15th May 2008, 08:06 PM
And its a huge problem in certain areas such as wales were the curatorial staff are in house!!!
Who do you go to then?
We tried trustees but the whole email ws forwarded to the unit manager and those people who provided info were hauled over the coals for it!!
We went to the ifa in good faith believing that if we followed the guidelines they set out we would have a fair chance of changes being made and standards dragged up. Instead what we got was a farce with the unit being given the complaint letter for i think 8months to resond to specific allegations and in effect concoct records and responces. We were given 2weeks to respond to their statement which basically said "no we didnt".
How you contact 20 odd archaeologists who have now spread throughout the country and abroad to get their feedback in that time is beyond me. The ifa did visit the unit but the unit denied any problems existed.
The entire investigation consistedof asking interested parties if they did their job properly. The planning was inhouse, and as the site was a scheduled ancient monument a national organisation (X) was involved in monitoring. This was in the form of a single prearranged visit each month during which the unit manger led them around site and they did not speak to a single digger.
If they agreed with our findings them they themselves would have questions to answer. There was no independant archaeological advisor - although the council stated in the investigation that they should have had one.
So when you examine this there is no one who was asked who was independant - but yet in the summing up of the investigation it was stated that as the two sides contridicted each other they would take x view as independant and find in favour of the company. This is what we are up against. We had everything to loose but put the complaint in under a genuine feeling that something had to be done before any other sites were vandalised but were told that our opinion did not matter as much as everyone elses.
It was also interesting to note as a mark of how impartial the investigation was that the person who was the subject of the allegation spoke at the ifas annual conference this year, and it was held on his home patch. Something smells rotten to me!!!!
Who do you go to then?
We tried trustees but the whole email ws forwarded to the unit manager and those people who provided info were hauled over the coals for it!!
We went to the ifa in good faith believing that if we followed the guidelines they set out we would have a fair chance of changes being made and standards dragged up. Instead what we got was a farce with the unit being given the complaint letter for i think 8months to resond to specific allegations and in effect concoct records and responces. We were given 2weeks to respond to their statement which basically said "no we didnt".
How you contact 20 odd archaeologists who have now spread throughout the country and abroad to get their feedback in that time is beyond me. The ifa did visit the unit but the unit denied any problems existed.
The entire investigation consistedof asking interested parties if they did their job properly. The planning was inhouse, and as the site was a scheduled ancient monument a national organisation (X) was involved in monitoring. This was in the form of a single prearranged visit each month during which the unit manger led them around site and they did not speak to a single digger.
If they agreed with our findings them they themselves would have questions to answer. There was no independant archaeological advisor - although the council stated in the investigation that they should have had one.
So when you examine this there is no one who was asked who was independant - but yet in the summing up of the investigation it was stated that as the two sides contridicted each other they would take x view as independant and find in favour of the company. This is what we are up against. We had everything to loose but put the complaint in under a genuine feeling that something had to be done before any other sites were vandalised but were told that our opinion did not matter as much as everyone elses.
It was also interesting to note as a mark of how impartial the investigation was that the person who was the subject of the allegation spoke at the ifas annual conference this year, and it was held on his home patch. Something smells rotten to me!!!!