+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Uo1 thread (/showthread.php?tid=1692)
Uo1 thread - kevin wooldridge - 6th August 2009
...and don't you also work for the National trust?
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Uo1 thread - Unitof1 - 6th August 2009
There isn?t a ninety degree bend in the A303 or the A344. If Stonehenge had been a hall and capability brown had been brought in to landscape the A303 and A344 would have been diverted. Its nigh on impossible the blend a diversion. As the roads around Stonehenge are natural, replace them with whatever will be fake. What brown and kent inherited was the problem of filling in the space created by moving the roads away from the Halls, roads which once had passed the front door. Browns landscape was the cheapest way to do it although this as a cost per area and how far away did they want the roads to be. I don?t think that he tried to create a natural looking landscape, he had to create a landscape that looked like it belonged to a Hall from the outside of the property just as formal as the gardens that had preceded, and it had to be cheap to run because they did not want to maintain large rebellious population to run it. This cheapest policy affected the whole estate management which went for really cheap extensive agriculture. I think that the ninety degree bend started as a result of the civil war but wonder if there are older examples? What I am interested in is the blending going on just beyond the property like the road. When you are driving towards a so called stately home it?s a pretty blunt slap in the face if you have to do a ninety degree turn ( i wonder if the are some 110+ degree ones, that would get very silly). Was it done on perpouse or were the owners saying sorry this not my problem. After taking the ninety degree bend I normally play the game with the kids of not being able to see the house which I reckon must lead to a number of car accidents which I think should be laid at the feet of the owners of these properties?...Anyway if ninety degree bends are a great British tradition maybe if the A303 etc are to be diverted they should be diverted using a ninety bend as this is a traditional way of doing it, anything else is bloody foreign and should be discriminated against although this is discrimination and so maybe some other angle could be found as a compromise.
Uo1 thread - kevin wooldridge - 6th August 2009
....et tu Brute.
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Uo1 thread - Weegie - 6th August 2009
Sorry Drudge. I was distracted by other comments, so by the time I saw it the moment had passed. It did make me laugh though.
Uo1 thread - Unitof1 - 7th August 2009
I have just had a client ask me what a red brick is in the building control world. Apparently he cant develop until he has had the red brick approved. So far I have pointed out that they don?t make bricks in the county anymore and asked if size matters and if the source matters. I presume that they mean like large Victorian but presumably they don?t mean genuine reclaimed Victorian, maybe some heritage blend faced brick.
PS good doctor I am hoping to make money out of this advice.
Uo1 thread - Unitof1 - 8th August 2009
This week children we must go without food
Uo1 thread - Dirty Dave Lincoln - 8th August 2009
This topic reminds me of the star trek next generation episode, where to keep moriarty out of mischief the crew created a whole new holoprogramme just for him!!
Not that i'm equating Uof1 with moriarty....
Uo1 thread - Unitof1 - 10th August 2009
http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=407
Quote:quote: IfA hopes that none of its members will ever need to refer administrators and liquidators to an advice note on what to do when an archaeological organisation becomes insolvent or goes into administration, but should that situation arise information is now available from IfA.
gee they are so helpful
And suddenly everything?s about intellectual copyright ?ha ha
but ? shouldn?t they be trying to give advice to those archaeologists who have gone bust, oh what to do. What about the individual member, this advise is not for them, its based on the obscure archaeological organisation view of what civil servant curators think archaeology is.
Quote:quote: The key piece of immediate advice is: in the event of having to deal with such an organisation, do not start to clear up (or clear out) offices, or to dispose of materials or computers, until you have gained a clear view of what is involved. By its nature much of this material is irreplaceable. Some of the potential consequences of its loss or premature (or disorderly) dispersal are outlined above.
? Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers (ALGAO) UK -
http://www.algao.org.uk/
? English Heritage - http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/,
? Cadw - http://www.cadw.wales.gov.uk/,
? Historic Scotland - http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/
? Institute for Archaeologists (IfA) ? http://www.archaeologists.net
? Federation of Archaeological Managers and Employers (FAME) -
http://www.famearchaeology.co.uk/
These bodies will be ready to help with advice, in order to safeguard the archaeological interest and to assist in dealing with any issues such as those relating to planning permissions and obligations.
what, eh is going to undertake the post ex and archiving are they,,they can have mine if they want...
from that list folks there will not be an organised drink at the brewery.
Uo1 thread - RedEarth - 10th August 2009
I do think Unit has a point with this IFA guideance - I think it would be very optimistic to expect liquidators/administrators and their agents to turn up with a group of big lads with a van and a skip and then start spending their valuable time going through each piece of paper - as if they would even know what was part of a site archive and what wasn't. There are plenty of archaeologists who would struggle to make that distinction with some records!
Surely the emphasis would be on the archaeologist getting this sort of thing sorted out in advance, especially if they were an IFA member. Although obviously if it happened very quickly that might be difficult.
I'm a bit puzzled by the mentions of copyright of the archive or report belonging to the client/developer (and I'm sure this discussion has come up before). I was under the impression that legally the copyright automatically belongs to the person or organisation that produced the document. Just because they do the work for someone else it does not mean they own the copyright, unless it has been specifically agreed. Even when jobs are supposed to be quiet and hush-hush it doesn't mean the developer owns the copyright.
Uo1 thread - Unitof1 - 10th August 2009
The most obvious thing that those bodies, particularly algoa, should do is accept that the archive, ordered or otherwise, as enough to satisfy the ppg16 condition (but only if the developer has paid).