Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.

Username
  

Password
  





Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 1,153
» Latest member: BAJR
» Forum threads: 4,062
» Forum posts: 4,428

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 46 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 46 Guest(s)

Latest Threads
What would eh know about ...
Forum: The Site Hut
Last Post: Marc Berger
15th July 2017, 01:37 PM
» Replies: 16
» Views: 2,723
How can adequate developm...
Forum: The Site Hut
Last Post: Dinosaur
10th July 2017, 12:20 PM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 946
Three Dead Chasing Treasu...
Forum: The Site Hut
Last Post: Dinosaur
10th July 2017, 12:10 PM
» Replies: 3
» Views: 1,423
300,000 years ...Wow!
Forum: The Site Hut
Last Post: GnomeKing
7th June 2017, 09:52 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 845
Is it an Arched trench or...
Forum: The Site Hut
Last Post: GnomeKing
25th May 2017, 05:44 PM
» Replies: 43
» Views: 13,596
Three Word Days
Forum: The Site Hut
Last Post: BAJR
25th May 2017, 01:06 PM
» Replies: 598
» Views: 85,412
Automonous Surveying
Forum: The Site Hut
Last Post: BAJR
25th May 2017, 01:05 PM
» Replies: 3
» Views: 1,336
Logic bending and poor an...
Forum: The Site Hut
Last Post: BAJR
25th May 2017, 01:03 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 443
myfile
Forum: The Site Hut
Last Post: Marc Berger
12th April 2017, 09:52 PM
» Replies: 8
» Views: 2,198
Recover your password
Forum: The Site Hut
Last Post: Wax
10th April 2017, 09:54 PM
» Replies: 5
» Views: 9,369

 
  myfile
Posted by: Marc Berger - 4th December 2016, 02:10 PM - Forum: The Site Hut - Replies (8)

hosty I think that you have a myfilestore redirect on your system

Print this item

  What would eh know about buying land for development?
Posted by: Marc Berger - 11th November 2016, 01:17 PM - Forum: The Site Hut - Replies (16)

https://www.historicengland.org.uk/image...l-remains/

Quote:In some urban locations, particularly towns and smaller cities, development economics have
in the past encouraged developers to propose schemes which retain the archaeological sites
beneath them from the outset. This is because the potential cost of excavation and post-excavation
of large quantities of archaeological material may be greater than the funds available.

Whilst such a ‘lowest cost’ option might initially seem to be attractive, it is essential that the
significance of archaeological deposits and their state of preservation are fully understood,
and harm adequately assessed. This provides sufficient information for decision-taking, and
helps to minimise the risk of unexpected impacts and costs later in the process.

Apart from eh pretending that this is "publication", why dont they just produce it as webpages, my beef with eh's attempts to claim authority over field archaeology is that the clients that I would prefer are ones that come to me before the land is purchased, compulsorily or other wise, mostly because costs could be presented to both the vendor and all potential buyers that should be reflected and defined in the purchase price. Eh popping up with advice after some poor mug has bought a pup is not only plain stupid I think that eh is in collusion with the vendors to maximise their profits from the sale of the land and compensation in cases of compulsory purchase and leaves the archaeological assets as liabilities to the development.

The vendors are the original owners of the archaeology, they should pay a fair contribution from their profits of its sale for it. At a practical level archaeological assessment should be part of the property searches and a matter of conveyance if not indemnity insurance. Buyers should insert claw backs for the archaeology from the sellers.

Print this item

  Elfs and safety and tings
Posted by: troll - 2nd November 2016, 12:25 AM - Forum: The Site Hut - Replies (13)

Have we arrived, at the point at which our beloved industry has finally caught up with others on Health and Safety? Are we consistently mobilised armed with yet another generic Risk Assessment? Or no Assessment at all? Are Risk Assessments comprehensive and be honest-do you read them? Am genuinely interested to see if we have finally evolved as a workforce.....not a name and shame thread so please-behave but equally, let`s have some honesty on this......:-)

Print this item

  Ready for the new CSCS?
Posted by: BAJR - 16th October 2016, 03:13 PM - Forum: The Site Hut - Replies (10)

Well are you ready for the replacement CSCS cards?

http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/bajrpress/cscs-...-and-fame/

In a nutshell

[h=4]The Chartered Institute for Archaeologists and Federation of Archaeological Managers and Employers have released a joint statement on recent work towards establishing appropriate mechanisms for archaeologists to achieve accreditation under the Construction Skills Certification Scheme after September 2017, when the current scheme is to be withdrawn.

The following CSCS cards will be available for archaeologists

  • Apprentices’ card – available to archaeologists on a recognised apprenticeship scheme provided it contains a basic health and safety element. Card valid for five years. No health and safety test required.
  • Trainee card – available to students or trainees registered on a recognised training course. For an employers’ training scheme to be recognised by CSCS, it will need to be endorsed by CIfA, as the standards setting body for archaeology. CIfA will design a framework around National Occupational Standards, for all employers to use. Card valid for five years. Requires the basic (operative level) health and safety test.
  • Academically Qualified Person (AQP) card – available to archaeologists with an ‘archaeology and heritage degree’. There is currently a lack of clarity from the scheme regarding what qualifies; to be resolved by CIfA, FAME and CSCS agreeing a list of courses. For reasons of pragmatism, these will be very broadly defined initially in order to ease the transition following the withdrawal of the CRO card. Requires the Manager level health and safety test. Valid for five years.
    Note: CSCS is proposing changes to the AQP route in future to ensure that candidates are able to demonstrate appropriate competence. CIfA and FAME understand that these changes will not be introduced for at least 6 months following the withdrawal of the CRO card.

  • Professionally Qualified Person (PQP) card – Will be available at three levels, equating to Operative, Supervisor and Manager (= PCIfA, ACIfA, MCIfA) – and with the three corresponding health and safety tests (card to be clearly marked to indicate which level test had been taken). Approval has been gained for the PCIfA level card (agreed by FAME and CIfA as the priority). Mapping for ACIfA and MCIfA will be undertaken late 16/early 17. CIfA membership at appropriate level will need to be maintained in order for cards to be renewed. Card valid for five years.
The* Site Visitor card *will still be available for those who visit sites in a monitoring role (i.e. those not working directly on site). This card can be used by senior/project manages, by consultants, and local authority curatorial staff.
NOTE: The CSCS website is currently being updated to reflect the new option for the Practitioner level PQP card. As further changes are made through 2016/17 the site will continue to be updated.
[/h]

Print this item

  Is this the end
Posted by: Sith - 8th August 2016, 11:00 AM - Forum: The Site Hut - Replies (18)

I have to admit to being guilty of not looking in for some time, but is seems as if things have fizzled out here. Has Facebook replaced the site hut?

Print this item

  The European Landscape Convention
Posted by: GnomeKing - 20th June 2016, 06:08 PM - Forum: The Site Hut - Replies (17)

The European Landscape Convention:
http://www.coe.int/en/web/landscape/home
Do we risk loss of this protection for Heritage, Communities and Landscape?
Can we remain signatories if the UK votes Leave?&
Do we want to see Archaeology across Europe protected in a similar manner to our own in the UK?

Discuss....

Print this item

  Echo, your past is my past is the governments for free
Posted by: Marc Berger - 16th June 2016, 01:01 PM - Forum: The Site Hut - Replies (3)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/...ion/2/made

Quote:
Quote:Public administration

2.—(1) For section 47(2) and (3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988(1) substitute—
“(2) Where material is open to public inspection pursuant to a statutory requirement, copyright in the material is not infringed by an act to which subsection (3A) applies provided that—

(a) the act is done by or with the authority of the appropriate person,
(b) the purpose of the act is—
(i) to enable the material to be inspected at a more convenient time or place, or
(ii) to otherwise facilitate the exercise of any right for the purpose of which the statutory requirement is imposed, and
© in the case of the act specified in subsection (3A)©, the material is not commercially available to the public by or with the authority of the copyright owner.

(3) Where material which contains information about matters of general scientific, technical, commercial or economic interest is on a statutory register or is open to public inspection pursuant to a statutory requirement, copyright in the material is not infringed by an act to which subsection (3A) applies provided that—

(a) the act is done by or with the authority of the appropriate person,
(b) the purpose of the act is to disseminate that information, and
© in the case of the act specified in subsection (3A)©, the material is not commercially available to the public by or with the authority of the copyright owner.

(3A) This subsection applies to any of the following acts—

(a) copying the material,
(b) issuing copies of the material to the public, and
© making the material (or a copy of it) available to the public by electronic transmission in such a way that members of the public may access it from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.”

(2) For section 48(2) and (3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 substitute—
“(2) The Crown may, without infringing copyright in the work, do an act specified in subsection (3) provided that—

(a) the act is done for the purpose for which the work was communicated to the Crown, or any related purpose which could reasonably have been anticipated by the copyright owner, and
(b) the work has not been previously published otherwise than by virtue of this section.
(3) The acts referred to in subsection (2) are—

(a) copying the work,
(b) issuing copies of the work to the public, and
© making the work (or a copy of it) available to the public by electronic transmission in such a way that members of the public may access it from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.”


Not sure that I have seen this 2014 regulation discussed here but am presuming that it is the one used to put my reports up on the web by my LPAs but its using the word disseminate which is a word out of CIFA Cod of Conduct, Principle 4 of the Code (dissemination of archaeological information)

(3) Where material which contains information about matters of general scientific, technical, commercial or economic interest is on a statutory register or is open to public inspection pursuant to a statutory requirement, copyright in the material is not infringed by an act to which subsection (3A) applies provided that,
(b) the purpose of the act is to disseminate that information, and
© in the case of the act specified in subsection (3A)©, the material is not commercially available to the public by or with the authority of the copyright owner.


(3A) This subsection applies to any of the following acts—
© making the material (or a copy of it) available to the public by electronic transmission in such a way that members of the public may access it from a place and at a time individually chosen by them.”

Is this dissemination free and to get this dissemination are we supposed to say that the report is not commercial? That's presumably for copyright that is produced to satisfy a condition. How does it work for pre application reports?

Print this item

  ba.nr what is it?
Posted by: Marc Berger - 13th May 2016, 05:26 PM - Forum: The Site Hut - Replies (10)

I did a search looking after the demise of the much loved HER world and came across snarly welsh attempts to get HERs statutory but it seems to be buried in a "news" forum which doesn't bring the thread to the front of the thread or notice in index pages (?)

http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/showthread.php?...nvironment

hosty seems to like it, is it some kind of must-have facebook connivance?

Dig Discover Enjoy http://www.thedigsite.co.uk/shop.html

Print this item

  Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964
Posted by: Marc Berger - 29th April 2016, 08:37 AM - Forum: The Site Hut - Replies (4)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1964/75

Does anybody know if this Act allows county councils to charge district councils for the maintenance of county museums?

Print this item

  Whats in their briefs?
Posted by: Marc Berger - 27th March 2016, 02:40 PM - Forum: The Site Hut - Replies (57)

Quote:3.6.4 In England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man ownership of objects rests with
the landowner, except where other law overrides this (e.g. Treasure Act 1996, Burial
Act 1857). The archaeologist undertaking the fieldwork or the planning archaeologist
must make this clear at the inception of the project (in the brief, WSI or project design).

This paragraph appears in a lot of the ifa fieldwork standards. I was just wondering if anybody could show me a brief where this obscure bit of English law is made clear to landowners. There's no examples that I know off issued by the Lincolnshire LPAs. I would be interested in what other archaeologists do about this guidance.

Marc

Print this item