27th January 2007, 03:42 AM
m300572:
'The vast amajority of commercial archaeology is effectively forced on developers...it would be equally valid to give all archaeologists a subsidy...'
Aha, do I spy the old Development Tax debate rising up again, or are you in favour of archaeology simply being paid for out of the general Treasury coffers?
Good point about developers not really wanting us around, although I would reply that there are others who fit that mould (ecology, health & safety) but who are required by *statutory* legislation, so we see less grumbling and more just getting on with it.
BAJR (and others):
'...just because it's old!! ...'
Not my personal view, just my presentation of the debate.
m300572 has clarified that he's refering to a third form: proposed subsidies for archaeological work (as opposed to real subsidies to farmers). (is that a fair representation m300572?)
'In the busy market there are fortunes to be won and lost, but in the cherry orchard there is peace'.
Chinese proverb
'The vast amajority of commercial archaeology is effectively forced on developers...it would be equally valid to give all archaeologists a subsidy...'
Aha, do I spy the old Development Tax debate rising up again, or are you in favour of archaeology simply being paid for out of the general Treasury coffers?
Good point about developers not really wanting us around, although I would reply that there are others who fit that mould (ecology, health & safety) but who are required by *statutory* legislation, so we see less grumbling and more just getting on with it.
BAJR (and others):
'...just because it's old!! ...'
Not my personal view, just my presentation of the debate.
m300572 has clarified that he's refering to a third form: proposed subsidies for archaeological work (as opposed to real subsidies to farmers). (is that a fair representation m300572?)
'In the busy market there are fortunes to be won and lost, but in the cherry orchard there is peace'.
Chinese proverb