5th January 2007, 01:07 AM
So a baboon of a field archaeologist insults the curator by using the one and only context sheet generated in a two week watching brief as toilet paper. Said curator cries to the elected members who insist that the full power of magisterial court, under TCPA, is brought against..................
......the Developer.
The Developers defence.
The baboon and curator had been in collusion in the construction of the specification which had given the impression to the defendant that the baboon in the eyes(delegated) of the elected members was an archaeologist fit and proper for the employment. What more could the defendant do? Was it not also outlined in the IFA codes of conduct that the curator should have monitored the toilet habits of the baboon at all times?
(not sure about the baboons thoughts on having to pay £50 for information that had been put into the SMR by fellow baboons- young and antiquarian)
......the Developer.
The Developers defence.
The baboon and curator had been in collusion in the construction of the specification which had given the impression to the defendant that the baboon in the eyes(delegated) of the elected members was an archaeologist fit and proper for the employment. What more could the defendant do? Was it not also outlined in the IFA codes of conduct that the curator should have monitored the toilet habits of the baboon at all times?
(not sure about the baboons thoughts on having to pay £50 for information that had been put into the SMR by fellow baboons- young and antiquarian)