27th February 2006, 01:22 PM
From Troll, about the curator in question:
If he is a member, or his organisation is an RAO, and you believe ther has been a breach of the Code of Conduct, why on earth not?
If he is not a member, then they have no jurisdiction.
Bear in mind, though, that some curators have their hands tied by unsympathetic/ unsupportive planning departments, and the curator's role is, in the end, only advisory. If the planning department was fearful of losing the development because of archaeological cost, and they were keen for it to take place for economic development reasons, then the only alternative available to the curator may have been to say "no compromise" - at which point consent would have been granted without any archaeological work.
In these (hypothetical?) circumstances, it would still be a disaster, and still unacceptable - but the result of an inherent problem in the planning system, rather than the fault of any archaeological organisation or individual.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Quote:quotelease don`t tell me to report him to the IFA
If he is a member, or his organisation is an RAO, and you believe ther has been a breach of the Code of Conduct, why on earth not?
If he is not a member, then they have no jurisdiction.
Bear in mind, though, that some curators have their hands tied by unsympathetic/ unsupportive planning departments, and the curator's role is, in the end, only advisory. If the planning department was fearful of losing the development because of archaeological cost, and they were keen for it to take place for economic development reasons, then the only alternative available to the curator may have been to say "no compromise" - at which point consent would have been granted without any archaeological work.
In these (hypothetical?) circumstances, it would still be a disaster, and still unacceptable - but the result of an inherent problem in the planning system, rather than the fault of any archaeological organisation or individual.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished