By continuing to use the site you agree to our Privacy & Cookies policy

George Oldham

George Oldham

Recent activity

Comments (5)

  • Comment on: Hodder’s presidential agenda derailed by dysfunctional RIBA

    George Oldham's comment 26-Jun-2014 10:48 am

    Quite right Francesca; the profession doesn't require any form of statutory regulation. Iit should rid itself of government control by the Arb and be self-regulatory as are all the other professions in our highly regulated building industry. We don't require the comfort blanket of protection of title; we have the Fraud Act to do that much more effectively, so let's save ourselves £3million a year and be free of the Arb's officiousness. As for Corblimier's pedantry; I couldn't care less what sex he or she is - all that matters is stopping the appalling injustices perpetrated by the Arb's disciplinary processes, well covered in the architectural press. George Oldham.

  • Comment on: Hodder’s presidential agenda derailed by dysfunctional RIBA

    George Oldham's comment 25-Jun-2014 10:34 am

    Whoever "Corblimier" is, he could not be more wrong. The Arb disciplinary process simply isn't fit for purpose and is one of the foremost reasons why this parasitic and pointless organisation has to go. The RIBA model, (which is arms-length from the Institute) is exemplary by comparison. As one of the RIBA's sternest critics, I will always readily concede that as a member organisation, it will always be subject to diverse opinions, but at least, most of any soiled linen is washed in public by contrast with the secretive and undemocratic self-serving bureaucracy of the Arb. I know; I spent the most frustrating six year's of my life as an Arb Board member attempting to protect the profession from the ARB's expansionist ambitions. George Oldham.

  • Comment on: Palestinian architects call on Hodder not to back down on Israeli motion

    George Oldham's comment 4-Jun-2014 9:21 pm

    Agreed Angela. Let's get over any past misrepresentations and misunderstandings, and press on with the important business of taking the motion to the UIA as directed by the RIBA Council. We are well aware of the efforts to prevent this and avoid holding the Israeli Institute to account for the criminal actions of some of its members, but the accelerated settlement and ethnic cleansing programme must be addressed by the UIA if it is to retain any ethical credibility. If anyone doubts Israel's intention in its settlements policy, all they need do is read the words of the Israeli Housing Minister, Uri Ariel, which you can find on the following link,

  • Comment on: Last chance to fill out the survey: Should the title of architect be protected?

    George Oldham's comment 9-Apr-2014 10:45 am

    When, oh when, will architects understand that their title IS already protected without the necessity for the ARB? The Fraud Act 2006 is far more effective in prosecuting those who, without qualifications, would fraudulently represent themselves as architects, and with significantly more teeth than the Architects Act 1997 which limits the amount of any fine, (the most recent was for a derisory £400). The Fraud Act by contrast allows for UNLIMITED damages against anyone pretending to any title which cannot be justified by qualification. Thus any Chartered Architect, or even any "unattached" architect is protected without the need for statutory protection by the Arb which is truly redundant. Architects, in the lifetime of the Arb have spent more than £30 million on less than 30 cases brought by the Arb; one test case brought either by an individual or the RIBA on behalf of its members would blow the Arb out of the water. It is not simply that neither the profession nor the public now requires this pointless organisation for protection, it is that the Arb consistently demonstrates its contempt for the profession that supports it, whether it is in controversially prosecuting small practices whose only redress is through the high courts at a cost of over £25k, (last year the Arb spent over £800, 000 of your money in legal legal fees), or in not recognising RIBA validated schools of architecture abroad, the Arb is doing the profession serious damage. I spent six years on the Arb Board fighting their distrust and contempt for the profession and, with the Arb Reform Group, heading off their attempt to impose their own CPD and annual monitoring proposals. This is an organisation which claims to protect the consumer but does not advise that its EU members can be registered without taking part 3. The list is endless and it is time for the profession to tell the government through the Triennial Review that this pointless and parasitic organisation, (nearly £1million of your money a year spent duplicating the RIBA's education programme), has to go. George Oldham

  • Comment on: RIBA slams ARB over ‘mass strike-off’ of 2,000 architects

    George Oldham's comment 15-Jan-2014 8:23 pm

    I have every sympathy with Owen Luder's concerns. As one of the architects of a "minimalist" successor to the unlamented Arcuk, it must be painful indeed for him to see how his vision has been perverted by the ambition and self-interest of this inflated, inefficient, pompous and self-serving body. The twin justifications for its creation were to proclaim the independence of disciplinary procedures and the protection of title through the prosecution of those fraudulently claiming to be architects without having gained the necessary qualifications.. In both areas the Arb has shown itself to be maladroit. My own ludicrous prosecution, exposed as irregular in every respect and costing registrants over £50,000 is but a drop in the ocean of a history of unjust cases which have cost the profession literally millions. in parallel, until the ARB Reform Group applied pressure on the Registrar, there were virtually no successful prosecutions for abuse of title, and even now, the situation is farcical, with magistrates courts imposing derisory fines. The fact is that in both of its basic functions, the Arb is now redundant. The RIBA has set up a truly independent disciplinary hearing panel of much greater probity, and functioning at a fraction of the cost of the Arb's Star Chamber procedures, whilst the Fraud Act of 2006 allows architects to prosecute those fraudulently claiming architectural qualifications, (including "architectural consultants" not covered by the Architects Act), and able to claim UNLIMITED damages. Thus architects no longer need the Arb to provide protection and are wasting £3million a year in supporting an organisation which is not only pointless but also parasitic, spending over £1million per annum in duplicating RIBA education responsibilities and a similar amount on European legislation as the "competent authority" for architecture. Just think about this; we have surrendered the authority to legislate for our professional future to a quango with no architects on its staff and overseen by a board with only a minority of elected architects who can be outvoted at any time. This cannot be allowed to continue. Very soon, the DCLG will be calling for evidence to assess whether the Arb should continue. It has been said that at the last review, the only reason that the Arb did not join the bonfire of the quangos was because "architects wanted it". Every conceivable logic shows that to do so now would be simply crazy. So when the opportunity arises, don't hesitate, tell the government that you no longer want to pay for the privilege of carrying this pointless pullulation on your back. George Oldham

The searchable digital buildings archive with drawings from more than 1,500 projects

AJ newsletters