+- 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: lawyer required (/showthread.php?tid=1822)
lawyer required - Troll - 25th January 2005
Surely there are plenty of lawyers out there who fancy a challenge? Or even just an undergraduate dissertation subject? We seem to be attempting to change things on our own but are retarded by ridiculous legal garbage that won`t allow our curators to remove contractors who are not up to scratch.The IFA do nothing. Lets get some legal challenges on the go.Now where do we find a lawyer that is`nt a parasite.........:face-approve:
lawyer required - the invisible man - 25th January 2005
A lawyer won't help, the legal principle is too fundemental. As I understand it, the problem is that units are not employed by the authority themselves but are employed by the developer, who has the right to choose whoever he wants - just as he can choose whoever he wants as a builder. There is nothing for the curators to remove contractors from.
If however an authority directly employs a builder, or specialist subcontractor (say an electrical subcontractor) then they are indeed selected from an approved list - as are architects or anyone else engaged by the council.
The planning condition requiring archaeological investigation could require the work to be done by a demonstrably competent and appropriate body, I suppose, and Valetta could make that reasonable (if not mandatory!). So, if a unit has done poor work in the past it could be held as evidence of incompetence. It would have to stand up to legal scrutiny though.
I still say licensing or registration is the best bet though (I can hear a popular archaeology magazine wailing already!)