DIGGER, voice for good or SWP polemic?

[troll]

Then heres a serious answer sir.
The Digger does`nt purport to represent anyone. It`s an opportunity for issues to be raised and for anyone to air their opinion.In this sense-the Digger is the vehicle, the medium, blank canvas, call it what you will-where opinion is aired.
On another point sir-
weapons of mass deception are not a recent invention in England.By a long shot.Cos I`m knackered-just a quickie on the SWP front....
I`m not a fan of how they do things either. My fellow front-liners and I were not impressed in the slightest when the SWP tried to spray-paint us for ease of police identification during the storming of Downing street. Regardless of what political standpoint or pedigree the Digger launches from-I will fight for their right to say what they like to whom they like!!! Hope your well Beery

[Real Job]

Has this suddenly become a red-baiting thread?

Troll,
As an ex-SWPer myself, they are due for a certain amount of criticism... but shopping fellow protesters to the cops? Don't sound right to me. Was this on the anti-war demo or the (2nd? memeory fades)CJB demo, 'cos I was close to the action on both occasions and didn't see anything like that. If it did happen, then I can only say that that is not the sort of thing any socialist (or anyone else)should be doing... I should add that I have seen anarchists doing pretty unpleasant things in the past, but have never considered them to represent all. I have the greatest respect for the anarchist tradition in general.

Beer beast

If you have got a criticism of the line taken by the digger (rather than the letters they publish), then state it and we'll discuss. But it sounds as if your problem is with the political tradition they (allegedly? I have no idea who the editor is) belong to. Surely its only fair to criticise someone based on what they do, not on your prejudices. Otherwise its just name-calling.

[Real Job]

The digger represents a point of view. As I have already said on this thread, I think that you are insulting the intelligence of the people that read it if you think they are being led, sheep-like, to opinions they don't really agree with. As well as insulting me, it would seem from your last edit - sorry, who was accusing who of being drunk?

[mercenary]

Oh dear. I hope nobody over at IFA/CBA/Britarch is monitoring this slanging match, because it's hardly going to refute the Anarchist part of the "Anarchist Idiot" accusation. No offense RJ or BB.

Can we move on?

[Real Job]

quote:where are [...] the tea hut discussions of the hot political issue of the day - more likely is the animated discussion about the latest sci-fi programme or who is featured in Hello or OK!

I guess I have just found out why people might be too intimidated to discuss politics with Beer Beast in the tea hut.

Moving on (no offence taken of course Merc), Beer's original post was about'removing' the editor of the digger and that has been answered. The rather different point that he/she has made about disclosure of political affiliation is interesting and is more reasonable. I'm not sure that I agree, but if I did i would be directing my demands for disclosure towards those individuals who are 'in charge' of the various institutions in British archaeology rather than the author of a news sheet that seems to be on the side of diggers.

The various individuals who have influence in archaeology all seem to be agreed that the current 'free-market' set up of the profession is a desirable situation, needing at best a bit of tinkering with. By contrast, I think many diggers see the market in archaeology as being the scource of low wages, short contracts, shoddy archaeology and all the other ills that get discussed on this forum. So perhaps we should be asking whether the senior individuals within the profession have a political affiliation to Thatcherism/Blairism, and whether this blinds them to some of the problems we face.

That said, I am not sure how much wiser we would be if, for example, the editor of a popular magazine declared himself to adhere to a pro-market political philosophy. Would we have achieved anything that we could not have worked out for ourselves? I respectfully suggest that it is better to judge people on what they do or say, not on their political affiliations.

[1man1desk]

quote:I think many diggers see the market in archaeology as being the scource of low wages, short contracts, shoddy archaeology and all the other ills that get discussed on this forum

(originally posted by Real Job)

Well, that might be true if these problems had started or got worse when the free-market system came in. For those of us old enough to have been working in the field both before and after the advent of PPG16 and competitive tendering, it is clear that pay, conditions of employment (if any) and the quality of (rescue) archaeological work done were all worse beforehand. There were significant improvements immediately after, and some additional progress when the IFA first brought in their recommended pay minima. These improvements were not enough, and did not form a sustained trend, but the old public-sector funded, local-unit-monopoly system was certainly (even) worse for the workers than the present system.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[troll]

Think this is way off.Also getting bored with listening to Beery point his offensive mouth at subscribers who dare to offer an opinion.I`m not an anything "ist".Fellow subscribers are not punchbags either.Have a word Mr Hosty.........

[BAJR Host]

I refer the honourable gentleman to the post on Anarchist Idiot...

however to ensure it recieves maximum exposure...

First.. beery (and others).... remember part of the AUP. Consider this a warning shot. The attack on Vulpes is both threatening and offensive ? I have not seen anything written by vuples that is sniping? perhaps you could show me.?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
?Vulpes: Why are you on this site? I think my reasons are clear, what are yours????? I have a clear`agenda about transparency. Why are you here - right winger, metal detectorist, antiquarian. Don't snipe, talk to us!?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



2. Acceptable behaviour?
Acceptable behaviour should be instilled in all of us; however, recent events on this forum, have realised the need for a set of forum rules. The nature of ?Online communities? can have unfortunate consequences in how the written word is construed. As visual and auditory clues are missing, one needs to be more aware of how our written words might be understood by others. It is also the case that writing in this electronic medium can often lead to ?hasty? words and/or comments that would not normally be aired in a non-virtual context.

? Be civil in your interaction! Do not vilify, abuse, denigrate or call other members names.
? Present your opinions in a tactful and moderate fashion.
? Do not be aggressive towards other members on this forum
? You must not quote any private correspondence, be it email, private messages or any other private material anywhere on the Forum.
? Freedom of Speech - please let members post ideas and allow for these to be elaborated on without fear of admonishment from others.
? Do Not post content that contains allegations about individuals or companies without first contacting BAJR by personal email. info@bajr.org failure to do so will result in the posting being removed.




Another day another WSI?

[Real Job]

quote:For those of us old enough to have been working in the field both before and after the advent of PPG16 and competitive tendering, it is clear that pay, conditions of employment (if any) and the quality of (rescue) archaeological work done were all worse beforehand.

posted by 1man1desk

I'm sure what you say is true 1man. Although I'm not old enough to have experienced life before 1990 in archaeology, it certainly squares with everything I have read about it and what others have told me.

However, I am not sure that it is fair to make the comparison as I do not think you are comparing like with like. PPG16 established our profession on a 'legal' basis for the first time ensuring that all development everywhere in Britain was subject to archaeological considerations. It replaced an ad hoc system that employed far fewer archaeologists.
It might even be fair to say that PPG16 established our profession for the first time. The fact that it also effectively privatised archaeology is unlikely to be the reason that wages went up and the quality of the archaeology got better. Many other factors were involved that seem to me to preclude a straight forward comparison.

[1man1desk]

Well, I think the reason why PPG16 initially led to improved pay and conditions was because it enlarged the market so much. There was a lot of work to be done, and not enough people to do it - so pay and conditions had to improve, to attract the necessary staff.

Another reason was that many (not all) developers were not happy to have a bunch of 'volunteers' working on their site; if they were paying for the work, they wanted it to be done by professionals, because their perception was that it would be done more efficiently/quickly that way (this was said to me by developer types).

Another reason for the death of the 'volunteer' system, and also the reduction in the use of nominally 'self-employed' staff, was action by the Inland Revenue, who held these to be illegal practices.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished