5th December 2011, 01:15 PM
P Prentice Wrote:nope - i'm saying regulation by a qualified, experienced, independent police force funded by licenced contracting organisations
i'm saying its no use expecting the curator to enforce standards when they are currently under resourced to maintain their own, when, as we both know, many are ill-equiped and without the requisite experience to know when a given site is being adequately excavated or reported or published.
the costs would be transferred to the developers and no single organisation would stand to loose if all were subject to the same rigour
and as for whistle-blowing -who do we report rogue curators to?
Hi
There are a number of faulty logic and factual errors in this post:
1. There are no "licensed contracting organisations" in archaeology.
2. They wouldn't be independent they would be paid by members of the organisations they are meant to be monitoring (like the PCC)
3. Many curators are highly experienced, well qualified , highly motivated professionals that run circles round dodgy practitioners and recognise bad strategies when they see them.
4. IfA police have no statuary or non-statuary powers and will only be able to sanction organisations that play ball. They will not have the statuary powers of a curator through the Town and Country Planning Act.
5. The rise in prices to developers required to fund the IfA police means that they are likely to simply ignore any comments from the "independent IfA police" and employ whichever unit they want, which is likely to be the slightly cheaper non-IfA Police affiliated ones.
Any curator can be reported to their line manager, or the elected member portfolio-holder. Or of course you could complain to the IfA as you seem to believe they are the answer to this type of issue.
Steven