3rd February 2006, 12:14 PM
Spot on. But this means "archaeologist" would be a protected title like architect, lawyer or doctor. While I am comletely in favour of this, the general political climate is against it (since a certain PM in the early 80's) is a misdirected drive for egalitarianism and cheapness.
Also, anyone can practise as an architect, and possibly doctor or lawyer (with restrictions at the Bar, please correct me) but they just can't call themselves by that title.
Now, it the IFA was chartered, would it then be legal to require that work is directed/carried out by a chartered archaeologist (or RAO)?
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Also, anyone can practise as an architect, and possibly doctor or lawyer (with restrictions at the Bar, please correct me) but they just can't call themselves by that title.
Now, it the IFA was chartered, would it then be legal to require that work is directed/carried out by a chartered archaeologist (or RAO)?
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.