standards anyone?

[monty]

Archaeology needs standards for each element WB Eval, Excvation ones that cover the country (not change from county to county) and a means of evaluating the quality... not the cost saving. Surely a worthy project for IfA?

Absolutely spot on !! :face-approve:

[monty]

I think Monty and I are listening to the same grape vine. However as I am currently low down in the chain it is all rumour and hear say though it comes from people I trust . It is those higher up in management who need to act against perceived corruption, but for whatever reason they do not .

I need to say nowt else !!!!

[monty]

For the benefit of the public as well as monty

On a public forum you have claimed that as a matter of fact there is a consultant (or consultants) that are accepting money( or as you say hefty back-handers) as well as falsifying archaeology ( pretending no archaeology exists)

Now, this means that an air of suspicion falls on all consultants, and that includes me - when I act in that capacity. Because you are not naming names (which is against the AUP), then it means that all consultants are tarnished. plus please give some of us who have or still are been in teh planning system as development control archaeologists... we can see through ploys.

I am asking once again... get in touch privately, - as per normal, this is confidential, but allows me to be confident about allowing accuasations (yes I am afraid you have accused consultants (unnamed and unknown numbers) of accepting back-handers to 'lose' archaeology. The legal ramifications are that I am aware of wtf is going on, and remember, this forum is such that I am the one that is legally responsible for all content. So do me the courtesy of telling me the rumour, grapevine, hearsay or TRUTH (which it may be -?) I simpley don't know. For al I know you could be suggesting that I have taken back handers when I act as a consultant.

You see what I mean?

You can't just say...



That just leaves the the door open to doubting ALL consultants.
please monty... let me know on a completely confidential level --- and the same goes for everyone. me that this de

On another note, I am very sad about which way this thread went. :face-topic:

Well Mr Bajr, seeing as you have removed my posts puttiing the cat among the pigeons....... and not spilling the beans to you personally......... i can only assume that this forum is NOT for all things archaeological......... my posts were pertinent to say the least.....sadly i am seriously considering withdrawing from the Federation Forum ..............................

[BAJR]

I have sent you emails and private messages, all of which you ignored. I have removed only two posts - rather than the rest of your comments, I have asked you for moderation and respect. the posts that were removed were not pertinent, being only a

You can assume what you like, and I am sorry you think that because you had two posts removed, you will throw the toys out the pram.

Just to finish this... I will reinstate the two posts..which were removed, not becasue they were earth shattering cat amongst pigeons stuff, just plain rude in that you decide to ignore my requests and ignore my emails and they were off the topic of the thread... I will also repost them here:

NOT ALL consultancies/consultants are tarnished by what i have said...... that in itself is an accusation !!!!...........i have also acted in that capacity ..... those concerned know who they are .......and i will not be naming names having taken legal advice...........a bit off thread i know but this stuff needs to be aired in the parlous state of commercial archaeology as we know it in the 21st century. I rest my case and will keep me gob shut

I think Monty and I are listening to the same grape vine. However as I am currently low down in the chain it is all rumour and hear say though it comes from people I trust . It is those higher up in management who need to act against perceived corruption, but for whatever reason they do not .

I need to say nowt else !!!!

So these posts were hardly putting any cat among any pigeon... they were only continuing a topic I had asked politely to desist.... or if you wished to continue you would inform me of the issue, so as I would be able to defend myself - if needed. You decided that your anger is more important than the forum. If you seriously consider leaving the forum, then I am sorry but that is your choice, and you have shown me a distinct lack of respect by replying to none of my emails.


Well done people for taking a decent thread about standards and turn it into an angry finger pointing rumour filled posting.

proud I am not.

[monty]

Is it the result of one company using very inexperienced people while another will only use experienced people? Should curators monitor this and specifically state the minimum levels of experience of staff to be used on particular jobs, are archaeological standards the responsibility of the curators?

YES YES YES !!!!!! ....................*back on topic*

[dmama]

for some reason this squabble has been sent to me. all i can say is now now children play nicely and lets sort out what is REALLY important. if a consultant is a back hander name and shame but prove it... the thread is about standards is it not. all i can say is if it wasn't for bajr i, as a lone stranger, would have no way to voice my opinions or frustrations or have such a giggle at the random oddness of my fellow archibolloxists. so kiss and make up boys...

[the invisible man]

As in any profession or trade, standards are the responsibilty of the practitioners (small 'p') themselves. Monitoring is clearly the reponsibility of a) the hierarchy, for want of a better word, of the organization concerned b) the consultant, in terms of the contract and c) the curator, in terms of the conditions (all assuming a straightforward set of relatinships).

This is easily and directly comparible with building construction, the industry on which it is modelled.

[Dinosaur]

Could the curators who contribute to the Forum perhaps clarify excactly what powers they actually have in cases where they are unable to actually prove that work is substandard (as opposed to just thinking 'I'd rather such and such had done this instead, their DBAs are always much more informative)? Presumably unless they can actually prove foul play their options must be fairly limited? Bit like county lists of contractors are apparently fairly meaningless?

[BAJR]

If no-one answers that one, I will give it a shot as an ex -DC archaeologist from Scotland - and no, a heid-butt was not a standard response.

[Dinosaur]

An insight into the relationship between county archaeological staff and county council legal departments might be interesting too - 'if you do that/blacklist that consultant we might get sued'....:face-thinks: