25th March 2008, 10:22 PM
Well I seem to have opened a can of worms by mentioning the CAT Thanet Earth site...
I am somewhat concerned however by Unitof1 presenting his incorrect guesswork about an archaeological contractor as truth. He asks in one of his posts "Is there much competition in kent are cat part of the planning police, do the polish diggers get kent county council pensions?" which seems to suggest that he has actually very little knowledge of either the company or the area on which he is making numerous statements.
Even taking a quick look at the CAT website shows that they are nothing to do with Kent County Council. They may (as many different firms do) get grants/commissions for specific projects from the local authority but that does not imply they are part of KCC. As such how can he be so sure that CAT staff get County Council pensions. In fact I would be very surprised if this was the case.
To answer his question I believe there is lots of competition in Kent, I know of friends who work for ASE, OA, Wessex, MoLAS, and others who all regularly work in Kent. Hardly the 'charity in the pocket of the council' picture that Unitof1 presents.
As for the archaeological education officer's pension taking money away from salaries - what tosh. Again a quick look at CAT's website suggests the post is funded by a grant from KCC, the Kent Archaeological Society, Canterbury City Council, Friend of CAT and Heritage Lottery funding. The fact that such a range of organisations are funding a part time post would suggest that even if it is not valued by Unitof1 it is valued locally.
I personally think that charitable trusts have an important position in UK archaeology. I believe that both OA and Wessex have charitable status. Being a charity is no cash-cow instead it brings additional responsibilities that other firms do not have to consider. It is carefully monitored by the charity commission.
I initially raised the Thanet Earth site as I had happened to see a link to it when browsing for a completely unrelated site. I thought it seemed like a positive attempt at engaging the local community in their archaeology and I still stand by this.
I am somewhat concerned however by Unitof1 presenting his incorrect guesswork about an archaeological contractor as truth. He asks in one of his posts "Is there much competition in kent are cat part of the planning police, do the polish diggers get kent county council pensions?" which seems to suggest that he has actually very little knowledge of either the company or the area on which he is making numerous statements.
Even taking a quick look at the CAT website shows that they are nothing to do with Kent County Council. They may (as many different firms do) get grants/commissions for specific projects from the local authority but that does not imply they are part of KCC. As such how can he be so sure that CAT staff get County Council pensions. In fact I would be very surprised if this was the case.
To answer his question I believe there is lots of competition in Kent, I know of friends who work for ASE, OA, Wessex, MoLAS, and others who all regularly work in Kent. Hardly the 'charity in the pocket of the council' picture that Unitof1 presents.
As for the archaeological education officer's pension taking money away from salaries - what tosh. Again a quick look at CAT's website suggests the post is funded by a grant from KCC, the Kent Archaeological Society, Canterbury City Council, Friend of CAT and Heritage Lottery funding. The fact that such a range of organisations are funding a part time post would suggest that even if it is not valued by Unitof1 it is valued locally.
I personally think that charitable trusts have an important position in UK archaeology. I believe that both OA and Wessex have charitable status. Being a charity is no cash-cow instead it brings additional responsibilities that other firms do not have to consider. It is carefully monitored by the charity commission.
I initially raised the Thanet Earth site as I had happened to see a link to it when browsing for a completely unrelated site. I thought it seemed like a positive attempt at engaging the local community in their archaeology and I still stand by this.