I got edited! What a whily webble! Was thinkin whilst supping cool fluids in the near east...who says the IFA are THE institute? It`s about time we thought long and hard about a new one that has British archaeology as the fundamental.Ideas and comments please...

A little bird told me that a certain contracting unit in the south east have just been struck of the IFA list of approved contractors. Is this a circuit rumour? Am I getting over excited?

Gumbo

I've just been reading the most recent edition of British Archaeology (issue 81) and I noticed that there is a 1/4 page about Paul Everill's survey on diggers. Can someone explain to me why it was given such a small space? Why didn't it have the same coverage as one of the larger articles?? This is an extremely important issue yet I feel that although we discuss it on forums such as BAJR, in the wider media world, it is almost taboo.

The small article ended with the line: 'Not all is bad. "Nothing comes close to the camaraderie", said one digger'. That might be so, but I think decent pay, decent working conditions and the recognition of archaeology as a profession would go a long way. To end the 'article' in such a way almost seemed to negate what the rest of it was trying to say i.e archaeology is in trouble. I feel that for such a popular magazine, and by that I mean one that is available to the general public through WHSmith etc, this topic should have been given a bigger space so that people can realise that being an archaeologist isn't all that Time Team and others make it out to be.

What does everyone else think?

Ash
(who's feeling extremely frustrated at the moment)

I would like to report to BAJR/Britarch what was discussed at the seminar on environmental justice organised by The Labour Lawyers Association and the Environmental Law Foundation at the House of Commons today. The seminar sought to discuss the following:

1. how the regulatory regime can better protect disadvantaged communities facing environmental harm;
2. how to reduce barriers to access to justice for environmental matters;
3. how to address the cost of enforcing environmental law.

Unfortunately, the agenda was changed in order to try to either wrong foot the Minister for the Environment (Elliot Morley), or be topical in the light of a key high court ruling, to discuss issues of costs, in the court sense, in environmental litigation.

However, what is clear is that there is a recognition by government that people are being denied access to environmental justice because big business can out-resource them; and the risk of losing a case, and costs being awarded against the individual or non government organisation, is too great for challenges to made.

The jury is out on whether environmental tribunals would be a better alternative than general courts for hearing serious environmental cases.

Magistrates and judges are to receive training in environmental matters and shortly only those that have had that training will be able to hear such cases.

All in all I think steps in the right direction are being taken by government although I am concerned by some things. Unfortunately the discussion time was taken up by people wanting to bend the minister?s ear about individual issues, rather than engage in dialogue about how strategic change can happen.

The minister said however that The Environmental Law Foundation?s document on environmental justice was heeded.

Other things that came out are:
That there is a shortage of expert witnesses.
That Consideration is being given to magistrates and judges having an expert witness sit next to them on the bench.

The new government statement on sustainable development published yesterday has not been widely reported.

Peter Wardle

(Who has no idea why he was invited to a Labour Party Focus Group!)

At a time when BAJR is carrying such important and happening issues on it`s website (as always!) is there a way that we could attract more people to add their contributions? More voices make for more ideas and greater volume!

I'm thinking about joining Prospect, and I wondered what the great unwashed out there reckon of it. Are they up to much? Do they understand our particular problems (short and non-existant contracts for example)? Anyone got good or bad advice about them?

Thanks for any feedback.

A little bird told me to read Private Eye (the next one 3rd March?) and go to Rotten Boroughs - er....blimey... nuff said!
[:0]

I 'did' some theoretical archaeology at college in the early 80s and didn't understand a word of it (apart from the easy book from Binford). I got the impression that you state what you think you will find before you start, then 'test' your ideas with excavation or survey, then evaluate your ideas against the hard facts, then accept the theoy or formulate another one.

I was wondering if anyone is following the story, if it is still debated, and what the current types of theory are. I have never given it a second thought for the last 15+ years, and think the wounds have healed enough to have another look at it all. Has it all been discredited as academic pub-talk (yet)?

One thing I remember is the tortuous language used - very 1970s American socio-speak, which hid the meaning for me. Are there any 'idiots guides' to the subject, which use plain English?

Thanks for any comments

Pete

Considering the page 6 article in the Archaeologist (email me if you want to see it) this is the place for comments... constructive, destructive or instructive }

is it true that ggat diggers past and present may be able to claim for vibration white finger having used a kango for so long?
or is this just another nasty rumour?}

deep