8th January 2006, 02:52 PM
Another thing - law and medicine are special cases. Other professions do not operate a closed shop. To use my usual example, an architect does not have to be a member of the RIBA, but the huge majority are. There is however a registration body, from which you can be removed, and the rIBA are represented on this. You can practise to all intents and purposes as an architect, you can design and detail buildings, submit planning and building regulations applications and so on, provided you do not call yourself an architect - hence adverts for "architectural designers" or "consultants".
The point is, the term "architect" is a protected title, unlike "archaeologist". In my view it should be.
I wonder if Valetta is the way forward (whatever happened to all that fuss about it?). If excavations are to be carried out by "competent persons" then PPG16 work should require demonstration that the applicant/tenderer etc has such competence. Membership of an appropriate body and commitment to its standards would be one way of satisfying that requirement.
This does not in itself solve the percieved question of "policing". Policing is a matter for all concerned. Curators are obliged to ensure that work is carried out in such a manner as to discharge the terms of a condition, which can refer to a set of standards as had been discussed. Probably, in terms of reasonable quality and standards, if not rigidly defgined I would imagine that a court would regard IFA as the reasonable benchmark anyway. Consultants have a duty to ensure that contract obligations are met. Contractors have contractual obligations (hence the name!).
All these parties have professional duties and obligations, to maintian standards and conduct themselves in a certain manner. It's what being a professional is all about. You should not need to be policed. But these professional responsibilities include taking appropraite action if any part including employer is acting in an inappropriate manner - even if it means losing your job or never working again. Abdication of that responsibilty simply perpetuates the problem.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
The point is, the term "architect" is a protected title, unlike "archaeologist". In my view it should be.
I wonder if Valetta is the way forward (whatever happened to all that fuss about it?). If excavations are to be carried out by "competent persons" then PPG16 work should require demonstration that the applicant/tenderer etc has such competence. Membership of an appropriate body and commitment to its standards would be one way of satisfying that requirement.
This does not in itself solve the percieved question of "policing". Policing is a matter for all concerned. Curators are obliged to ensure that work is carried out in such a manner as to discharge the terms of a condition, which can refer to a set of standards as had been discussed. Probably, in terms of reasonable quality and standards, if not rigidly defgined I would imagine that a court would regard IFA as the reasonable benchmark anyway. Consultants have a duty to ensure that contract obligations are met. Contractors have contractual obligations (hence the name!).
All these parties have professional duties and obligations, to maintian standards and conduct themselves in a certain manner. It's what being a professional is all about. You should not need to be policed. But these professional responsibilities include taking appropraite action if any part including employer is acting in an inappropriate manner - even if it means losing your job or never working again. Abdication of that responsibilty simply perpetuates the problem.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.