5th March 2005, 01:00 PM
What strikes me, from the "proposals for reform" article, is the preoccupation with contractual matters. There is talk of "winning" parties (and by implication therefore of "losing" parties), attempts to "resolve the issue", compensation "not exceeding ?2000".
The assumption seems to be that all complaints concern matters that can be redressed by negotiation and compensation, therefor, complaints are about loss of profit. There seems to be little or no attempt to address issues of [u]professional</u> malpractice, or damage to archaeology e.g. machining through unrecorded contexts. There would be no complaint as there is no monetary loss. Similarly, damage to diggers has no obvious recouse other than by conventional employment law!
Secondly, complaints or disputes deemed to be "petty and vindictive" are dismissed. So who decides? Remember the "Winslow Boy"? Obviously one has to be sensible here, but I detect a whiff of a patronising "we know best, run along" attitude.
The assumption seems to be that all complaints concern matters that can be redressed by negotiation and compensation, therefor, complaints are about loss of profit. There seems to be little or no attempt to address issues of [u]professional</u> malpractice, or damage to archaeology e.g. machining through unrecorded contexts. There would be no complaint as there is no monetary loss. Similarly, damage to diggers has no obvious recouse other than by conventional employment law!
Secondly, complaints or disputes deemed to be "petty and vindictive" are dismissed. So who decides? Remember the "Winslow Boy"? Obviously one has to be sensible here, but I detect a whiff of a patronising "we know best, run along" attitude.