This is a predictable result of the mindset of the ARB.
They were created to protect the consumer from rogue architects and spend a budget of over £3m per year, however, they have had a very hard time trying to find something to do that wasn't being done adequately already by the RIBA.
… so George Oldham gets elected to their board. A former vice president of the RIBA and founding member of the ARB Reform Group, his declared purpose was to restrict the ARB to its original functions, in other words to try to stop the ARB increasing their power and influence beyond what Parliament set it up to do. As this was not popular at the ARB; they were not comfortable with George up close as a board member… so similar to many despotic regimes, they found the least little excuse to put the opposition on trial… in this case for misplaced humour.
It is impossible to put a "professional" spin on this. What George did had nothing to do with being an architect one way or the other, so to try to censure him with reference to "professional conduct" is absurd. No "ethnic" person complained, no-one called up the ARB to complain. Indeed, if anyone was offended, it would be because the email was leaked and published. It was tasteless but not meant to offend. If there is some law against joking about "ethnics" he should come before the law, but the ARB has no business relying on leaked emails to prosecute political opponents.
Petty would be an understatement.
Please do your homework so your headlines do not misrepresent these competitions.
Comment on: ARB plans to scrap controversial PII form
You miss the point. PI is for the protection of architects, not for the public. If an architect is rich enough to cover a claim or if he does things which wouldn't attract claims, why should the ARB force him to have insurance? Architecture is not like driving a car....
What happened to your survey about who would now stopped ticking the box for insurance?