Responses from your MPs

[Cautionary Tale]

Agree. How about you post your letter here so we are all using the same info/tone/questions/threats

(I really have worked in the field)

[troll]

sold.gizza week mate-things are hectic....watch this space....

[Cautionary Tale]

[url][/url]http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/culture__media_and_sport.cfm
Might I suggest these lovely people may have more clought with regard to legistlation than are humble local MPs. I'm sure one of these MPs can be pursued very effectively in the kinded possible way

(I really have worked in the field)

[troll]

mmmmmmyyyyy Preciousssssssss........

Shall have a look sire, could be good this, could be out on me arse very quickly too but hey....

[Cautionary Tale]

Whatdayareckon?

Dear Sir

RE: Reform of Archaeology in the Planning Framework

Since the introduction of Planning Policy Guidance 16 (PPG16), there is general consensus in the archaeological community that there has been increased financial input into archaeology, but also that for the first time there is such a thing as an archaeological profession.

As archaeologists, we believe that archaeological remains are a precious resource, and should not be treated as a contaminant or infinite resource. Further, that professional archaeologists should not be put in the position of competitively tendering against other archaeologists for the privilege of investigating an archaeological site. Far from improving standards and increasing efficiency, it could be legitimately argued that keeping costs down at this early stage for the profession has succeeded in reducing investment into staff and techniques at a stage where this should be surging. Archaeologists are passionate about their subject, and believe that to place the profession in this position is not conducive to acceptance by the developer community of the importance of what archaeologists do.

We therefore argue for a debate into the position of archaeologists in this country and would ask that the following be considered:

1. PPG16 was introduced in 1991 and has been widely, though not universally, accepted. Other guidance issued at the same time has been reviewed, yet PPG16 remains in its first release. We believe that a working group should seek opinions from English Heritage/Historic Scotland/CADW, the Council for British Archaeology and the Institute of Field Archaeologists, as well as canvassing the general public as to the effectiveness of the guidance and whether it is durable enough in the planning context. We believe there should be a nationwide universally accepted standard.

2. Archaeologists are a small yet committed group of people who deserve recognition for their labour. We believe there is a case for providing a legal standing for those in the profession in the guise of a chartered organisation (based around the IFA) to protect the title of archaeologist and enforce standards. We believe that the government should support this endeavour as this is vital to the growth of archaeology in the public conscience, and also to ensure the completion of investigations to a high standard.

3. ?????

Kind of lost focus by the end, only had a few minutes in my lunch hour :face-topic:.

(I really have worked in the field)

[troll]

Nicely done sire! Apologies for my silence recently-got mingin flu.Only thing I`m not suffering from is the coughing of feathers and growing beaks.When I cease to produce copious volumes of bubble infested blue-tack-will get back to you!