Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
7th November 2008, 02:23 PM
Has anyone noticed this? Another archaeologist brought it to my attention. It has all sorts of conotations, i.e. no statutory HER's etc, etc.
copy this link
http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sect...126700&c=2
:face-confused:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2007
7th November 2008, 02:37 PM
Silent Bob -I share your consternation and frustration at the snail-like progress of this Bill, however, and correct me if i'm wrong, but when the bill is implemented won't it replace the HERs etc with a single list of equivalent function (but larger scope, incorporating SAMs, listed buildings and marine etc), and until this happens won't the exisiting HERs continue to function in their current manner until a new structure exists. It is also worth noting that after attending the recent IFA meeting at which Peter Hinton and Charles Wagner spoke on the new Bill, actual details on the content are proving very hard to come by as the government is restricting access until a new draft is published - probably in early December.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
7th November 2008, 02:52 PM
Well, i'm not an expert, and HERs may well continue as they are, but whilst they aren't statutory then you can end up with a Northamptonshire style situation where most are gotten rid of and replaced by a Superplanning/SMRtype thingy who of course could not possibly be overworked. Besides, that is only one thing it might have brought in, just checking on another. Also details of the Queen's Speech are apparently secret until it's released (or leaked to The Times).
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
7th November 2008, 03:00 PM
Ahh, the 'Credit Crunch.' What a marvellous catch-all excuse that can just run and run. It's the new 9/11.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2007
7th November 2008, 03:09 PM
I hope the new Bill will make 'the list' of HER entries, listed buildings etc a statutory requirement otherwise how can planning archaeologists make it a requirement for us to consult (?!), but I don't profess to be an expert either.
I do like how the Bill was originally described as 'should be in the next Queens speech' followed by 'we hope' then 'might be in' and now 'might be pushed off'. I guess that shows us where we stand in polite society. Stand aside, bankers coming through (yes...bankers). Indeed details of the Queens speech are supposed to be secret but given the number of consultations, I hope the powers that be in heritage and archaeology (shadowy bunch, hmmm) have a vague idea of progress and status, but then again I could be mistaken (oh yes)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
7th November 2008, 04:38 PM
Well spotted.... I have really given up (ah well.. maybe not) - where the Govt. and Heritage Protection comes in.. one rule now... wait ten years, change it,, remove this bit, add another bit that should have been there in the first place... consult, ignore, consult some more, delay, obfuscate (love that word!) and weasel out... cut back, chill out and turn off.
Sadly... and this is the sad bit ... we actually have to live in the climate that this bill will create... we know where we stand... and that is slightly higher than an earthworm... but only just...
Archaeologists... jolly nice chaps,... not sure what they do... but decent enough... some of them could do with a bit of a haircut... Did I ever tell you I once met that tony whatsisname robertson ... blah ... blah.... hobby really... blah, drone.... etc...........
What indeed are our representatives to Govt. saying about this?.....
"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2008
7th November 2008, 05:06 PM
Why am i not surprised at this.
Probably find even moles are thought more highly of!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
7th November 2008, 05:20 PM
I most certainly would not describe myself as a Conservative, but I can't help thinking that the Labour Government has generally been crap about all things 'Heritage.' English Heritage becomes increasingly impoverished, sites are turned into wedding venues and the boring unprofitable ones ignored. I can't help thinking the opposition were less bad. Perhaps they attracted more toffs who had an interest in old things, mostly because they owned them. Dare I say they might have been more archaeologically inclined than a bunch of former lawyers and economists/bankers.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2007
7th November 2008, 05:30 PM
Our representatives to government, hmmm, the impression I have got from those who have spoken to us from EH and the IfA is that 'honestly we'd love to tell you but the government won't tell us either'.
It's brilliant being in one of these transparent democracy regimes.... Unfortunately for those of us who care or work in the heritage sector (or both), its just a case of wait and see.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2008
7th November 2008, 05:36 PM
Against the arguements for pensioners,hospitals,law and order,credit crunch,the government can bury investment/legislation on whatever they like.
Why dont they go the whole hog and claim that heritage sites cause people to congregate and are therefore a target for terrorism?
