Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2005
How does archeology police its own if you have a bad apple amongst your ranks. What systems are in place to deal with such things and what discipline is brought to bare.
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording
OUR heritage for future generations.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2005
Good question [?] Abit hit or miss. Depends on whether person in question is in the IFA. BAJR Hotline has proved very successful in it's recent history. Archaeology is a small world and hearsay, gossip and rumours still play a part in trying and convicting individuals without defence :face-confused:
Still a long way to go, but I'm sure we will get there - along with the metal detecting fratunity..
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2005
As far as I know muddy the detecting fraternity has nothing in place.
I believe it should but how do we go about it and policing it??
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording
OUR heritage for future generations.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
I was under the impression, from someof the debates held in respect of metal detecting that there were clear policing solutions in place for archaeology, hence the dtermination to force the same for the hobby.
Am genuinely surprised to read that this isnt so and that it is all rather hit and miss....
http://www.detector-distribution.co.uk
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
There are several ways to 'police' archaeology.
1) the Law (ie... has the person broken any law)
2) the IFA (if they are members of the IFA then they are able to take action)
3) the BAJR Hotline (a last resort, but does the job !)
however - the person you are alluding to is not an archaeologist sadly (or gladly) rather a works in a council museum.... now that comes under Heritage I grant you... but not archaeology...
I would suggest... and correct me if I am wrong... you have already done... but contact the council in question and voice your concerns.
Archaeology is policing its own... (well..... starting to... and with the odd prod from BAJR) I am glad to see that Detecting is contemplating doing the same, as this will remove the worry of 'archaeologists' trying to force their policing onto them. :face-huh:
Another day another WSI?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2005
If I am honest the post in question was not related to the other person. It just got me thinking about what safety margins were built into archeology and how it would act. There seem to be so many loose ends and little loop holes that you can wriggle out off.
When it comes to the other person I did contact the Council Exec David but have heard nothing back yet... if I dont I will contact the local press as they like to give the local council a good pasting every now and then. Its not a witch hunt but a moral stand point. The person in question should have practised what he preached.
Regarding policing, detecting also has none and various bodies who represent its ranks also do not "police" or bring to bare sanctions on those whom it knows are doing wrong. In fact I know that many within various clubs with affiliated to the "National body" do nothing about it.
http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording
OUR heritage for future generations.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
I would also suggest that "policing" (which I am not convinced is an appropriate expression) also occurs via the planning procedure and the procedures and law of contract. I would think that these occur far more often than the "complaints" type procedures, being in effect on-going and generally of a monitoring nature.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
I think some of the posts above are a bit pessimistic and dismissive of how archaeology regulates itself.
We don't have a single, uniform set of rules and an official body that enforces them. However, as a profession we do have a fairly strong consensus on what constitutes ethical behaviour and there is a lot of peer pressure to stick within its limits (doesn't always work, of course).
Insofar as this has a written expression, it is in the Code of Conduct and the Standards and Guidance published by the IFA, which are broadly accepted throughout the profession even by those who don't like the IFA and won't join.
Enforcement is generally weak, because membership of the IFA is not compulsory, and because the IFA doesn't (and couldn't) do pro-active policing (the same applies to all other professional institutions in Britain). However, there are complaints and disciplinary procedures for IFA members, which can lead to reactive sanctions.
Under some circumstances, even some non-members may be subject to the IFA standards, through contractual or curatorial requirements - but these cannot be enforced through the IFA disciplinary process, only through contractual or planning processes.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by garybrun Its not a witch hunt but a moral stand point. The person in question should have practised what he preached.
Well, so far you have pursued this on PAS Forum (leading to the situation we now see on the PAS website
http://www.findsdatabase.org.uk/forum/in...79db1f40fb ), on UKDN (naming names) and here and you announce you plan to take your moral standpoint to the newspapers.
Obviously this case is of great importance to you and (as I understand it) has a metal-detecting/artefact collection/PAS connection.
Some of us would like to find out more, can you point us please to the parallel discussion on your own Forum
http://minelabowners.com/forum/index.php? I could not find it referrred to there. And if its not being discussed there, I am curious why you are taking it to many other forums but not your own?
Paul Barford
Crikey, you're a nasty piece of work aren't you? Why not just answer the question?
I should imagine it has been posted on here, and other archaeology forums because it is a question archaeologists might like to answer.[?]
