13th May 2010, 11:33 AM
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
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
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
http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/icontent/inPages/docs/codes/code_conduct.pdf
Quote:[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
Quote:[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