13th June 2008, 02:30 PM
"One of the main things that, in practice, undermines the IFA is the perception that they don't take action often enough. It is hard to comment on that, because the actions they do take are not often publicised."
Perhaps it is time to re-examine this policy. If they were to publish their disciplinary judgements, their reasoning and the outcomes of their judgments it might significantly improve their reputation.
Perhaps they might also take a more pro-active approach. Someone has mentioned on another thread that there are a couple of pipelines going ahead without watching briefs, on the basis that all the archaeology has been positively identified from the geophysics. I have no idea about this case, but was that decision made by a member, or a member of staff of an RAO? I agree that very serious breaches are not common, but they do happen.
Perhaps it is time to re-examine this policy. If they were to publish their disciplinary judgements, their reasoning and the outcomes of their judgments it might significantly improve their reputation.
Perhaps they might also take a more pro-active approach. Someone has mentioned on another thread that there are a couple of pipelines going ahead without watching briefs, on the basis that all the archaeology has been positively identified from the geophysics. I have no idea about this case, but was that decision made by a member, or a member of staff of an RAO? I agree that very serious breaches are not common, but they do happen.