Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2007
21st November 2011, 09:59 PM
A non sequitur to the above post, but it does address the general themes of this thread:
http://www.diggingthedirt.com/2011/11/20...eologists/
Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
28th November 2011, 09:15 PM
AS a codicil to this -- If you know of any COunty CUratorial Service that is requesting RO only for any development control work then please email me with the name (and some details of how you know... or information that has been sent or other information )
info@bajr.org
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
29th November 2011, 01:34 PM
Quote:COunty CUratorial Service that is requesting RO only
Presumably Unitaries, districts and Cities are exempt from this request?! :face-stir:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2005
29th November 2011, 02:08 PM
Why do you know of any asking for RO only companies? Would be great if you could help out }
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
29th November 2011, 02:16 PM
No, I don't unfortunately. I don't know of any counties doing that either. Not to say they don't exist mind
Digging's article very interesting. Of course it's not impossible for an 'amateur' group or society to become an RO, one already is.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
29th November 2011, 02:24 PM
trowelfodder Wrote:It appears that some planning departments will only allow RO's to work on their patches - how can this be right when the IFA no matter its claims cannot claim to represent all of the proffession and has a terrible track record for disciplining units who fail to work to their required standard!
If units are not allowed to discriminate and only employ ifa members than how is this practice acceptable for planning authorities?
so there aren't any then - its just a bit of paranoid hyperbole from the antifas - unfortunately
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
29th November 2011, 02:30 PM
vulpes Wrote:No, I don't unfortunately. I don't know of any counties doing that either. Not to say they don't exist mind
Digging's article very interesting. Of course it's not impossible for an 'amateur' group or society to become an RO, one already is.
and more no-doubt will be - when they see how easy it is to pick off the small easy sites
then they will do bigger ones and start charging minimal fees
then they will advertise their cut-price services
then after driving all the one man bands out of business they will move on up til they have swallowed a few medium sized operators
operating out of their homes around the country they will stitch up the market and become chariteeeeeeees
then maybe unit will come back and tell a few funny stories
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2005
29th November 2011, 03:38 PM
Am getting pretty fed up of being accused of making this whole thing up especially when the IFA themselves have released a statement saying (from KEvins post)
Quote:Vulpes is right... the IfA announced a while back that it had received a legal opinion to the effect that curators could be justified in excluding non-RAOs. I am sure I mentioned this on BAJR at the time, but can't for the life of me find the thread right now....
so if this is all made up then why did they even bother to do this.
This is an important issue that needed to be brought out into the open and archaeologists needed to be made aware of what was happening behind the schemes
If organisations are backtracking when questioned it does not mean that it was not their intention in the first place - it just means they do not have courage in their convictions
Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
29th November 2011, 03:45 PM
Quote: so there aren't any then - its just a bit of paranoid hyperbole from the antifas - unfortunately
Actually there were/are/was I know - I can vouch. so not [paranoia] I assure you.
So not IfA anti ness. I have been steadfast in not 'having a go' at the IfA. As you can imagine though it is a tricky situation and one that requires careful discussion. The IfA freely admit that is the plan, and fair play to them (er... us) AS a MIfA I am subject as well. Though I am not an RO. I prefer my work to be judged by the client and the curator.
ps Vulpes, always manages to slip in a comedy one-liner.
who needs Unit.
pps Diggings article is interesting, even if it misses the point a bit. But I agree, there is a need to maintain standards... now... l;et me think... who would be best placed to do such a thing :face-huh:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2011
29th November 2011, 06:51 PM
P Prentice Wrote:its just a bit of paranoid hyperbole from the antifas
Or it's just a bit of 'Field of Dreams', if-you-build-it-they-will-come style posturing by the IfA and its apologists, trying to present paid-for legal opinion as established fact. BAJR says that he can vouch for the fact that there were/are/was curators looking at adopting this policy, but none of them seem to be keen to publicise their decision, which suggests that they're not entirely confident in it.
You know Marcus. He once got lost in his own museum
IFA RO only as approved contractors
