22nd September 2005, 03:03 PM
Dear Mr Connolly,
For many people in my position as a unit manager, BAJR offers a very useful service as a means of disseminating information and as a cost-effective recruitment platform.
The forum issues have never attracted my attention, however, until yesterday when I was informed that some very negative comments had been made on a number of organisations, including PCA (Lincoln), which led to a curator questioning our suitability to undertake a project within his area.
When I read the comments posted on BAJR, I was surprised, to say the least, that what I had always considered a reliable and professional web-based service appears to routinely publish completely unsubstantiated and wild accusations regarding the conduct of organisations and individuals alike.
This raises two issues: Firstly, the publication of what we consider to be libellous comments. Whilst we do not intend to take any action on this occasion, we will continue to monitor the situation and may do so in the future if you continue to allow BAJR to be used as a stage for defamation. In this respect, despite the courageous statements of ?taking responsibility? by the individuals, we would seek redress in the first instance from the publisher.
The second issue relates to grievances from temporary staff no longer in our employment. Although the comments posted are from individuals who were employed prior to my appointment in February 2005, I am obviously concerned if any previous employee feels they were poorly treated. If anyone wishes to write to me in a reasoned and civilised fashion I will do my best to redress any genuine grievance or at last ensure that similar circumstances do not occur again.
Without prejudice to the above, however, I would also make the following observations and comments regarding the specific postings casting PCA (Lincoln) in less than a favourable light.
?Muddy? (Allen Bullivant) We have no record of this person having ever worked for our organisation.
?Troll? (Simon Cleggett) Mr Cleggett worked for PCA (Lincoln) for approximately three months in 2004. During his period of employment, he did not raise any grievances with either his immediate line manager or the senior management, leaving on what we consider good terms. Later, after we had reviewed our accommodation provision, we received an e-mail from him saying that he was not prepared to work for us again as we were no longer providing free accommodation.
?Sniper? (un-named, but we believe this to be Katie Tucker) Mrs Tucker worked on two sites, broadly during the same time period as Mr Clegget, on which human remains were present. These were a site at Raymouth Lane, Worksop and Horkstow Road, South Feriby. As a qualified human bone specialist, we deferred to her judgement and expertise in the excavation and recording of the human remains that were identified. We are therefore very surprised at the accusation that we treat human remains badly.
It is also worth noting that both these sites were fully monitored by the relevant planning archaeologists and that Raymouth Lane has already been published in the Transactions of the Thoroton Society 2004, pp19-86. I would recommend readers take a look at this paper and judge for themselves whether we treated the human remains as ?filth?.
As a general point, having read through most of the postings on the current forum themes I am somewhat embarrassed and ashamed to be associated with a group that is so vitriolic in its disdain for almost every facet of commercial archaeology. Most of the postings are, to say the least, very negative and whilst many of them have a thin veneer of ethical consideration, the choice of language leaves much to be desired, such as references to female bicycle saddles, bringing the whole profession into disrepute. I suggest that some of your regular subscribers should stop carping about professionalism and start behaving as such; seek change through more appropriate means or else do us all a favour and leave commercial archaeology to join their local ammeter society: assuming, that is, that they would be welcome.
It is also worth adding that the opportunities for advancement within commercial archaeology have never been greater for anyone of ability and drive, with the only limiting factors being an individual?s attitude or lack of aptitude. Given that so many of the postings are from individuals claiming a reasonable level of experience but who have clearly achieved little, I wonder if it is their ability, outlook or both that has held them back.
Yours sincerely
Simon Johnson
Principal Archaeologist
Pre-Construct Archaeology (Lincoln)
Unit G
William Street Business Park
Saxilby
Lincoln LN1 2LP
Mail.pca@virgin.net
For many people in my position as a unit manager, BAJR offers a very useful service as a means of disseminating information and as a cost-effective recruitment platform.
The forum issues have never attracted my attention, however, until yesterday when I was informed that some very negative comments had been made on a number of organisations, including PCA (Lincoln), which led to a curator questioning our suitability to undertake a project within his area.
When I read the comments posted on BAJR, I was surprised, to say the least, that what I had always considered a reliable and professional web-based service appears to routinely publish completely unsubstantiated and wild accusations regarding the conduct of organisations and individuals alike.
This raises two issues: Firstly, the publication of what we consider to be libellous comments. Whilst we do not intend to take any action on this occasion, we will continue to monitor the situation and may do so in the future if you continue to allow BAJR to be used as a stage for defamation. In this respect, despite the courageous statements of ?taking responsibility? by the individuals, we would seek redress in the first instance from the publisher.
The second issue relates to grievances from temporary staff no longer in our employment. Although the comments posted are from individuals who were employed prior to my appointment in February 2005, I am obviously concerned if any previous employee feels they were poorly treated. If anyone wishes to write to me in a reasoned and civilised fashion I will do my best to redress any genuine grievance or at last ensure that similar circumstances do not occur again.
Without prejudice to the above, however, I would also make the following observations and comments regarding the specific postings casting PCA (Lincoln) in less than a favourable light.
?Muddy? (Allen Bullivant) We have no record of this person having ever worked for our organisation.
?Troll? (Simon Cleggett) Mr Cleggett worked for PCA (Lincoln) for approximately three months in 2004. During his period of employment, he did not raise any grievances with either his immediate line manager or the senior management, leaving on what we consider good terms. Later, after we had reviewed our accommodation provision, we received an e-mail from him saying that he was not prepared to work for us again as we were no longer providing free accommodation.
?Sniper? (un-named, but we believe this to be Katie Tucker) Mrs Tucker worked on two sites, broadly during the same time period as Mr Clegget, on which human remains were present. These were a site at Raymouth Lane, Worksop and Horkstow Road, South Feriby. As a qualified human bone specialist, we deferred to her judgement and expertise in the excavation and recording of the human remains that were identified. We are therefore very surprised at the accusation that we treat human remains badly.
It is also worth noting that both these sites were fully monitored by the relevant planning archaeologists and that Raymouth Lane has already been published in the Transactions of the Thoroton Society 2004, pp19-86. I would recommend readers take a look at this paper and judge for themselves whether we treated the human remains as ?filth?.
As a general point, having read through most of the postings on the current forum themes I am somewhat embarrassed and ashamed to be associated with a group that is so vitriolic in its disdain for almost every facet of commercial archaeology. Most of the postings are, to say the least, very negative and whilst many of them have a thin veneer of ethical consideration, the choice of language leaves much to be desired, such as references to female bicycle saddles, bringing the whole profession into disrepute. I suggest that some of your regular subscribers should stop carping about professionalism and start behaving as such; seek change through more appropriate means or else do us all a favour and leave commercial archaeology to join their local ammeter society: assuming, that is, that they would be welcome.
It is also worth adding that the opportunities for advancement within commercial archaeology have never been greater for anyone of ability and drive, with the only limiting factors being an individual?s attitude or lack of aptitude. Given that so many of the postings are from individuals claiming a reasonable level of experience but who have clearly achieved little, I wonder if it is their ability, outlook or both that has held them back.
Yours sincerely
Simon Johnson
Principal Archaeologist
Pre-Construct Archaeology (Lincoln)
Unit G
William Street Business Park
Saxilby
Lincoln LN1 2LP
Mail.pca@virgin.net