4th January 2007, 03:47 PM
âThe IFA didn't recommend these things - it just recognised that they are the position set by law and by government planning policy, which the IFA couldn't change even if they wanted to.â
The IFA standards clearly direct that everyone but the IFA does monitoring. I find it hard to believe that there is any law about archaeological monitoring.
Maybe the IFA needs a monitoring guidance so that the monitoring can be monitored as well âthey suggest someone with field experience. As I have asked before (I tried to fish it out of Hosty) has any curator charged for âmonitoringâ.....how much did they charge and what did they do with the results....(no I havenât asked that before)
It seems to me that a positive monitoring should be published as well as negative being passed onto the IFA and that ANY monitoring should be registered in full 3d transparency, the bureaucrats should love it.
The IFA standards clearly direct that everyone but the IFA does monitoring. I find it hard to believe that there is any law about archaeological monitoring.
Maybe the IFA needs a monitoring guidance so that the monitoring can be monitored as well âthey suggest someone with field experience. As I have asked before (I tried to fish it out of Hosty) has any curator charged for âmonitoringâ.....how much did they charge and what did they do with the results....(no I havenât asked that before)
It seems to me that a positive monitoring should be published as well as negative being passed onto the IFA and that ANY monitoring should be registered in full 3d transparency, the bureaucrats should love it.