25th November 2009, 07:26 PM
the ifa is in a position where it is compromised on its own agenda, but the local authorities are the ones who will decide.
if they go for the accrediation and chartered agenda, its due to wider gov and international goals.
so the real question is why should a county authority type, stand up to the international and national gov's, for a group of organisations that wish neither to work towards a concerted destination, based on equally compromised roles in order to achieve something?
what that goal would bring to the fore, the questions of what is that goal, and do we want it?
what will the employment repercussions be and what will be the financial benifits on such an acheivement?
however we are then left with an increasingly overbaring issue for the future, where if we go through another recession what would be the crierion by which we would accept a cuthroat approach to the integrity of the heritage data being collated and stored for the nation and the future of public interest.
if we take the money and run (with an ifa yes vote), do we sell off the future stability of the industry for a real time consolidation?
whereas if don't commit to a realistic goal then why shouldn't we have an accrediation policy imposed upon us. thus removing any positive compromising additions to any future adapations.
if roa's are on the board and they dominate the board, then yes there will be significant issues, where the board would be a series of organisations embralling the rest of the industry into a brand war within a closed room.
if there is no acceditation, then there is no financial return worth the time of identifying a standard across the board, or within local regions, so then you are left with being at the mercy of developmental policies and local authority types having standing up to them, and directly risking their jobs... again for a group of organisations which are unwilling to compromise on an acheivement.
so the real issue comes down to the local authority types deciding.
whether its the local or national gov we affect, depending on our ability to agree on the industries chosen approach to how we are going to combine a public and inclusive resource with industiral revenues from the broader industry's commercialisation.
so if this is a rock and a hard place.....
do we take the money and sell the body of evidence.....
or....
do we stuff the money and wait for the storm shutter heave-ho?
admittedly smaller organisations can survive longer after kenyanism funding dries out
but in order to build an industry, which can mange and evolve from its current situation requires larger organisations to drive home the changes.
so really, we are left with 'IT':
i can make it bugger the work and .........
or
we need something and i'm brickin it.......(just like everyone else)
clever don't cover it
whats paying your mortgage?
:face-plain:
its a right laughin camraderee
if they go for the accrediation and chartered agenda, its due to wider gov and international goals.
so the real question is why should a county authority type, stand up to the international and national gov's, for a group of organisations that wish neither to work towards a concerted destination, based on equally compromised roles in order to achieve something?
what that goal would bring to the fore, the questions of what is that goal, and do we want it?
what will the employment repercussions be and what will be the financial benifits on such an acheivement?
however we are then left with an increasingly overbaring issue for the future, where if we go through another recession what would be the crierion by which we would accept a cuthroat approach to the integrity of the heritage data being collated and stored for the nation and the future of public interest.
if we take the money and run (with an ifa yes vote), do we sell off the future stability of the industry for a real time consolidation?
whereas if don't commit to a realistic goal then why shouldn't we have an accrediation policy imposed upon us. thus removing any positive compromising additions to any future adapations.
if roa's are on the board and they dominate the board, then yes there will be significant issues, where the board would be a series of organisations embralling the rest of the industry into a brand war within a closed room.
if there is no acceditation, then there is no financial return worth the time of identifying a standard across the board, or within local regions, so then you are left with being at the mercy of developmental policies and local authority types having standing up to them, and directly risking their jobs... again for a group of organisations which are unwilling to compromise on an acheivement.
so the real issue comes down to the local authority types deciding.
whether its the local or national gov we affect, depending on our ability to agree on the industries chosen approach to how we are going to combine a public and inclusive resource with industiral revenues from the broader industry's commercialisation.
so if this is a rock and a hard place.....
do we take the money and sell the body of evidence.....
or....
do we stuff the money and wait for the storm shutter heave-ho?
admittedly smaller organisations can survive longer after kenyanism funding dries out
but in order to build an industry, which can mange and evolve from its current situation requires larger organisations to drive home the changes.
so really, we are left with 'IT':
i can make it bugger the work and .........
or
we need something and i'm brickin it.......(just like everyone else)
clever don't cover it
whats paying your mortgage?
:face-plain:
its a right laughin camraderee
txt is
Mike
Mike