Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2013
Apparently if you want to make an anonymous complaint to the cIFA you have to go through the Diggers' Forum. This raises a number of questions.
Why can't the cIFA offer the same process, filtering out malicious complaints and putting forward complaints on behalf of anonymous complainants?
What are an individuals legal rights to anonymity if one makes a complaint through the Diggers' Forum?
Why does the recipient of a complaint need to know who the complainant is? And if they do, how come an anonymous complaint is acceptable via the Diggers' Forum but not directly via the IFA? What's the difference?
What is the official status of an anonymous complaint through the Diggers' Forum? Does it have an official status? Or is it just self proclaimed bigger boys who reckon they can sort stuff out behind closed doors that can't be done by the official route?
Posts: 6,009
Threads: 2
Joined: Mar 2017
In effect the complaint needs a name so the accused can defend .. so the DF are being the name . .. it is not that there is no name.. it is that the name on the complaint form is DF and they will take the flak if it is thrown out. ... that is why they will ensure the complaint has legs before going ahead.
A "good" complaint has first tried to sort it without recourse to CIFA if not possible... then you should have documents, emails etc that can back up the complaint. photographs, times of meetings, etc. often you may find that what you thought was a clear complaint had a reasonable explanation... that you ( as a digger, specialist etc was not aware of... ) however... collect note... date and time...
Posts: 8
Threads: 1
Joined: Feb 2014
I think that if you are a archaeologist and you complain against another archaeologist don't ever expect me to give you two figs because it means that you aren't.
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2010
Marc Berger Wrote:I think that if you are a archaeologist and you complain against another archaeologist don't ever expect me to give you two figs because it means that you aren't.
I don't think that's very helpful, how else do we raise standards?
Posts: 8
Threads: 1
Joined: Feb 2014
Is it anything to do standards or rather trying to turn it into a standards issue is trying to make out that the ifa is anything to do with field archaeology. What I think should be remembered is that archaeology occurs in effect on private land and is in private ownership. If at the end of the day the owner wants to trash it they are fully entitled to do so, that includes road schemes in council or central government control. The closest that there is to any political control is through the town and countries acts and the system appears to have evolved to be based on the so called discharge of conditions. All this means is that permissions can be sort to trash it in public.
Who the hell wants to belong to an institute based on somebody making a complaint about somebody else's field standards when that institute is stuffed with either public servants or people who have no control over their copyrights. Once I haven't won the contract I couldn't careless what anybody does with their site (I do care why I haven't won the contract though which is where the scams are). Croc appears to want to get the complain about your neighbour system sorted out to the anonymous level.
I gladly look perplexed in the face of any standard that you care to mention. What is a standard that anybody would want anonymity over?
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
4th May 2015, 11:29 AM
(This post was last modified: 4th May 2015, 12:01 PM by GnomeKing.)
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.
Posts: 8
Threads: 1
Joined: Feb 2014
Shameful, which standard is that then. Archaeology done purely for money is a precise account on which full tax should be paid. Anything else is vanity and I expect tax avoidance or evasion. Are you saying that a fellow archaeologist of yours took money but did not produce a product to the value that they charged?
I am interested in what insurance you believe could be sort for this situation? Are you talking about the accuser or the defendant? (Onan might have been interested in this insurance having paid with his life for interrupting his coitus with his brothers wife)
.....nature was dead and the past does not exist
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
... fair enough (a hefty fee)...we
could frame the discussion in terms of capital, markets, products, services, contracts etc. >>> but i
prefer to stick directly to archaeological evidence > ie has it been adequately investigated, as set in guidance and planning briefs?
Also : I mean precisely that self-emp legal insurance will NOT help until your own professionalism is directly called into question (maybe not even then...)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2013
Sorry but a complaint does not need a name. I can make complaints and reports everywhere without passing my name on, all over the place, fly tipping, noisy neighbors, something suspicious happening in the next street, the guy I just saw beating his girlfriend up in the street, all these things can be investigated without me ever passing my name on.
How does an anonymous complaint stop the accused defending themselves?
If you are accussed of being a fly tipper or accussed of allowing archaeology to knowingly be destroyed by the developer, you are either guilty of these things or you are not and this will either be possible to prove or it will not. The name of the accusser need not be involved and ceetainly not during the initial investigations.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2013
Why are the DF being the name? why can't the cIFA be the name? what difference does it make? either way no name of the complainant is put forward. I would expect an organisation that wishes to uphold standards in archaeology to be able to pursue a complaint in its own name.
There is much that can be investigated without a complainants name being involved.
