'What has IFA ever done for us...?'

[monty]

There has always been the notion that IfA fails to connect with the troops......in my opinion it is a a must that this info is passed on.........

[BAJR]

The IfA are able to read it... they do come here.. but I will be able to tell them to look as well. They are after all now backing the unionisation push. Thanks for a good thread...

[Jack]

No probs.....................

[Unitof1]

Presumably if there was a reply the IFA would say that they have done a lot to distance themselves from field archaeology over the last twenty years such as taking the word Field out of the IFA name for example. They would probably like other suggestions of what else they could do to stop this recurrent confusion that they have anything to do with field archaeology. It seems to me that it is the word archaeology that keeps bringing this problem up and presumably the IFA would prefer something Historic Environment like. The Institute for Historic Environment Workers – IFHEW. Unfortunately after the last name change they appear to want to keep the acronym IFA which leaves us with the tricky problem of finding a replacement for archaeology that also begins with A. Could I suggest you send your suggestions on a postcard to the IFA…Institue for....

[Unitof1]

Having said that the IFA changed their name. Did they? I notice from the new By-laws of the Institute for Archaeologists Code of conduct, Revised edition, April 2010.
http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/icontent/inPages/docs/codes/code_conduct.pdf

[SIZE=3]That The Institute for Archaeologists is a trading name of the Institute of Field Archaeologists, a company limited by guarantee. It is registered in England, no 1918782.

[/SIZE]

which to my eye the subject of the sentence: ?It is registered in England, no 1918782?, is confused. And so it appears from the company register that No 1918782 is for the name INSTITUTE OF FIELD ARCHAEOLOGISTS(THE). And that from
http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/6a7a8c94e280e5a4ba939c858ae1f6ca/compdetails

that of

[SIZE=3]Previous Names:
No previous name information has been recorded over the last 20 years
[/SIZE]

So what did the IFA name change do/mean. Is this another example of the ifa doing nothing really, except coming up with a dodgy trading name, the old rouge trader rouse? maybe I should try it out...named sole responsible archaecologist. Not me mate your thinking of the responsible sole named archaeologist

[Sith]

You're making my head hurt!

I think it's up to Companies House to update their online records (which presumably lag behind the 'real' ones). Apart form slightly changing the company name to appease/include (delete as applicable) certain sectors of the heritage community, I can't see much of a conspiracy here.

[Unitof1]

Sorry hurty head

basically I have worked out that the ifa did not change its name but instead they must have decided to remain as the Institute of Field Archaeologists but trade under a trade name. In matters of conspiracy this indicates that the ifa has no problem with assuming different trading names and presumably this is what the ifa collegiate was voting for when they elected for a so called new name.

You say the ifa changed its name “to appease/include (delete as applicable) certain sectors of the heritage community” but did it change its name when actually it is still registered at company house as the Institute of Field Archaeologists and now to make matters more confusing for your average Jack it front lines its views on metal detection in its codes of the highest principle order -codes which appear to be for people who undertake field archaeology.

Not sure I was after full blown conspiracy, rather shoddy, cheapskate whats in a name change, probably costs money to un-register and then register a new company name so what we will do is get involved in trade names. Institue for archaeology pensions and members employers paying their membershipdues IFAPAMEPTM.
Institue for archaeology people who work in English heritage, National Trust and the county council+many more IFAPWWIEHNTATCC+MM

[vulpes]

for once unitof1 is right!:I

[Dinosaur]

Clearly this thread has further to run???

[Jack]

nah, bored of it now........considering my next