Standard and guidance for archaeological advice by historic environment services

[P Prentice]

splitting hairs or what! field archaeologist or archaeologist - what if you are in a building, a plane, under water duh

[Unitof1]

no ones splitting hairs they are one and the same and the archaeologist has supremacy over the product. It does show that everybodies fighting over the acolade of archaeologist including the ifa curators sorry is that advisors. 9 more days to go.

[Unitof1]

Does anybody know when this propergander was put up by the civil servants or who wrote it

http://www.archaeologists.net/advocacy/p...ngservices

http://www.britarch.ac.uk/archforum/Why_..._Short.pdf

I like this

We also get involved at a local level, and would encourage you as Council Tax
payers to make your own representations to ensure these services are protected.

We have also found the following paragraphs have proved useful in our own
advocacy to prevent severe cuts to local services.

ha haa hahhh. Now really wet yourself

Thirdly, the role of planning archaeologists in applying such conditions is
critical to levering in private sector investment in archaeology. I am sure your
officers will have the figures for your area, but nationally the
picture is one of each post bringing in c ?1m annually of such inward investment
? an annual return of 30 to 40 times the cost of employment.

they recon that there are 320 of these "advisors" out there paying their subs to the ifa, which must be almost 2 thirds of the membership of all field archaeologists in the ifa but then I am really bad at mathermatics.but what is amazing is that these advisors have managed to generate almost 1m of wonderus inwardy investment EACH and that presumably is irrispective of the econmic climate which is just fantastic but wonders on wonders they have managed to do it without a STANDARD, just think how much the inwardy investment will be when they are working under eh's (for we must give credit where it is due-they paid for it (is that not also inwardly investment)) standard,

Lets see its at ?320 millions now, shirly it will double and that will make it 640 millions of pounds possibly just in the first year. After 2 years that is ?1280 miilions and in just ten years that is ?6400 millions.Now if we recon that theres only about 3500 real field archaeologists that is ?1828571.428571429 each. which is actually friegtenly small beer. But before you all get to excited I do think that it would be sensible to check these figures which are

critical to levering in private sector investment in archaeology

with the so called planning officers presumably soon to be advisors who

will have the figures for your area

levering now theres something that makes the little old ladies wet at the knees.

[Unitof1]

bajr woooooe

there is no one out there, handful of no hopers ,its over, walk away.

Its a standard over nothing

[Unitof1]

but dont dispbare bajr

there are 345 ?1 million ponud inwRDKLY generating donothing ar haeologisats who by mere justification of existance out there create everything that is everything thats 345 million pounds for you and me just for breathing. ooh its so full of oxygen wiytnh equal proportions of air ohhoooo is so wonderful oohulooo


Dear BAG do you think that my witterings will be relayed to the most wonderful extraordinary agm.?

[Unitof1]

plop plop ?

[kevin wooldridge]

Thanks Uo1 for bringing this to our attention......

A couple of observations. The 'leverage' issue annoys me a little. In effect it plays into the hands of the Pickleites by admitting that there is an unofficial development tax in place.....another way of looking at it could be that by abolishing archaeological advisory services, the burden of this unofficial tax could be saved, perhaps therefore tempting hard headed business types into investing in areas where they aren't burdened by a drain on their profitability. Rather than support archaeology this just provides its enemies with cheap ammunition for cheap shots. I am already looking forward to the day when I read the headline 'Archaeologists admit they are imposing stealth tax on job creators'.....

Secondly, I'm not sure that suggesting politicians only ever respond when they feel their vote is threatened is the best tactical approach to winning hearts and minds. I was told once by a politician that the biggest single issue raised by the public to local government officers was how much dog-shit there was on the streets. If the 'politicians only do it for the votes' analogy was applied we wouldn't have social services, bin collections, education etc as every resource of local government would be dedicated to chasing and wiping the arses of stray dogs. Clearly not the case.

My thoughts are that this document was produced by someone who may once have gone on a two-hour seminar called 'Engage the Public' or comething similar and has little practical experience of running campaigns or engaging the public. And if it allows Uo1 to appear at the cutting-edge of literary criticism, it has to be dangerously if not fatally flawed....

[Unitof1]

The IfA plays a very active role in trying to ensure the protection of archaeological services, lobbying all UK governments to maintain the requirement for these services in their current and future
legislation and policy.

my view is that it is eglish huritage who are the stautory "advisors" to the government who should be involved in the protection of archaeology. Whats going on here is nothing to do with archaeology or any standards for doing archaeology. My view is that the ifa is supposed to set/maintain standards of individuals called archaeologists not the rgeulation of TCPA. This campaiiane is pure civil service jobs worth and is totally about stealth tax using the backs of archaeology.

[Bodger51]

I agree that low animosity ammunition against projects is an issue, but I would suggest a wider issue would be showing the well practiced duty of care and environmental conditioning from the amount of experience needs to be highlighted, whilst it must also be noted that there is a duty of care in modifying prestige driven factors, concerning what is the worth of professional continuation, given that we are at an end of a huge workforce growth programme.

[Unitof1]

havent a clude whats going on with badgers message editor start again

bit disappointed because I thought that the confernce that I would never go to was in march but turns out its not
http://www.archaeologists.net/news/12031...nce-update

and it full of rubbish like

The conference theme centres on partnership. The partnership between the local
authority archaeological adviser, the developer and the commercial archaeologist
- and indeed our profession - relies on adequate provision within local
authorities.

As understand pps5 we dont need so called local authority "" advisor. I would suggest that the partnership should say local authority planning commitee/case officer. I would also suggest that the local museum should also be included as they will be able to point out that 99% of what has been produced by the "advisors" is worthless rubbish.

Been trying to work out why the ifa is allowing itself to get bothered by english heritage over these people in the local authorities/civil servive ponzi schemes

looked at this

http://www.archaeologists.net/sites/defa...srates.pdf

now being selfemployed, this obviously is not a subscription system which understands me- particularly as a follower of the Bernard Mathews ideology of how the tax system is supposed to work and dedicate my efforts in this area

[SIZE=3]*members earning less than ?10,000 (subs category 4) can claim a concessionary rate by sending proof of earnings to the IfA office along with this remittance slip.

. Does anybody know what the concessionary rate is.[/SIZE]

In as much that the subscriptions are a sliding scale, what I dont understand is if a person pays more for membership surely they should get more rights than those who dont. Just wondering what the net worth of local authority "" advisors is compared to non members like me?


[SIZE=1]**corporate members can move to the ?Retired? category by confirming their employment status with the HMRC is declared as retired and their tax code has been altered accordingly
Why would anybody bother to pay to be a retaired member, how many are there, who are they

PS have tried to work out the math behind the variuos scales but remain defeated.[/SIZE]