
|
jonmor 150 posts |
Mar 07, 2017, 20:51
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: ... We'll hear that shortly no doubt..... My guess is that you will. Not sure it's quite as dirty a game as you imagine, especially for the consultant teams. There's a set of rules that have been established and everyone will be working to those rules. Personally, I think that Stonehenge will prove to be have far more value than can be proven to the satisfaction of archaeologists at this point in time, so what we do now may be thought to be a mistake by people in the future. However, as the "archaeo 21" note, nothing much happens very fast in archaeology and we're dealing with a highways system that, whilst very slow compared to ordinary business, is very fast in an archaeological sense. My guess is that the "archaeo 21" are the best hope objection: Their submission alludes to new knowledge which was not accounted for in the consultation. If the archaeos can prove that their new knowledge materially affects the value of the monument/WHS (value as measured by the consultants), then they will have a compelling argument.
|
| Pages: 21 – [ Previous | 1 … 16 17 18 19 20 21 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
