25th August 2011, 03:06 PM
tom wilson Wrote:[quote=Marcus Brody]But how often does this ever happen? Very rarely, in my experience.
Agreed; I was just summarising the process in principal. Regarding the issue of dealing with poor fieldwork, yes you're right again, it's the developer that would get penalised, but then the fieldworkers are just sub-contractors. Similarly, a roofing sub-contractor woudn't get chased by the council for putting on a poor roof. The developer is in charge, they get the blame and if they are unhappy with their sub-contractors they can refuse to pay, take court action etc.* Would you expect the council's planners to take action against a cowboy roofing contractor?
Don't disagree Tom, but if the archaeological organisation involved is registered with the IFA then of course the curator is within their rights to make complaint through the IFA disciplinary process. Whether a 'conviction' under this scheme would make any difference to an individual's or organisation's ability to continue trading is open to question, but in an unregulated market, the IFA route is probably the only form of sanction....and as we all know that only applies to IFA members....
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...