24th February 2012, 03:51 PM
(This post was last modified: 24th February 2012, 03:57 PM by Unitof1.)
Quote:
IfA also needs to prove that it can be trusted to take robust action against
it's members/organisations that fail to meet the standards
fail to meet what standard and what robus action should be taken? As far as I am concerned the biggest issue that rose out of the rescue days is that archaeology was being destroyed by development without the chance of it being recorded. As far as I am concerned it still is and that the central issus is to try and get an archaeologist, any bloody archaeologist in on the ground. Instead the industry wants to turn itself into that person is not up to "standard" and is a crap archaeologist who needs momnitoring or must work for a company that needs monitoring. From my point of view a crap archaeologist is better than no archaeologist, that includes someone who goes to a watching brief and stays in the car all day (the reason being that it should have been an evaluation and then archaeologists would have struggled to have stayed in the car).
Lets say it again- all planning applications should provided archaeological consideration and that consideration should be provided by anybody calling themselves an archaeologist and if anybody else thinks that the consideration is inadequate they should say so in the planning consultaion period to the planning authority. Obviously I will make the little old ladies undertake very inexpensive evaluations.
Reason: your past is my past