Welfare facilities II

[Tile man]

You've just made my evening...

[Toby]

I must say that the company involved made, and in fact still makes, exceedingly good bricks.

.....But after you have been throwing countless bricks a day for a while you start to look for things to occupy the mind in other ways.

[BAJR Host]

Just as a matter of interest... you don't fancy creating a BAJR guide to bricks for archaeologists ??

just stuff like basic bond types, brick types, dates, where to get the info... just a few pages...?

Another day another WSI?

[historic building]

BS 3921 has brick height at 65 mm, although this replaced the imperial standard of 73mm.

There are people on here with more impressive anoraks than me!

[the invisible man]

Just to add that the BS goes on to define tolerances, which are measured over so many courses (or a given distance for lengths) which allow quite enormous variation in individual bricks.

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[Guest]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

Dug out all the photos that mattockhead sent me... looks pretty screened to me.. the hobbit wall is 25 bricks high with glass on top... (av brick heigh 8-9cm) +mortar... so lets say 10cm... so thats one hell of a hobbit..

Another day another WSI?

wasn't going to pursue this thread any longer but in view of this posting.....

When i orginally sent file to BAJR I was congratulated on the attention to detail! Indeed, I was asked if i minded whether my format could be set as an example for others to follow. Also, in discussions with Mr Hosty, I was told that there was a case - from the photos.

The wall is certainly not 25 bricks high - i am 5'9" and can comfortablly look over the wall.

Also, There was/is no glass on top... (this would contravenue numerous H&S regs/insurance etc, when you consider that a burgular can sue you for injuries received while on your premises. But don't take my word for it - the reporter from the regional paper can confirm that there was no glass (details can be supplied upon request). Also, my photos show - clearly - the top of the wall and NO GLASS. Also, you originally, commented that view of the site was from a 'High building' - clarification please.

I also have copies of all the emails sent to me by Mr hosty, confirming that the site did not met up to current regs and congratulating me on reportint it...

Not wishing to suggest a coverup.... but maybe it is just concidence, with Mr hosty recently applying for a MIFA, and subject of complaint being an RAO.....

You didn't visit the site... I did.... I took photos.... Other people have commented on this thread about similar sites and they haven't been publically ridiculed ....

The law is there to protect everyone... Are we suggesting it is acceptable to balently flout laws as it suits?? I remember a few years ago on Britarch the commendation of the clearance of a cemetery at St. Pancreas by a exhumation contractor... They compiled fully with the law - screening the site with 3m high hoarding, 24 hr security, welfare facilities (including showers). But they still got grief from the archaeological community.

Onn the flip side, an archaeological company undertakes a cemetery clearance without adequate facilities - in the depth of winter and are protected. They had 1 toilet, no offices, no washing facilities (this could all be seen). I also talked to site staff who confirmed this.

If BAJR is to maintain it's hotline (and i hope they do) they must be unbias). Maybe, a regional team of independant (volentary) investigators needs to established to verify any furture complaints???

[Guest]

[?] Can we post pictures on this fourm [?][?] It would solve a lot of problems

[Donald MacBrain]

Here's a question for you mattockhead. Did you, by any chance, used to work for the unit that carried out the cemetery clearance you seem so concerned about?

Train Chaser

[troll]

Tiz the act of lifting that requires screening. Tiz respect for the dead and not to protect the sensibilities of Joe Public. Reporting and photos of "skellies" to the media should really only happen after appropriate reports have hit appropriate desks first. The ethics involved in the exposing of the dead to the glare of the media and indeed-to the fascination of the public is something that desparately needs discussion.

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[sniper]

is correct that it is only the act of lifting that requires screening, NOT the excavation, planning, photography etc etc. Also agree that it is much more to do with respect for the dead than any concern that public eyes be offended. You are much more likely to get nosy b****ers wanting to know what you are doing than people being offended. As for skeletons on tv, showing the excavation etc is fine, as that contravenes no guidelines. I don't know if I have seen the process of lifting a skeleton being shown on telly very often, if at all, as this is what contravenes the guidelines as they stand. Rightly, or wrongly, as long as lifting is screened, be that by fencing, gazebo, umbrella or digger bucket, the terms of the licence are not being broken. The whole issue of how human remains are treated and seen by the public and tv is a complicated one but not strictly relevant in terms of the initial complaint.

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++