2nd January 2007, 12:49 PM
G`day Mr Hosty and Vulpes.After reading the IFA doc on RAOs, it has to be said that I would have seriously looked into the issues of liability before writing that! I know a couple of London Barristers who would eat anyone alive in court based on such a document.I think this thread illustrates beautifully the quagmire we find ourselves in.Whilst I am tempted to pull this document to pieces-theres not enough space here and I`m sure subscribers to the forum can see the gaping holes and the "my first penguin book of liability" approach to current law. The fact that an RAO scheme was innitiated in the first place is (to me) an admission by the IFA that the current validation system and their alleged policing of standards simply does not work and further cannot be policed by the IFA.Potential clients are invited to see RAO status as a "guaruntee". The IFA validation of individual archaeologists does not work and cannot reasonably be seen as a "guarantee" and further....why do the IFA feel that validating organisations will be any better? Rather than witch-hunting units here, I think its high time that we had a good long look at this...
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)