Ian Morrison's comments
So, the Supreme Court invented a new law, which Boris was found to have retrospectively contravened. And the new law goes against the precedent set over hundreds of years.
Brady and her Remainiac chums throw a tizzy fit, spit their dummies out and demand Boris be stripped of his honorary fellowship. Obviously, his dire professional standards in having the temerity to follow through on a democratic vote and be painfully frank in addressing MP's who's behaviour borders upon treason and treachery, goes strictly against their blinkered values and morals.
Can I please call "Humbug" on Brady's statement ;-)
Rather than raise the cost of ARB membership, maybe they could move out of London offices and reduce the enormous salaries of their higher level staff.
Of last year's £4.6M income, ARB spendt roughly half of it on staff and office costs. I recall from one of their reports that office cleaning cost roughly an average architect's salary. Near 1 million on legal costs too?
Doh, typo... Central, not Cental :-)
Seems like 'Remoaner Cental' at RIBA then ;-)
More scare stories, more terror, more fake news, just to stir the pot.
It would be truly illuminating if those who put this report together - Mark Jackson, Lucy Monks and Andrew Forth - were declare just how they voted on the Leave/Remain question. Though we may have an inkling as to the answer already.
Will RIBA be publishing the view from the other side of the coin, any time soon? Hmmmm, thought not.
This review seems very much biased towards university income rather than educational standards. It appears that:"programmes, tailored to the needs and aspirations of students" is just a fancy wording for "more courses, more students, lower entry standards, less rigour, more university income".
From much discussion with many friends throughout academia, this architectural step simply mirrors what is commonly found throughout tertiary and post-grad education: an increased student intake; a significant drop in the quality and ability of students and; a noticeable shift towards increasing revenue from foreign student places.
As much as I disagree with much of European bureaucracy and control, this is certainly one point on which the European Directive is correct. A universally agreed minimum professional standard - which will also allow new British Architects to work throughout Europe too.
Given the apparent disintegration of the role of 'Architect' and its understanding from the public perspective, to dilute such further with an array of educational standards and alternative roles/careers would also seem to undermine any ARB/RIBA drive towards strengthening the position of the "Architect".
Maybe it also shows that it is cheaper for the house builders to use external architects rather than their own staff for the actual hours involved? Many private practices - desperate to stay in business - may well reduce fees just to keep a flow of work.
With a purely profit-driven developer as the master of a necessarily submissive architect, this can only contribute further to the Noddy Box plague.