The post you are reporting:
Alexander,
Post #207: "I do not think we should be spending money on repairing old walls of moats, but should rather remove the bricks altogether from areas where they are crumbling down, and leave the bear chalk."
Post #236: "In my opinion - which can be made substantial or not based on scientific facts - the moat walls are not in danger of collapsing, as they are of chalk, the reason being, the moats were cut into the chalk ground.
The brick work covering the chalk might - and indeed will - crumble in some areas, but this does not mean the chalk itself is falling away. Where the bricks come down (and I mean in those specific locations of the walls where this happens) it would be better to remove them altogether and leave the bare chalk. To keep coming back and pointing the brick work is far too expensive, we cannot afford it.
Should it so happen that even a section of chalk wall of the moats might be in risk of giving way, then one would have to consider partially filling that section of moat with with a layer of earth, but I am not too sure if there is any evidence that the actual chalk is crumbling away.
The Western Heights defences are mainly underground, so they are unlikely to "collapse".
But to go on repairing the whole former military complex is far too expensive, unjustified, and would not bring in any financial return from tourism.
Like it or not, by far the vast majority of people visiting Dover are attracted by the Castle, not the Napoleonic defences."
These do not seem to be the words of someone supporting "the idea of maintaining the Scheduled National Monument constructions".