3rd September 2005, 11:15 PM
I do of course take your comments on board and, to a certain extent agree. My apologies therefore are offered to those consultants out there who feel unfairly treated by my mouth. However, how many consultants out there are willing to tear strips off your clients when they misbehave? Big money can be made in consultancy, losing a client can be catastrophic. Not unusual to see archaeology trashed under the noses of consultants. Whatever the mandated role of the County Mounty, the species is expected to fulfill many roles and most do at no extra cost. Can someone explain to me please how a consultant can be impartial? Anyway, perhaps the issue of consultants can be chewed over on another thread-here, the issue is Thornborough. 1man1desk-thankyou, I will go over the old threads again to refresh my memory. I am fully aware however, of just how the "mandated" roles pan out in reality and they seem to be very different from the ideal. Another issue of course is this-who polices consultants? I don`t think the stigma of consultancy will ebb away until the profession on the whole can accept that archaeologists choose to help developers.....