27th October 2011, 06:35 PM
vulpes Wrote:well I'm 13 and 3/4 and I struggled, really! :face-thinks:
On a more serious note, here's a wee snippet from the IFA article in The Archaeologist, 77, Autumn 2010 p5:
we can now argue authoritatively that with commitment and care about due process, local authorities can choose to require work to be done to IfA Standards, by Registered Organisations; and they can make such provisions through conditions of planning permission.
Sounds quite legit and straightforward to me. I'm only surprised it's taken so long to be applied.
Without wanting to be accused of stating the bleedin' obvious, 'Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?' It's obviously in the interests of the IfA to present this as settled fact, but until it's been tested in court, it's only legal opinion, and given that they were the ones paying for it, it's hardly a huge surprise that their lawyers were able to make an argument for the legality of restricting commercial work to IfA members.
The real crunch will only come when a large and rich developer takes a Council to court because they've been told that they can't use their preferred archaeologist because they're not a member. At that point, one of two things will probably happen; either the Council will want to avoid an expensive court case on an issue that they probably don't really care about and will drop the issue, or they'll look to the IfA for support, only to see them disappear in a cloud of dust when faced with an opponent with the money to employ an even better legal team to put together a counter-argument.
You know Marcus. He once got lost in his own museum