Tunnel vision :LETTER
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.From Professor R. Angus
Buchanan
Sir: It is depressing to find London Underground so unwilling to consider the need to rethink its attitude towards Marc Brunel's Thames Tunnel (Lord Howie's letter, 15 June.)
The spot-listing of the tunnel should have stimulated some recognition of the possibility that the proposal to shotcrete it throughout its length would be both structurally ineffective and damaging to a significant national monument.
At least LU should have waited for the full report of the experts commissioned by English Heritage before seeking to subvert the listing.
It is to be hoped that the Environment Secretary, John Gummer, will now recognise the overwhelming case for a public inquiry, as the LU custodianship of the monument has proved to be so inadequate.
Yours faithfully.
R. ANGUS BUCHANAN
Director
Centre for the History of
Technology
University of Bath
Bath
16 June
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments