It's a nice, professional looking site, Jim. And not before time.
... no other organisation has indicated that it wishes to take forward the case for regulating the Clinical Technologist profession
This could be because, in the opinion of many (myself included), there is no such thing as a "Clinical Technologist profession". Does your site define "Clinical Technologist"? Yes, here it is ...
Clinical Technologists are Healthcare Scientists who work in NHS hospitals, private health care, academic institutions, and the medical device industry. Clinical Technology is concerned with the practical application of physics, engineering and technology to clinical practice. These are applied to the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of human disease, and maintaining and improving the quality of life.
"Healthcare Scientist"? That doesn't sound much like me (or the likes of me), then.
On the other hand, I would have thought that most of us are actually "Engineering Technicians". Back in the days when I was interested in this sort of thing myself, we used to be "regulated" by the CEI (no doubt someone can probably tell me what that's called these days ... the Engineering Council, perhaps?).
Meanwhile, others have
indicated ways of taking the "profession" forward. In fact, I did so myself only recently when I suggested we adopt (ie,
in the UK) BMET Certification on the US model.
I applaud your efforts, and wish you well with the new website especially, but still maintain that you're barking up the wrong tree. Bottom line for me is ... if it's voluntary, then it's no good! Primum non nocere.