Peter Boughton wrote:Is there no recourse for the membership to do anything about it?
A few years ago I raised the topic with someone on the RPS stand at the photography show formerly known as Focus-on-Imaging*. The response I got was that it was down to the judges. Naturally I pointed out that the Society appoints (and presumably briefs) the judges, after which the conversation did not get much further. Short of travelling to Bath for the AGM, there is probably not much else to be done.
The membership appears to settle for the status quo. At the last election for Council, there were two candidates standing on mandates to shake things up. One stood down shortly after the ballot papers were issued for reasons which were never fully explained and the other was not elected despite having a successful business background. Personally, as an organisation which is supposed to support photography, I have never found the RPS to be that efficient. On the few occasions when I have had a query, it has not been able to provide a satisfactory answer. Once, I was put through to the previous Director General who promised to phone me back after he had made some investigations. It never happened, of course.
Peter Boughton wrote:....... perhaps it'll be necessary to add BIWS for those wishing to clarify they earned their letters whilst the society still had integrity. :/
If I understand your acronym correctly, given the events I described happened so long ago, most holders of distinctions would need to add AIWS.
* Did you see what I did there.
