30th August 2012, 10:20 AM
utilities and drainage board- both seem to have a cirtain amount of being their own authorising authority but the curators would say that they have managed the process in accordance with god knows what planning policy framework change its name tommorow and who evers doing the work is complying with what ever scheme of works.
What I am saying is that the curators manage the objection system as far as archaeology goes and archaeologists have had to give or rather have had their adverserial responsibilities taken away from them. If you like my responsibility to say that another archaeologist should do better or that I should be paid more. Basically if you dont get onto a tender, lose a tender, you move on, you dont go back and look at it ever again. Its left to the curators and if you like the ifa. Archaeologists dont see the objection system as the time to say I think that their should be more sampling, radiocarbon dates in this project as a matter of right. It seems to me that using the objection system can only put more money into the archaeology.
What I am saying is that the curators manage the objection system as far as archaeology goes and archaeologists have had to give or rather have had their adverserial responsibilities taken away from them. If you like my responsibility to say that another archaeologist should do better or that I should be paid more. Basically if you dont get onto a tender, lose a tender, you move on, you dont go back and look at it ever again. Its left to the curators and if you like the ifa. Archaeologists dont see the objection system as the time to say I think that their should be more sampling, radiocarbon dates in this project as a matter of right. It seems to me that using the objection system can only put more money into the archaeology.
Reason: your past is my past