+- 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: Digger Article (/showthread.php?tid=1794)
Digger Article - Geofizz - 10th February 2005
Hi all,
The evidence that I obtained was significant enough to be of value in a court of law. The response of the curator was that he had no power to enter the site and whilst there was a mild interest expressed in seing more of it. This response was clearly timed not to take the matter further. I'd rather not go into it further as I see little point.
This situation will not change until archaeologists change, or are forced to change. The number that refused to get involved when I was trying to gather and understand the evidence showed to me that there is little hope of change from within.
Similarly it is clear to me that our government is not interested in heritage, and as long as the current situation is kept in private the majority of the British population will go on thinking we are looking after the heritage it holds so dear.
Many of the ideas suggested on this thread seem very sensible, but there is no will for change either from within or outside the profession.
The only way things are going to change is if people are willing to stand up and be counted - to dish the dirt in public. If I wanted to set up a lucrative rogue unit I simply would not bother joining IFA. If by some error I found myself a member, I'd continue bodging the job knowing that there is no-one looking over my shoulder and IFA, without the ability or apparent will to gather evidence are far more likely to cover things up than to risk smearing the profession with a scandle.
Not that I see IFA as a major problem - one can hardly blame them for the situation we are in - heritage funding is taking a nosedive in favour of tourism projects - councils have rid themselves of the costly units, the planning rules are as bent as they come and our politicians of all flavours could not care less.
Yet my experience is that the public do care - a great number of them hear the spin put about by all involved and think things are fine - they assume archaeology is done to the same standard everywhere. When they get to find out the reality most are shocked, many refuse to believe it.
So what's the answer? Is there one? I really can't see change happening from within. Perhaps we should form our own political party - the Heritage Party - if the main parties saw it as a vote winner they'd soon get on board. Until then we are just a bunch of annoraks and moaning minnies.
Digger Article - BAJR Host - 10th February 2005
Interesting Geofizz....
As a curator I have the power of the Development Control Officer and behind them the Enforcement Officer. Although (as I am sure you know I/we have no direct statutory powers.. there is the matter of teh Planning Condition.. now this does have statutory power. If anyone refused me entry to a site... I just pick up my phone and talk direct to my council enforcment and bingo... I have even closed down an site that would lose 1000s a day... and held the planning conditions out as why... non complience with Para 3 .. archaeology...blah blah ..... fulfilled to ....blah blah... curator ... blah blah.
What is needed I feel is more contact with teh RTPI (Royal Town Planning Institute) to inform the Planning Officers what archaeology is about so that they reinforce it when called on. I have agood repore with mine an they will back me if I am able to back it up.
Tough Curators need tough Planners
Digger Article - Geofizz - 10th February 2005
What about if you decided you did not really care about archaeology? What recourse do I have? Clearly powers are only as strong as the person wielding them - if that person chooses to avoid any planning controls that would allow planning mitigations to be monitored? Who watches the watcher? Its obviously not IFA.
Digger Article - BAJR Host - 11th February 2005
in that case .. contact BAJR!!
cos we care! :face-approve:
Digger Article - Geofizz - 11th February 2005
What would you do? If the individuals concerned will not change, there is nothing you can do. As I'm sure you know, when people know full well what they are doing it is simple for them to circumvent the system without any danger of comeback.
Removing the developers suggestion of site visits from the curator from the planning consent is a good start. Then you can say you have no right to visit the site.
Dragging out any communications to the extent that any timely response is just not going to happen is very difficult to prove misconduct.
It seems even lying about archaeology in magazines from organisations supposedly keen on protecting heritage is also allowed without comeback - archaeologists have been trained long and hard to keep their heads down.
How would you gather evidence? What would you do with it? Name and shame does not work in local councils does it? They close ranks - hide it, refuse to talk about it whilst reasuring everyone that everything is above board.
Sorry, I know you care just as much as I do. I did spend a lot of time gathering evidence with the help of a lot of people. That evidence is worth nothing is it.
Digger Article - BAJR Host - 11th February 2005
Sounds like you are talking about a particular case.
It can be difficult if an individual curator or contractor is being difficult... however it is NOT up to the developer to dictate what is placed as a condition. The curator would right a condition that has to be completed... the contractor can then attempt to complete and allow for the discharge of that condition - If anything goes wrong... and that means anything... then first should come negotiation (as I have just done today) and if that does not work then the Council Enforcement Officer is in a position to step in.. A breach of condition is a breach of condition... and has legal force.
Now yes sometimes a council will be loathe to stop a flagship project or similar just for teh sake of a few hut circles... but... and this is very important.. any written documents that either show concern or flagrant ignoring of the law... are availabel to the public and hence the newspapers as part of teh Freedom of Information Act. So if you feel that even the council is trying to brush a site under the carpet... then demand the correspondance (you must get it within 28 days) and go to the local paper.
I would be interested to talk to you further on this subject - as it seems you have gone there in some depth... you can email me on info@bajr.org and we can set up a phone discussion.. would very much like to hear more.
DAvid
Digger Article - Sparky - 11th February 2005
Geofizz,
Are you sure that this development is under the conditions of normal planning constraints? There may be certain construction developments that are exempt from local planning regulations and may allow (loosely) the developers or contractors the benefit of the doubt whether to allow certain individuals on their sites. An example of such developments are road schemes or pipelines...
Digger Article - Alfie - 11th February 2005
It seems to me that Geofizz was talking more about the attitude of the Regional Archaeologist. I too have concerns about who watches the watchers. I am sure we can all think of some truly terrible counties, and a bad County is a dangerous thing and for a hell of a long time..
Digger Article - Sparky - 11th February 2005
I agree Alfie, and have brought this up before on the previous (non-GT version) BAJR message board. It does happen but rarely. A few years ago I was on the ill-receiving end of a rather poor decision between a county archaeologist and a government environmental agency. There were a few people who wanted to know the details; these people turned out to be county archaeologists themselves. It appears they may be monitoring themselves, and, in my experience 99% of them give a damn. However, what effect can they have on planning decisions of a neighbouring county or city...? Where I am based at the moment there is a city archaeologist who works for the city council. Outside the city is a county archaeologist. You wouldn't believe the stark contrast between the planning constraints, and it has been happening for years (relatively). I personally believe that they are the victims of their proffesional relationships and friendships as archaeologists between archaeologists, and also victims of working for local politicians, which is a whole different issue with lots and lots of accusations and faults. Just look at your local newspaper to see who are the business owners and who are the coucilors. Can I say that?
Digger Article - troll - 15th February 2005
So- We support our Curators and propose a licensing system! Think I hear the need to formalise our conclusions...I for one feel that these measures would be a good start and can only be good for archaeology in the commercial world.What next? Draft proposal anyone?
