BAJR Federation Archaeology

Full Version: IFA
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Got my order in for an AC t-shirt. Definitely the clothing to be seen in this season. http://www.archaeologycymru.com/shop/clo...othing.htm
Lets draw a line on this now folks. We should leave this person alone now. Their actions managed to get a rare expulsion from the IFA. So that will be an end to any archaeological work - punishment enough, without us laughing.



"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
5.1 An archaeologist shall give due regard to the requirements of employment legislation relating to employees, colleagues or helpers.

Are the IFA saying there was a crime- was he prosecuted?
5.7 An archaeologist shall have due regard to the rights of individuals who wish to join or belong to a trade union, professional or trade association

Are these rights different from legal rights, yet again was a law broken? And was it reported? did the IFA report it to the authorities.

1.1 An archaeologist shall conduct himself or herself in a manner which will not bring archaeology or the Institute into disrepute

In the whose eye

1.12 An archaeologist has a duty to ensure that this Code is observed throughout the membership of the Institute, and also to encourage its adoption by others (see note on Rule 1.12).

So he didn’t encourage people to join- hardly rotten to the bone. I have just told the milkman that he should join- so you cant get me

Note (on Rule 1.12):
From time to time the Institute receives formal or informal complaints about members and allegations of breaches of its by-laws. An archaeologist’s duty to ensure that the Code of conduct is observed includes providing information in response to a request from the Chair or a Vice Chair, and/or giving evidence to such panels and hearings as may be established for the purposes of investigating an alleged breach of the Institute’s by-laws. This requirement is without prejudice to the provisions of Rule 1.10 regarding confidential information.


this is positively messy

Why is it a Note to 1.12- it seems unconnected. So did he not encourage others and then refused to tell the consultant from CgMs, or was it an academic, that he hadn’t encouraged others

Golly 1.10 got its own note too

1.10 An archaeologist shall not reveal confidential information unless required by law; nor use confidential or privileged information to his/her own advantage or that of a third person.

Note:
The archaeologist should also exercise care to prevent employees, colleagues, associates and helpers from revealing or using confidential information in these ways. Confidential information means information gained in the course of the project which the employer or client has for the time being requested be held inviolate, or the disclosure of which would be potentially embarrassing or detrimental to the employer or client. Information ceases to be confidential when the employer or client so indicates, or when such information becomes publicly known. Where specifically archaeological information is involved, it is however the responsibility of the archaeologist to inform the employer or client of any conflict with his/her own responsibilities under Principle 4 of the Code (dissemination of archaeological information) and to seek to minimise or remove any such conflict.


I cant work out if he was done for keeping his trap shut or for opening his trap

"Principle 4" is there no end to it
Quote:quote:Originally posted by gumbo

Just been doing a bit of e-research as you do when you are sad like me! If the above quote is anything to go by, im not surprised that the aforementioned individual only got 1% or so, as a candidate to be the Liberal (?!) MP for the Vale of Glamorgan.

Also there is a website: http://www.archaeologycymru.com
(still displaying IFA credentials too as was the case with AS' RAO badge for a while).

Muddy: if i rememember correctly the IFA DID publish the reason AS were no longer an RAO, true, it wasnt at all detailed and it was in a section of the website marked 'beware of the leopard', but it was there! Wasn't it for giving false or out of date info on an application or something?

I apologise, I obivously missed the statement! Does anyone recall the exact wording given for the expulsion of Archaeological Soloutions! Also why was it not broadcast as prolifically on BAJR as Mr. Langford's? I do remember that Mr. Hosty and Mr. Langford clashed trowls on britarch on numerous occassions. Is this possibly evidence the IRAQ effect taking effect [?]
Quote:quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle

In my view the IFA have acted as they should and in fact details of the outcome of other disciplinary action has been published on their web site.

Such hearings and the evidence should be private and in this case this is particularly so. Much of the evidence will have been his statements made on Britarch and BAJR. See below.

I am satisfied with both the procedure and the outcome but it gives me no pleasure.

Can we regard this matter as now closed and stop the IFA bashing.

Life is too short

Peter Wardle


For example:

"There is no question about it, my unit supplies all the equipment,
transport, plus safety helmet, hivis jacket and toe capped boots.

If any unit manager questions my units policy they shouldn't be
undertaking professional work on any level either.

For archaeological work on ALL occasions we where safety equipment, even
when the excavation levels are slight, it looks professional. I am sick to
the back teeth as archaeologists looking like tramps, after all a
solicitor wouldn't be seen dead at work not wearing a suit.

Archaeologists have to look professional, such as wearing a hardhat or
not, if you work for me and you don't wear safety equipment after 3
warnings your suspended on appeal. That is written into a signed contract.

The individual recently we suspended had not signed any contract so they
were luckily for them treated as if them had signed a contract. If I had
my way they would have been suspended.

As for unions, I wouldn't employ anyone who was a member of a union,
socialist institutions fit for the waste bin.

Karl-James Langford PGDipAH, PIFA "

Some of the statements abit extreme - namely the one about membership of unions and the suspension issue. There are many companies around the UK who do not allow a union presence, thank you Maggie Thatcher! However, if these were the only reasons, then surely a reprimand would have been sufficent, maybe followed by careful monitoring??? There have, after all been far, far worse actions committed by (now) MIFA's - including criminal records!
Shall we say that there were several other 'issues'

I had hoped this would have stopped there... but am amused/outraged by the Britarch rant by Archaeology Cymru's assistant archaeologist.

Very very sad... and proof if ever was needed that we (as a profession) need to tighten up our act, or be seen as clowns.

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Posted by Troll:
Quote:quote:I do of course welcome a pro-active IFA but this is just one PIFA
Yes, just one PIFA - but one that was running an independent archaeological company, taking MIFA-level responsibilities, and employing other people. Its not the same as taking action against an idividual digger.

C'mon - you want them to take action; here's evidence that they do. On top of the AS de-registration. Give them a bit of credit.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished
OK sir-I hereby credit the IFA with the removal of one muppet and one organisation.Hurrah! Am I now supposed to wave IFA flags? I`m sorry 1man but if thats supposed to reassure the rest of us that the IFA takes standards seriously and that they have suddenly become pro-active.....
Tiz not good enough by a long,long way sir.If this is a beginning then yes..applause may be in order but I fear that all we are seeing is yet another cynical attempt to "silence the critics" by the open removal of two entities we all knew were a nightmare anyway.Deflective sir-hardly pro-active.:face-huh:

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
There should be no flag waving or applause after disciplinary action.

If IFA disciplinary action is to be taken which affects how somebody earns a living it not be taken lightly. It must also be fair.

What amazes me is that when the IFA does do something proactive like they have on pay they are still criticised.

Can we close all discussion on this and move on.

Peter
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5