'What has IFA ever done for us...?'

[BAJR]

:face-topic:

Just to guide you all back to topic..

the poll shows a interesting lean.. which the ifA should be aware of... and understand the underlying reasons. Just being in existence is not justification of existance. Just having membes does not mean having willing members or even members that get invovled. (ie... more people have votedon this poll than the IfA Council election) and I know all too well the problems of getting people invoveled.

However... can I throw up Trolls post again, which agrees with Kevins earlier posts.

Again, I`m with Kevin on this one. I`ve banged on about regulation for years and in the absence of a viable body to whom I would envisage as an accountable entity capable of adequate policing, the government is all we have. Don`t get me wrong...I`m certainly not a fan of British Government but I am a firm believer in working in a country that takes pride and responsibility in its shared heritage. Just about anyone caring to extoll the virtues of Britain as a nation leans heavily upon the "tradition" and the long and sceptred history of our fair Isles (however one cares to interpret that) in any marketing regime or political diatribe. A bit rich methinks when as a nation, we throw our built and buried environment to the wolves of competitive tendering in an un-regulated free for all environment. Before you explode into the old chestnut " It`s better than the old Rescue days....".....I agree. But, and it`s a big "but"........is it not time that we evolved? What on earth is wrong with a nationalised heritage? A system where finite (and world class) heritage assets are enshrined in statute law, heritage becomes a core subject in an holistic educational curriculum, archaeology ( above and below ground) is preserved in situ and incorporated into new builds, grey publications are reborn as dynamic documents delivered to schools, colleges and universities, museums are treated as national treasures and archaeology becomes enshrined as a profession with obligations to the tax-paying public. Back on thread........ The IFA would continue to drive professional and ethical standards, monitor and police RAO`s and themselves would be answerable to their own regulators. All above board, accountable, modern, progressive and dynamic. Curators would actually have teeth!:face-approve:

Indeed.. where exactly are we? We have Curators who are pressured and perhaps not able to cope ?? or is that unfair. > Indeed perhaps our 'problem' is not the standards... not teh guidance... not the contracting or consultant... but the Council Archaeologist? (yes I am being deliberately provocative... after all I was one! )

If the police force is weak... :face-stir:

[Dinosaur]

.....If the police force is weak...

Think that's roughly where I was heading on the 'Sausage Machine DBAs' thread....:face-thinks:

[monty]

The police force is very variable in my experience ! lots of sticklers and equally as many who will let anything go............................:o)

[Jack]

:face-topic:
(ie... more people have voted on this poll than the IfA Council election) and I know all too well the problems of getting people invoveled.

Interesting indeed.


I think the main problem with this discussion is that there is a lot of 'change the world for the better' solutions. Some more informed than others. But with very little actual problem solving.....just my opinion.

Our industry seems to be in a similar situation as ecology, prior to the acts that covered mitigating ecological impacts got beefed up as law. Farmers, construction etc could destroy habitats, rip up hedges willy nilly. All they had to say was sorry, i didn't know. As until it was made law, this was a defence.

However, we all saw the rigmorole and hoo-har ecologists, climatologists etc had to do to be taken seriously by governments. Archaeology is seen as less of an issue than saving biodiversity (and hence the human race). I think until this changes, archaeology will always be considered LAST in the massive list of concerns, impacts etc. considered in putting in a planning application.

A good example of this is Environmental Statements (ES) for a pipeline say, where all the impacts of the construction are stated from visual impact, noise, pollution, disruption to the transport system, loss of biodiversity and all the way down the bottom is the archaeology.

[Dinosaur]

Now the Green Party have managed to get themselves an MP should they be the subject of much archaeological lobbying? :face-thinks:

[monty]

Now the Green Party have managed to get themselves an MP should they be the subject of much archaeological lobbying? :face-thinks:

In theory YES ....but shouldn't we be lobbying all MPs regardless of political persuasion...... for what good it may do ! ............

[destroyingangel]

The Green Party has been pro-archaeology for some time... from 1996 (maybe its changed since then, but on the whole at least they have a positive view)

Record on Policy Statements
Countryside
Archaeology
(Originally passed – October 1996)

The Green Party already has some partial policy on archaeology (C523, C530 MfSS), Historic Buildings (LP700-1 MfSS), and ancient forests (C542 MfSS). However, archaeologists are concerned with more than just archaeological sites and historic buildings. They are increasingly concerned with archaeological landscapes, and problems with developer driven archaeology.

Policy Statement
The Green Party is committed to:-
1) The integration of archaeological concerns into all aspects of land use and development strategies
2) A review of Planning Policy Guidance 16 (PPG16*) with a view to strengthening the obligation of developers to provide adequate resources for archaeological investigation and conservation, whilst allowing
archaeological concerns to be paramount in deciding how to achieve this.
3) A review of scheduled monuments legislation with a view to strengthening the protection it affords to sites and monuments
4) A tightening of the law regarding the misuse of metal detectors on archaeological sites
5) To promote the teaching of archaeology at all levels if education, to raise awareness of archaeology’s relevance to landscape, social, economic and other issues.
6) To continue, and expand, the resources available for archaeological research, conservation and management
7) To review the legal framework regarding maritime wrecks with a view to affording better protection to these sites

* PPG16 – government guidance to planners recommending that they consider archaeology as part of the planning process, and that developers fund this. Is weak in getting this enacted, and has the problem that developers’ objectives take precedence over archaeological ones.

[Dinosaur]

The Green Party has been pro-archaeology for some time... from 1996 (maybe its changed since then, but on the whole at least they have a positive view)...

Good one Hopefully they'll be able to use their vote (singular?) to achieve some of that :face-approve:

[Sith]

A good example of this is Environmental Statements (ES) for a pipeline say, where all the impacts of the construction are stated from visual impact, noise, pollution, disruption to the transport system, loss of biodiversity and all the way down the bottom is the archaeology.

Not so, I've just checked the last few ESs we've contributed to and Cultural Heriatge is usually 4th out of 8 or more topics. Positioning tends to be dictated by how much of an issue heritage is likely to be for a project as a whole.

[Jack]

Interesting, what were the issues after archaeology?

I'm speaking from experience of just one ES/project plus experiences from dealing with construction managers on several different projects on the ground.