8th December 2011, 02:43 PM
Steven Wrote:
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.
Hello Steven
1 yes we know there are no licensed contractors - yet
2 they could be independent
3 many are not and most dont have the time to do it as thoroughly as is necessary (ask any contractor)
4 obtusely correct but the point would be that miscreants could have their licence revoked
5 as above but they could save costs by cutting out unnecessary consultants
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers