Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

ARB DEBATE GETS BACK TO BASICS

  • Comment
LETTERS

Maurice McCarthy (Letters, AJ 26.04.07) again fails to follow the argument or to research matters prior to his correspondence.

If McCarthy would refer back to my original letter (AJ 01.03.07) he would see that my point was simply that ARB would have no right to tell the CABE panel member architects how to announce their registration, as long as they do not misrepresent their status. It seems that McCarthy is under the impression that if a statutory body is not expressly empowered to authorise something, it follows that it is given the lawful right to prevent it, even though it is not expressly empowered to enforce that prevention. Clearly this is nonsense.

McCarthy goes on to claim that a registered architect using the ARB affix to signify a professional qualification or membership is acting fraudulently. In trying to wriggle out of his errors, he is digging an even deeper hole for himself by implying that the CABE panel members were committing fraud - after all, what else were they doing by using the affix other than signifying that they were qualified to be registered?

Peter Arnold, Colorado, USA

  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.