24th June 2008, 01:28 PM
I find it a bit annoying to be told I'm 'scared' of an independent regulatory body. I'm not scared of either it or the idea, I've just been making the point that I don't think it's neccesary. The point about everyone joining the IFA came out of the discussion over the fact that the proposed overseeing body was only put forward as overseeing IFA members and RAOs. If the proposed body would oversee ALL archaeologists, whether IFA members or not, I'm all for it. Although (there's always a 'but' isn't there, sorry!) I would then be on the side of arguing that IFA should be considered for that role.
Just out of interest, what is it about the 'IFA way' that you don't like? (NB I'm using your term not mine, I don't agree there is an 'IFA way') I thought, based on your original post, that the 'IFA way' was OK with you, but that you felt that it needed more independent enforcement? But I was probably mis-interpreting (maybe been hit in the head once to often recently!).
Just out of interest, what is it about the 'IFA way' that you don't like? (NB I'm using your term not mine, I don't agree there is an 'IFA way') I thought, based on your original post, that the 'IFA way' was OK with you, but that you felt that it needed more independent enforcement? But I was probably mis-interpreting (maybe been hit in the head once to often recently!).