Time to create a new professional registration for Engineering Technologists

Mr. Gowman,
First of all, apologies for the single letter typo in my post of your name. I will notice that my post was riddled with typos, my phone really does have a mind of its own! If you look closer, you will also see my sweeping apology for the typos across all of my posts - interestingly, I definitely typed your name correctly when I started this reply, yet I just scrolled back to the top only to notice that it had been changed to Bowman once again. Wouldn't that have been adding insult to injury!
It's easily explained - I do have a contact named Bowman with whom I correspond, so my predictive text assumes that's what I indeed to type.
Far me importantly, though, the reason I'm responding is that I'm somewhat stunned. I would love to hear what part of my post you felt was a personal attack. Telling someone that you have an issue with their viewpoint, or what they've said, as contrasted with an attack on their person or personal attributes is most definitely not a personal attack. Had I called you an idiot, or a bigot or any other attack on who or what you are or your personal attributes, then that would be a personal attack. I find this ironic when your reply, if not an actual personal attack as I've just defined it, goes considerably closer to being one than anything that I posted, with comments about PEI hardcore and suggestions of elitism, and of "everyone" (whether literally everyone in the institute or the Fellows that you appear to have such an issue with - either way, it appears to include me) being only interested in prestige and closed shops of restrictive practice. As an interviewer (albeit a new one) for registration, and in the knowledge of the rigorous standards applied to interviewers and assessors, I find it quite offensive that you suggest that it is possible to become registered, despite not meeting UKSPEC, as a result of influence by powerful employers or friends. You don't know what motivated me to become an interviewer. I do, and it was definitely not prestige, protectionism, restriction or closed shop - quite the reverse, it was to "pay back" to my profession and to encourage and help a broader base of PEs to pursue registration.
Do I understand from your declaration of your training and education that you felt I was suggesting you were deficient in some way? Not so - how would I have known? I only commented, in reaction to your comments about training and education requirements, that if this were an area of concern, you could rest assured that the process attempts to provide every opportunity to demonstrate knowledge and understanding (which is the actual requirement, formal education being only one way to attain it) by diverse means that opens up the path to registration to all regardless of the route taken. I would have hoped this would be a goal you would endorse as it addresses the very issues that you espouse of making it more relevant. Can we not try to improve the process and by so doing make it more relevant and accessible, rather than simply throw it out? It's why I and others such as Andy and the other Roy are taking the time and trouble to post on here - after all, if we were only interested in prestige, protection and closed shop restrictions, wouldn't we just sit back on our laurels and think "we've already made it, why should we care"?
PS, though I don't propose to enter into a training and education measuring competition, I'll just say - quad-lingual if that's the right term for it! :) Please take that in the spirit of friendly joke it's intended to be!

Mr. Gowman,
First of all, apologies for the single letter typo in my post of your name. I will notice that my post was riddled with typos, my phone really does have a mind of its own! If you look closer, you will also see my sweeping apology for the typos across all of my posts - interestingly, I definitely typed your name correctly when I started this reply, yet I just scrolled back to the top only to notice that it had been changed to Bowman once again. Wouldn't that have been adding insult to injury!
It's easily explained - I do have a contact named Bowman with whom I correspond, so my predictive text assumes that's what I indeed to type.
Far me importantly, though, the reason I'm responding is that I'm somewhat stunned. I would love to hear what part of my post you felt was a personal attack. Telling someone that you have an issue with their viewpoint, or what they've said, as contrasted with an attack on their person or personal attributes is most definitely not a personal attack. Had I called you an idiot, or a bigot or any other attack on who or what you are or your personal attributes, then that would be a personal attack. I find this ironic when your reply, if not an actual personal attack as I've just defined it, goes considerably closer to being one than anything that I posted, with comments about PEI hardcore and suggestions of elitism, and of "everyone" (whether literally everyone in the institute or the Fellows that you appear to have such an issue with - either way, it appears to include me) being only interested in prestige and closed shops of restrictive practice. As an interviewer (albeit a new one) for registration, and in the knowledge of the rigorous standards applied to interviewers and assessors, I find it quite offensive that you suggest that it is possible to become registered, despite not meeting UKSPEC, as a result of influence by powerful employers or friends. You don't know what motivated me to become an interviewer. I do, and it was definitely not prestige, protectionism, restriction or closed shop - quite the reverse, it was to "pay back" to my profession and to encourage and help a broader base of PEs to pursue registration.
Do I understand from your declaration of your training and education that you felt I was suggesting you were deficient in some way? Not so - how would I have known? I only commented, in reaction to your comments about training and education requirements, that if this were an area of concern, you could rest assured that the process attempts to provide every opportunity to demonstrate knowledge and understanding (which is the actual requirement, formal education being only one way to attain it) by diverse means that opens up the path to registration to all regardless of the route taken. I would have hoped this would be a goal you would endorse as it addresses the very issues that you espouse of making it more relevant. Can we not try to improve the process and by so doing make it more relevant and accessible, rather than simply throw it out? It's why I and others such as Andy and the other Roy are taking the time and trouble to post on here - after all, if we were only interested in prestige, protection and closed shop restrictions, wouldn't we just sit back on our laurels and think "we've already made it, why should we care"?
PS, though I don't propose to enter into a training and education measuring competition, I'll just say - quad-lingual if that's the right term for it! :) Please take that in the spirit of friendly joke it's intended to be!