Still waiting for serious debate on act abolition
It was disappointing that the only response to my recent letter (AJ 24.2.05) should be from one of Ian Salisbury's apologists and not from an independently minded architect who supports the complete abolition of the Architects Act 1996 and the abolition of the Protection of Title and who is able to explain to us why. Therefore, my challenge for a serious debate on these pages remains.
The selection of a subject or correspondent to be included in the AJ must remain with its editors. That Mark Benzie used 80 per cent of the valuable space allocated to his letter (AJ 3.3.05) to cast aspersions on my identity, while trolling through the ARB register and the electoral roll, is systematic of the beleaguered and marginalised position Salisbury and his followers find themselves in. The fantasy of demonising the ARB as 'occupiers' of the profession while presenting yourself with all the paranoia of a guerrilla resistance movement from within (see tactics above) would be laughable, were it not potentially so damaging for the profession.
It is ironic that Benzie, despite his protestations, makes a bee-line to the ARB register to confirm the identity of an 'assumed' architect.
Useful, wasn't it? Benzie, however, makes the mistake of assuming only registered or chartered architects read the AJ or, indeed, are interested in the future of the architectural profession.
David Rothmire, St Albans, Herts