Name of File 3826-56-08.pdf cached at 20/04/2019 05:43:02 - with 3 pages. pdfPath: E:\\CMS\webtest\files\89\89a83ab6-bb8e-4dc6-913b-5239e24de650.pdf. thumbPath: E:\\CMS\webtest\files\pdfthumbs\89a83ab6-bb8e-4dc6-913b-5239e24de650_1.png. objDoc: 1 - True. objPreview.Log: . strFileName: 89a83ab6-bb8e-4dc6-913b-5239e24de650_1.png

Members/subscribers must be logged in to view this article


Finniston We had expected that the Finniston enquiry and the controversy which surrounds it and indeed preceded it would become a matter for discussion in this column; Mr. S. B. Tietz takes up the subject when he writes: The evidence by the Institution of Structural Engineers to the Finniston Inquiry is encouraging in its support for technical and individual freedom. Unfortunately some of the bigger Institutions and in particular the Electrical Engineers are favouring various restrictive practices and are going to some lengths to canvass su~aort for such ideas. At a recent meeting they brought Registrars from the USA, Canada and South Africa to explain the way registration worked in these countries. The summaries were of great interest even if a little light on some of the disadvantages of registration. Verulam