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

Exercising my right to speak in the ARB debate

  • Comment

Further to Kate Macintosh's and Mark Benzie's letters (AJ 17.3.05), I feel justified in using the term 'Salisbury's apologists', as only the two aforementioned have written to the AJ in support of Ian Salisbury (on four occasions in as many weeks).

Benzie rightly says the profession decides who represents it in the ARB board election. But it is worth noting that, of the 30,399 architects registered in 2003, less than 3 per cent voted for Salisbury. I fail to see how this can be the 'most relevant measure of strength of support' that Benzie alludes to. He now turns the tables and invites readers who share my view to write in. I would add to this by encouraging the 97 per cent of architects who didn't vote for Salisbury to also write in.

Benzie goes on to again question the validity of my input in the ARB debate. I refer him to Kate Macintosh's letter in that same edition of the AJ, correctly quoting the then Department of the Environment's edict that the ARB should be a 'focused and effective body which represents the interests of both the profession and the general public'. To allay Benzie's doubts, the latter category quite clearly includes me.

David Rothmire, St Albans, Herts

  • 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.