Welfare facilities II

[Guest]

Dr Pete,

Sorry for new posting but wasn't allowed by BAJR to post reply on original post?

Hmmm another moderator stepping into the defensive line

1) Although not working on the site I could clearly see everything, only one toilet was provide!! That is the issue.. We are professionals, we should not be expected to compromise our standards.... How much does a toilet cost anyway (they are very cheap)

2) The LAW states that all exhumations must completed shielded from public gaze! You, also obivously have not visited the site, as if you had - and walked along the footpath you would have had an unobstructed view of the site.. In any respect, just because others are flouting the law does not make it acceptable or right for 'professionals' to do so...

3) St. Pancras was one example!! Quoted to provide an example for a site which was 'encased in a bubble' (it was tented). The other example was St. Marylebones school, westminster (here overlooking windows were covered!)

There is a requirement for Members of parliament to acknowledge all outside interests. MAYBE THIS SHOULD APPLY TO ASSOCIATES OF BAJR [?]

[drpeterwardle]

This is one of two things I would like to post on but at 21:00 and still having work to do I cant tonight or a few days.

I would doubt that David would or wish to stop anybody discussing archaeological law with me.

Could you point me to the statue which says.

"that all exhumations must completed shielded from public gaze!"

Peter Wardle

[BAJR Host]

I am intriuged by you being unable to post on the other thread...

You obviously have a beef with this site... it was investigated completely as has been stated over and over again..

How do you know so much about the facilities if you were not on the site?

Another day another WSI?

[vulpes]

quote:Could you point me to the statue which says.

"that all exhumations must completed shielded from public gaze!"

Don't know if it's a statute or not, but it is usually one of the conditions of the licence for exhumation issued and is even on the new DCA one I got today: 'The ground in which the remains are interred shall be screened from the public gaze while the work of removal is in progress'. Whether this is always adhered to is not the issue, however contravention of one of these conditions would presumably be an offence under section 25 of the Burial Act, 1837. But then you should know that???[:I]

[Cautionary Tale]

As someone once said, the devil is in the detail: the license requires the ground shall be screened while removal is in progress. Splitting hairs I know. I feel this wording needs to be more explicit - ie the method of work should seek to avoid public exposure of human remains while removal and subsequent analysis (if required) takes place :face-huh:.

I confess to being bemused by the on site screening which is required against the non-existant bars on the dissemination of the photography (or even TV broadcast) of said removal in publically available reports. (open to correction - finger hovering over delete button)

Of the Clan Sutton

[leg11aug]

Funny...when I started out we might complain if there WASN'T a toilet on site, Guess times have changed. As far as shielding exhumations from the public gaze is concerned, it is as mentioned above, a licence condition, however, as I understand it, it's purpose was to protect delicate victorian sensibilities and always strikes me as a little anachronistic. Most people I've shown round sites have expressed interest in the subject of burials, and, on occasion asked outright whether we had any skellys they could see.
Nobody seems to have a complaint about this site except you mattockhead, maybe you should infer something from that.

"Never put off 'till tomorrow that which you can put off 'till the day after tomorrow.."

[beamo]

The issue is shielding from the public view. Perhaps the HO take the view that people being shown round the site are not the public, but are site visitors who are aware that they might catch sight of some human remains in the course of the tour. Maybe all visitors should be warned at the start of the site tour that skellies are being exposed and exhumed.


Beamo

[Weegie]

That's certainly a sensible precaution, Beamo, and it's one that we've taken on the rare occasions that we've excavated burials on sites that are open to the public, e.g. EH properties. We provided a clear warning that skeletal remains might be visible, and that visitors likely to be offended might prefer to avoid that part of the site.

Weegie

[leg11aug]

Good point Beamo, I hadn't thought of it like that. Just to clarify, I wasn't saying I'd shown lots of visitors human remains, just that people had asked about them alot, maybe I've just had some particularly morbid tours!

"Never put off 'till tomorrow that which you can put off 'till the day after tomorrow.."

[Guest]

With reference to past comments...


The standard home office licence requires prevention of exhumations being overseen by the public eye. I realise that TV (timeteam/meet the ancestors break this law0 BUT a law is a law - all exhumations need to be completed under complete screening. Are we, as a profession going down the line of TESCOS (who advocate all day trading) of abusiving the law....) that is fine...


I know the public are intrigued by death, but surely we have to adhere to the laws of the land.. Otherwise we are going down the the lines of TESCOW... ( Bull in a china shop)