David Strike wrote:

> I meant to suggest a corporate view as far as the introduction of
> legislation is concerned.  :-)

Their willingness to state a view is an interesting question.  I suspect
PADI might chose to go more with legislation which increases their control
over diving, as the proposed legislation surely does.  On the other hand, it
is not unlikely that they'd worry about backlash from other jurisdictions,
most notably the U.S., their biggest and most independent minded market.

Whether they take a position on the legislation or not, I would hope that
they would issue a statement relative to the absolutely untrue information
provided in their Course Director's statements which, as noted, were made
over his signature and PADI title.

> My earlier comments were not intended as a defence of PADI.  They were
> intended to focus on the main issue raised by Kuty - the comments made by
a
> person who happens to be a PADI Course Director.  (And the fact that his
> grasp of what goes on elsewhere in the world would appear to be faulty!)
> :-)

I don't think I agree that he "happens to be a PADI Course Director."  It
appears to me that his position and, in all likelyhood, his opportunities to
speak were and are driven by his agency affiliation and position.  Of
course, that's only my interpretation of what I've read.  I could be wrong.

> At least you and Mr Eyal Sayag would seem to be in agreement about the
need
> for change in this area!  :-))))

I don't think Mr. Sayag is likely to feel that way at all.  His objection
seems to be to the  freedom to chose once certification is granted.  If  he
thinks it's the certification that is at fault, I would think his position
as Course Director would make it possible for him to do somthing about it.
I doubt he's likely to admit to his own incompetence.

> Which is why there's a need for country/regional specific diving
> associations directed and funded by everyone who enjoys diving and takes
it
> seriously enough to lobby against *unnecessary* restrictions being placed
on
> it.  (The first order of business is, of course, to decide what is meant
by
> *unnecessary*!)  :-)

An interesting and supportable statement in all regards.  8^)  BTW, what is
unnecessary is whatever I say is . . . or perhaps everything except what I
say is necessary . . . Oh hell, I can't even come up with what is necessary
if I had the authority to.  There's going to be problems with any group
trying to do it too.  Here in the U.S., the problems are already quite
obvious and, in my opinion, the best we've been able to do is slow the
process of legislation.

Lee