13th December 2005, 02:20 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by VenutiusApologies Venutius - sometimes its hard to keep track of who's who. Post edited
This is a Friends of Thornborough press release, not TimeWatch.
Thread Rating:
|
Thornborough "debate"
|
13th December 2005, 03:03 PM
Venetius
I take your point that you are a separate organisation but, as field archaeologist, I think it is a valid question as to what your view of the Friends of Thornborough press release is. Keep away from the light.........H
13th December 2005, 03:16 PM
In reference to the press release, I would just like to state that I was not an employee of North Yorkshire County Council when the current County Archaeologist was taken on.
Mike Griffiths (childish pseudonym)
14th December 2005, 05:57 PM
Venetius
are you still there? Where has everyone gone? Was it something I said? Keep away from the light......H
14th December 2005, 08:12 PM
I would like to welcome Mike Griffiths to the "Dragons Den" and the BAJR debate on Thornborough. I will be monitoring this thread very closely.
Mike - the use of nicknames is a fine BAJR tradition and they are not childish pseudonyms. One of the fun things about BAJR is that you dont know who you are arguing with! I would ask everybody else to be courteous to Mike and stick to factual discussion. Peter Wardle 
15th December 2005, 11:15 AM
Indeed. Thanks Peter
Welcome Mike Griffiths - Your input in the debate is invaluable, as it should hopefully allow for PRODUCTIVE discussion. The AUP applys as much to you as everyone else... so let everyone keep sarcasm, bitching etc to themselves. The "Childish pseudonym" jibe was not required - your presence and comment however is. David Connolly or BAJR Host if you prefer. Once again I am in the same position where I see both sides of the arguement, I understand both concerns and see that both sides have agendas as well as positions that look (without full scrutiny) to be eyebrow raising. This is where BAJR Forum can help. Explain and mythbust ... There are many unanswered questions, lets debate these seriously and listen to each other. cheers Another day another WSI?
15th December 2005, 02:10 PM
Interesting... Mike Griffiths arrives at BAJR, is welcomed by the host, and the thread seems to stop dead. I'd assumed that the likes of Venutius would be bombarding the message board by now.
15th December 2005, 06:05 PM
Mike,
I am not sure if you are up for a debate or just wish to correct factual errors. If you are up for a debate then here goes: In the assessment you say that: ?If archaeological remains of national significance which are under statutory protection do not merit preservation in situ in advance of agricultural intensification, it is difficult to justify the preservation of archaeological remains of far lesser significance which are not and will not meet the criteria to achieve statutory protection.? In a nutshell you seem to be arguing that there is a ?dividend? or gain in excavating archaeological remains that are being destroyed by ploughing albeit paid for by gravel extraction. Speaking hypothetically if the permitted development right of ploughing to normal agricultural depth on scheduled monuments is removed in the review of designations etc would this argument be as compelling? It makes sense to me. Equally PPG says Preservation in situ is the preferred option in any event paradoxically it does not say preservation in situ is to be preferred provided that there is no other threat which may or may not be within the scope or remit of the planning system. To take your argument to the extreme point thus a Local Planning Authority before refusing permission would have to demonstrate there are: No trees No badgers No cattle or people erosion No dewatering or whatever. This was the crux of the argument over a site in Croydon reported in Samuels and Pugh Archaeology in Law. The inspector decided that it was better to preserve in situ. Dr Peter Wardle The Archaeological Consultancy |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)