8th April 2008, 10:00 PM
Hmmm...it is the county mounty that is at fault here (after the professionals who are providing their client with an incompetent service of course). Me and my team go through very scrutinous editing from our peers and also the 'county mounties'* - maybe I'm working in the wrong part of the country!
However - I have seen some reports from other companies and think - jeez, if it's that low quality of reporting was going to be accepted, I could have costed that job at far less. However, I - like all readers of Bajr I hope - have professional standards, and do each project justice. I know that each county council has different standards of archaeological support, and some, I'm sure, have no idea of what they are reading and just accept this as the norm and that a box has been ticked in the planning process.
* where on earth did that phrase originate from?
However - I have seen some reports from other companies and think - jeez, if it's that low quality of reporting was going to be accepted, I could have costed that job at far less. However, I - like all readers of Bajr I hope - have professional standards, and do each project justice. I know that each county council has different standards of archaeological support, and some, I'm sure, have no idea of what they are reading and just accept this as the norm and that a box has been ticked in the planning process.
* where on earth did that phrase originate from?