7th February 2006, 09:48 PM
Greetings all.My issue is with the following:
1."I never allow the contractor to go direct to the curator"
I don`t like this for a number of reasons.Mainly, the curator is a representative/servant (take yer pick) of the tax-paying public.His/her job is involved in the curation of a publically owned resource. Sorry consultants-I find this concept arrogant in the extreme.In my experience, consultants seem to make a habit of this.Nothing short of the curator literally handing the finite resource over to the private sector on a plate.Have a fantastic example of this very practise and the price the archaeology had to pay.
2."grief with curators is a problem for them(clients) and they prefer to avoid it"
I bet they bloody do.So, let me get this nice and clear... consultants feel that they have the right to deny contractors access to the curators? Is this standard practise? I spent nearly 16 months functioning under an identical regime.I have never seen such contrived butchery before or since.
Alfie-greetings! I have no issue with what you say sir.Lots of us are forced to work with the incompetent.Lots of us are forced to work for the incompetent too. My issue here is with the closed shop of consultancies and certain contractors who together-can basically do as they please.Not happy about this at all.I want my curator to have a direct line with contractors-sorry but clients don`t own the archaeology despite owning the land.Quite how a consultancy can dictate the terms of active local Government curatorship is beyond me.Frankly, if my experience of consultancies can be seen as a general rule of thumb-they desperately need to be policed.
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
1."I never allow the contractor to go direct to the curator"
I don`t like this for a number of reasons.Mainly, the curator is a representative/servant (take yer pick) of the tax-paying public.His/her job is involved in the curation of a publically owned resource. Sorry consultants-I find this concept arrogant in the extreme.In my experience, consultants seem to make a habit of this.Nothing short of the curator literally handing the finite resource over to the private sector on a plate.Have a fantastic example of this very practise and the price the archaeology had to pay.
2."grief with curators is a problem for them(clients) and they prefer to avoid it"
I bet they bloody do.So, let me get this nice and clear... consultants feel that they have the right to deny contractors access to the curators? Is this standard practise? I spent nearly 16 months functioning under an identical regime.I have never seen such contrived butchery before or since.
Alfie-greetings! I have no issue with what you say sir.Lots of us are forced to work with the incompetent.Lots of us are forced to work for the incompetent too. My issue here is with the closed shop of consultancies and certain contractors who together-can basically do as they please.Not happy about this at all.I want my curator to have a direct line with contractors-sorry but clients don`t own the archaeology despite owning the land.Quite how a consultancy can dictate the terms of active local Government curatorship is beyond me.Frankly, if my experience of consultancies can be seen as a general rule of thumb-they desperately need to be policed.
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)