Sorry - that is very hard to follow Marc, and I am not sure I understand.
But if you are really saying that you couldn't care less about what happens on a site that you have not personally won the contract for, then I am afraid I have to say that is shameful.
Nothing meaningful comes from our own archaeological endeavors, save for the faith we put in others evidence, and the trust we hope to gain for our own.
Archaeology done simply for ones own amusement is Onanism - Archaeology done purely for money is Looting.
Moving on;
(Re: DF > i wonder whether they want take a look at CRs case?, even though the IFA 'standards' people (ha-ha) have already said "no case to answer"...maybe they might have more luck in getting any kind information as to the reasoning behind that decision, because nowt of that has thus far been presented by the glorious IFA...?)
PS: the 'group identity' of DF can be replicated by any group of people putting forward a complaint > there can be many layers to an onion,... and many onions.
What is essential is that a very serious approach to real evidence is taken by the complainant...bearing in mind that this perhaps just a matter of Honor, when for example a standards committee can dismiss a complaint without ever referencing technical aspects of the disputed archaeological evidence...Even then there are real problems in presenting and getting the 'real evidence' as this will nearly always directly implicate a practitioner..
PPS:
Any serious complaints relating to Health and Safety should go straight to HSE > the DF and IFA are not suitable bodies to deal with this, though they may be great in supporting the action, and providing some guidance within the profession.
- any complaints regarding Employment Law should be taken to Citizens Advice/Unions/Own Legal Team(smirk)
- self-employed people who took out proper insurance will have quite a bit of cover for legal fees, but these will really be to defend yourself against somebody else complaint (ie you would have to 'maneuver' the situation so the complainant gets to a position where they are defending themselves > perhaps from slander, deformation, damage to reputation etc)....and NOTHING will happen quickly, so be clear that your goals really are beyond Onanism, and that you really do feel that a 'Greater Good' is being served.
But if you are really saying that you couldn't care less about what happens on a site that you have not personally won the contract for, then I am afraid I have to say that is shameful.
Nothing meaningful comes from our own archaeological endeavors, save for the faith we put in others evidence, and the trust we hope to gain for our own.
Archaeology done simply for ones own amusement is Onanism - Archaeology done purely for money is Looting.
Moving on;
(Re: DF > i wonder whether they want take a look at CRs case?, even though the IFA 'standards' people (ha-ha) have already said "no case to answer"...maybe they might have more luck in getting any kind information as to the reasoning behind that decision, because nowt of that has thus far been presented by the glorious IFA...?)
PS: the 'group identity' of DF can be replicated by any group of people putting forward a complaint > there can be many layers to an onion,... and many onions.
What is essential is that a very serious approach to real evidence is taken by the complainant...bearing in mind that this perhaps just a matter of Honor, when for example a standards committee can dismiss a complaint without ever referencing technical aspects of the disputed archaeological evidence...Even then there are real problems in presenting and getting the 'real evidence' as this will nearly always directly implicate a practitioner..
PPS:
Any serious complaints relating to Health and Safety should go straight to HSE > the DF and IFA are not suitable bodies to deal with this, though they may be great in supporting the action, and providing some guidance within the profession.
- any complaints regarding Employment Law should be taken to Citizens Advice/Unions/Own Legal Team(smirk)
- self-employed people who took out proper insurance will have quite a bit of cover for legal fees, but these will really be to defend yourself against somebody else complaint (ie you would have to 'maneuver' the situation so the complainant gets to a position where they are defending themselves > perhaps from slander, deformation, damage to reputation etc)....and NOTHING will happen quickly, so be clear that your goals really are beyond Onanism, and that you really do feel that a 'Greater Good' is being served.