It is extremely worrying when 'Roamer' and others put their political affiliations before the common good on matters as crucial as St John's Co-Cathedral.

'Roamer' (The Sunday Times, February 8) stated that the St John's museum project objectors have "little or no idea of what is involved", without mentioning that the main objectors, in fact, included Mepa's heritage boards, the Church Commission for Cultural Heritage, the Cathedral Chapter, the Valletta and Floriana Rehabilitation Committee, and Valletta Council, while Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar had studied the case files in depth, consulting extensively with professionals in the field.

In complaining that many had not seen the project presentation, 'Roamer' did not say that the St John's Co-Cathedral Foundation opted no to inform the public about the project since its conception in 2006 and that its Din l-Art Ħelwa presentation was held exclusively for a few NGOs and not for the general public or journalists.

'Roamer' does his best to discredit the project's critics, without mentioning that leading heritage authorities like Joe Magro Conti, the head of Mepa's Integrated Heritage Management (IHM), had said: "The project poses a clear risk to the structure of the cathedral, caused by the considerable excavation proposed", while architect Michael Ellul and Albert Ganado added: "The Heritage Advisory Committee is very concerned at the effect that the excavations may have on the cathedral structure in general and on its paintings".

Finally, instead of celebrating the fact that this issue has captured the attention of a public often accused of indifference, 'Roamer' labels such opinions as "meaningless contributions". He accuses others of arrogance, but decides that the public should not comment until the EIA is complete.

Ever since Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar started informing the public about such projects, certain columnists have been trying to belittle the public voice into silence - a great disservice to a democratic society.

Now that the public has been proved right, it will be interesting to see if these writers who habitually try to stifle public intervention will accept the very valid layman's contribution.