Simon, similarly, simply omitting the first part of the quote to provide an edited version that sounds like a simple assertion doesn't make it so. I presented the analogies, and they are reasoned and valid. I presented the benefits that compulsory registration has provided in other professions that impact on health and protection of society (medicine and law) and drew a valid and reasonable analogy with that. I also asked whether anyone would really claim that compulsory registration in those fields only benefited those who are registered or carrying out the registration. By omitting that, you distort my post to support your own position.
You may as well say that, prior to the introduction of the trades description act, nobody was able to present evidence that it would benefit anybody, yet it was self-evident that, by reducing the opportunity for misrepresentation, it would produce benefit.
Similarly, it is surely self-evident that reducing the risk of people who hold inadequate competence and/or professionalism from deliberately or unwittingly misrepresenting themselves as fit for the task will produce benefit. The evidence is the benefit that has accrued by doing so in similar circumstances for other safety and/or mission critical fields.
I'll ask you politely, please don't misrepresent my post again.

Simon, similarly, simply omitting the first part of the quote to provide an edited version that sounds like a simple assertion doesn't make it so. I presented the analogies, and they are reasoned and valid. I presented the benefits that compulsory registration has provided in other professions that impact on health and protection of society (medicine and law) and drew a valid and reasonable analogy with that. I also asked whether anyone would really claim that compulsory registration in those fields only benefited those who are registered or carrying out the registration. By omitting that, you distort my post to support your own position.
You may as well say that, prior to the introduction of the trades description act, nobody was able to present evidence that it would benefit anybody, yet it was self-evident that, by reducing the opportunity for misrepresentation, it would produce benefit.
Similarly, it is surely self-evident that reducing the risk of people who hold inadequate competence and/or professionalism from deliberately or unwittingly misrepresenting themselves as fit for the task will produce benefit. The evidence is the benefit that has accrued by doing so in similar circumstances for other safety and/or mission critical fields.
I'll ask you politely, please don't misrepresent my post again.