13th May 2015, 02:08 PM
sorry Dino hosty edited my post so its not as incoherent as it could be. I don't deposit any archives and I particularly don't deposit archives in museums that charge. I thought that the point of museums charging was to stop archaeologists mindlessly dumping stuff on them. I have always thought that museums charging was a reiteration of http://www.archaeologists.net/sites/defa...ives_2.pdf
I don't think that I have been looking at the wrong figures and in accountancy terms your tonnage cannot possibly be worthless even if its a liability and requires insurance or rent or conservation. To get it to be worth exactly zero would be an accountants dream and one way they try to do it is to say its priceless or irreplaceable which still does not get them out of the conservation, rent or insurance figures. All I did is propose that two sets of accounts easily available as they should be may hold the answer. What I was trying to find out from the figures was who could give permission (or not) for pdurdin to access the archives and if they were in the habit of funding any research by wondering who you paid your charge to, as the kept in the dark field archaeologist might imagine that that they who took the charge might be the custodians? But they have these trusts and these trusts have trading arms and before you know it they call themselves groups but the assets are accounted for somewhere else. Anyway as a result of being a self employed archaeologist you get sensitive to the cold winds of competition and tend to question everything as a full conspiracy and why not because you have got all the ingredients, trust funds, obscure group relations and multimillion pound deficits which being you are specifically excluded from. And in self employment you have to pay taxes on fees and if VAT is involved you have to collect tax on behalf of the government and its all very interesting because maybe we all should be following suit. Whats ridiculous is that poor old pdurdin just wanted to do a bit of innocent case study, how random is that. Anyway the up side is that hosty has shot up from his face book and gone all editory on a simple little post which means that he got a telephone call from somebody who is probably in the same grandpoobar lodge........and I am about to get banned which has never happened to me before.
Quote:3.8.2 In England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man ownership of objects restsI always make it clear to my clients and how expensive it is to get rid of this stuff and that one option would be for them to give all the swapsies to me. This is as close to charity that I get although it has always been my intention to find a buyer for this stuff. I cant say I have ever seen my local mounties making things like ownership clear to the landowners and I thought that the museums putting charges on was their way of making it clear. Who knows what making it clear means but I don't think that I wasn't making it clear but the way they go on about it round my way you would think that I had done something wrong. Its a bit different in hostys neck of the woods but then they have a different hold on bailment or rather the crown does.
with the landowner, except where other law overrides this (eg Treasure Act, 1996,
Burials Act 1857). In Scotland, in the absence of an original owner or his/her
demonstrable heir, ownership of objects rests with the Crown. The archaeologist
undertaking the fieldwork or the planning archaeologist must make this clear at the
inception of the project (in the brief/project outline, specification or project design).
I don't think that I have been looking at the wrong figures and in accountancy terms your tonnage cannot possibly be worthless even if its a liability and requires insurance or rent or conservation. To get it to be worth exactly zero would be an accountants dream and one way they try to do it is to say its priceless or irreplaceable which still does not get them out of the conservation, rent or insurance figures. All I did is propose that two sets of accounts easily available as they should be may hold the answer. What I was trying to find out from the figures was who could give permission (or not) for pdurdin to access the archives and if they were in the habit of funding any research by wondering who you paid your charge to, as the kept in the dark field archaeologist might imagine that that they who took the charge might be the custodians? But they have these trusts and these trusts have trading arms and before you know it they call themselves groups but the assets are accounted for somewhere else. Anyway as a result of being a self employed archaeologist you get sensitive to the cold winds of competition and tend to question everything as a full conspiracy and why not because you have got all the ingredients, trust funds, obscure group relations and multimillion pound deficits which being you are specifically excluded from. And in self employment you have to pay taxes on fees and if VAT is involved you have to collect tax on behalf of the government and its all very interesting because maybe we all should be following suit. Whats ridiculous is that poor old pdurdin just wanted to do a bit of innocent case study, how random is that. Anyway the up side is that hosty has shot up from his face book and gone all editory on a simple little post which means that he got a telephone call from somebody who is probably in the same grandpoobar lodge........and I am about to get banned which has never happened to me before.
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist