17th August 2010, 07:18 PM
(This post was last modified: 17th August 2010, 07:20 PM by Unitof1.)
Quote:[SIZE=3]Unit - I don't find the field vs. other distinction particularly credible or relevant to the discussion………….. How's your pension pot coming on??[/SIZE]
No its not credible at all. Golly it comes as a great surprise that you don’t find field vs other relevant. So long as you lot are mentioned along side field archaeologists and hang on to the bit of being called archaeologists, that’s all that matters isn’t it. Same for the rest of the 2829.
So we look forward to the chartered archaeologist whos acutely a council curator (obscure position possibly degree based) talking to the chartered archaeologist whos actually a consultant (who possibly couldn’t wait around for the unit director to die and their ex boss already got the curators job) working for a council/government/eu scheme run through a civil engineering company that makes them use their contracts and safty procedures, where the authorising authority is not the local district authority so they then have another chartered archaeologist who actually is a statutory advisor to the government (removed due to AUP) on where to have ancient monuments and whos main job is to measure the distance of ancient monuments to the proposed scheme.. Between them they will straddle the archaeological world in their mankinis and will pick up on the unit director who is also a chartered member (removed due to AUP ) and have a meeting about the resolution of the maps in a watching brief report. Its all about standards.
Unionisation in archaeology: that will be full of members will it or total surrender to the civil servants
Reason: your past is my past