+- 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 - BAJR Host - 20th December 2004
Which is why I seriously believe that the IFA are the only people in the position to carry out that role. there does have to be a change however in the way they act, the way they are seen to act and the way they act now.
BAJR and the Digger are not designed to be archaeologies governing bodies, but only direct action by us may force through the changes which are long long overdue.
I agree about the parallels in the business sense - but hope that an industry where all levels of staff are professionals will be the feature that sets us apart from the construction industry.
A navvie just needs to know how to shovel dirt... a digger must (or should- thats another discussion) know how to shovel the dirt in a stratagraphic way and know when a new layer or feature appears. then draw it and record it. a proffessional job??
BAJR
Digger Article - destroyer - 20th December 2004
I think you might be being a bit harsh on regions which have closely connected contracting and curatorial divisions there. Yes it can be open to abuse, but so can any other system, i would argue that a contracting team allied closely to the curatorial probably gets more closely monitored than any other unit - after all the curatorial officer can see, on a daily basis, the material recovered, records/photos made - which should give a clue whether its all going to plan.
Yes there could be an element of getting work for the field team but as long as standards are maintained, so what? And if the two divisions get two matey then everybody else starts getting suspicious - developers wonder what all there money has actually paid for....
what is bloody useful is to be able to walk into the office and have an informal chat with the curatorial team about how the developers are pouring concrete or digging holes all over the place b4 u get a chance to look and getting them on the warpath for the archaeology's benefit.
Digger Article - troll - 14th January 2005
hmmmm, not convinced.Much like expecting justice when complaining about the actions of the police.And who are the police complaints committee? Yep.The police.Sorry-does`nt sit well.Curators have to be ultimately responsible and thats it.Curators and contractors in the same bed is asking for trouble in my opinion.Seen it before where contractors continually use the same "consultants" regardless of crass incompetence.As an aside, I find it interesting that when we become archaeologists, somehow in terms of client confidentiality-we cease to be "members of the public". This group of people seem to be held at arms length to avoid any unpleasentness.I applaud the bajr hotline endeavour and see good things ahead however-to be the harbinger of doom for a second-bollox! I am still a member of the public and am becoming increasingly tempted to expose wanton acts of carnage into the public arena as a last resort.We are still trying to do things on our own, cowering from the threat of legal action or otherwise.This is how dominant but farcical ideologies win every time.
Digger Article - the invisible man - 15th January 2005
I agree with Troll that Curators have to be the policemen. They are part of the plannng system, and like other Planning Officers (and Building Control officers) they have to go out and inspect work to ensure standards are satisfactory, in the public interest - just like the planning and BC people.
As I droned on about before, in the first instance an offence (for want of a better word) by a contractor is a contractual matter: he has not fulfilled his contractual obligations to his client. Now, his client probably doesn't mind (or know). So it's down to the authorities who imposed the conditions to inspect and enforce. If a builder misses out a damp proof course - or continues with brickwork without having the dpc inspected - the building control officer will nab him, make him pull it down and do it properly. Yes, the architect (if applicable) will also keep an eye out for these things, as the bulder would be in breach of his contract by not installing the specified dpc. You see the parallels? The equivalent of the archityect is the consultant acting for the client, but one wonders if he would be as diligent (no offence meant!)
Commercial archaeology is (for better or worse) part of the planning system and must be enforced as such. This does NOT mean simply writing a letter saying the post-ex rport that was due 2 years ago, but going out and looking and being nasty when required.
Money? That's what planning application fees are for. If they're not enough, put them up.
Big fierce curators, that what we want! Armed to the teeth - no sorry, getting carried away a bit!
Digger Article - troll - 16th January 2005
who ensures that obligations to the public are met?}
Digger Article - the invisible man - 16th January 2005
The curator, that's what I'm saying. Who else can it be?
Digger Article - troll - 16th January 2005
Absolutely-I agree. My point is that the curator starts in the spirit of compromise dictated by the agenda of the councils. As the compromise passes down the intestinal food chain, the compromise becomes so diluted as to be barely recognisable at the point of trowel. You are absolutely right-curators with big nasty teeth are a must.Unfortunately, PPG 15/16 don`t provide the dentition for the job. I`m not interested in compromise. I worked recently with a Polish colleague who could`nt believe that English archaeology is thrown to the wolves with "guidence" instead of clear-cut law.Whooly guidence notes allow for interpretation at best-and outright manipulation at worst. Time for law![:p]
Digger Article - the invisible man - 16th January 2005
Yep. But while PPG16 itself is a guidance note, if a condition is attached to a planning consent, that's it, it must be abided by, by the set or agreed dates, it's not optional. So let's have it enforced.
Digger Article - troll - 16th January 2005
Agree wholeheartedly!Would be nice would`nt it? My tiny little sunday mind ran obliquely for a minute there...has anyone contacted Tessa Jowell and outlined such concerns? What response if any was forthcoming? I know that Mr Hosty has tried to illicit a response from the unelected in the House of Lords as have I-both without even so much as an acknowledgement.Anyone?[?]
Digger Article - Alfie - 18th January 2005
I am one the guys who decides on what conditions should be applied to a planning application and enforces that condition. One thing no one has mentioned is units who act as loss adjustors for their clients ie I ask for a 3% sample they come back with a 1% sample. I ask for full geophysical survey they come back with a partial mag sus scan at a depth of 100mm.I waste half my day trying to convince archaeologists to do the best for the archaeology.Dont get me started on developers..