21st May 2007, 12:19 PM
Hi Curator Kid
My limited understanding of this is that Odyssey Group did cut a deal with the Admiralty over the split of profits.
Once this was 'discovered' by other parts of HM Government there was a rapid back-tracking and the Admiralty were reminded of the Government's obligations under international and national law and guidance relating to maritime heritage. However, the deal had already been signed and therefore all subsequent agreed 'standards' for the work had to be in line with the signed agreement. Odyssey Group have now engaged Giffords in order to ensure that agreed standards are met, and HM Government engaged Wessex Archaeology (through Defence Estates) to keep an eye on it all. I'm sure that many involved feel compromised, but want to try and make the best out of what could well have been a total disaster. Blame should basically be aimed at the Admiralty for failing to understand their responsibility in such matters.
Beamo
My limited understanding of this is that Odyssey Group did cut a deal with the Admiralty over the split of profits.
Once this was 'discovered' by other parts of HM Government there was a rapid back-tracking and the Admiralty were reminded of the Government's obligations under international and national law and guidance relating to maritime heritage. However, the deal had already been signed and therefore all subsequent agreed 'standards' for the work had to be in line with the signed agreement. Odyssey Group have now engaged Giffords in order to ensure that agreed standards are met, and HM Government engaged Wessex Archaeology (through Defence Estates) to keep an eye on it all. I'm sure that many involved feel compromised, but want to try and make the best out of what could well have been a total disaster. Blame should basically be aimed at the Admiralty for failing to understand their responsibility in such matters.
Beamo