PVC King wrote:You make a number of long winded arguments...
Here comes another dodge of the issues I raised - I can tell at this stage.
(Geez, its just like talking with a Member of the RIAI about the inequity of them being automatialy Registered...)
My arguments are structured and logical and not intended for consumption by persons with the attention span of a goldfish.
While the quality of your rebuttals are - oh, wait...
You haven't addressed any of my points, have you?
"Attack, propagandize, attack, question, attack..."
Another graduate from the Literary and Historical Debating Society.
...but cannot get away from the facts that the RIAI are independent i.e. that it is not controlled by a private business
The RIAI - in and of itself - is a private business.
Did you think it was a charity or something?
Moreover it represents a large group of vested interests in establishd practices.
It cannot, be definition, be a representative body AND be independent.
The Technical Assessment is being conducted by a separate private business, but its effectively controlled by the RIAI AFAIK - happy to be corrected on this.
[but probably not by you, since you seem to know very little about these matters and never answer my points].
For someone who professes not to have a connection, you're doing a lot of propagandising on the RIAI's behalf.
That's mainly aspirational propagandising [and I'm being polite here] , as opposed to posting factual information about the RIAI or about the law.
And of course you still haven't answered my question:"What's your professional qualification, if any?"
or that no other profession considers a university qualification as being sufficient to warrant ongoing use of the title professional e.g. solicitor, auditor etc.
Given that this profession operates in the EU and that several other countries don't require registration, countries in which some good architecture can still be found, I'd say you are mistaken on a point of principle - no surprises there.
I'm always a bit wary of professional bodies - they seem to be used to give a sense of assurance to members of the public, without which their Members couldn't charge high fees, or in the case of the medical profession, simply couldn't function.
Its known as Badge Engineering in the Car Trade, and we alrady know you love your badges! LOL!
Its designed to get punters paying way over the odds for a product even though its less reliable, more unconfortable and often badly built - ask any Alfa owner.
CK has already told you of how registration worked in other countries, included the much lauded UK, your paragon of regulation for David Grant [splutter!], France, etc.
In those cases recognition was afforded to persons practising architecture for a number of years prior to the introduction of the regulation.
My position rests on the law as it stands and has stood for twenty years and more, and my established and acquired rights under the law as an architect.
What people do in other professions and in other jurisdictions may be relevant in other matters, matters which I would support, but not on this specific point.
I'd ask you to look at the vast bulk of the Liam Carroll output over the past two decades; that is why we need professionally qualified architects. As far as I am concerned a professional can only be considered to be fully qualified when they have a qualification from the industry body and are subject to ongoing monitoring by that body.
Liam Carroll had a known aversion to architects, that is true.
In his later years, however he is known to have used a few of them.
Are you suggesting that Sean O'Laoire and Jim Pike were second stringers, of something?
They were MRIAI's at the top of their game, whereas you are an RIAI shill that won't even bother to put the terms "Liam Carrol + architect" into a search engine before spouting your nonsense.
But please continue - I'm comforting myself in this disastrous crisis for the architectural profession with the mental image of sets of MRIAI's cringing reading your posts, supposedly supporting the RIAI's position, but in reality associating them with yet an presumptive, badly researched voice, that doesn't seem to know the law or its consequences.
Stick to the facts, address the issue I've raised and you may stop the leaching away of your credibility with each and every post you make.
Continue as you're going and don't be surprised if some Member of the RIAI here sends you a PM telling you you're in a hole and please to stop digging.
The involvement of the RIAI is no accident; they are the most reputable industry body in the country. Self regulation clearly failed and that is the system that you clearly favour; i.e. send people out in their early to mid twenties and let the market regulate them.
As proved above on the matter of Liam Carroll, you appear to have a very limited knowledge of the subject.
I fail to see why, since the internet allows even the least knowledgeable to attain the position of a well-informed overview - Google is your friend.
Previously there was no enforced regulation of the profession - a no-regulation system except by consent and desire of people to abide by a code.
The best amongst us adhered to that code regardless of the fact we are not Members of the RIAI - its the way professionals work and how we regard our clients best interests.
And that is the summa of Part III's - acting professionally and honourably and discharging your duties impartially towards everyone.
During the previous period of unregulation, people were delighted to have someone who was competent looking after their interests.
Architects and the RIAI were seen as steps up the overpriced and arrogant ladder, with an emphasis on imposing their views on the client as opposed to developing their brief with them ot their specification.
I'm not certain if this was a fair assessment of either qualified persons or MRIAI's.
Some were certainly both overpriced and arrogant, but in many cases I think it was more an issue of perception, and there were several unqualified success who were overpriced and relatively incompetent.
Many people of limited means or in rural areas preferred to work with draughtsmen or technicians or [Shock! Horror!] engineers, and this continues to this day.
Several times on being introduced as an architect [as opposed to an engineer or draughtsman, never mind an RIAI] to a new client I noticed a reaction, a facial tic in some cases
only allayed after several months working with them and proving my competence and willingness to assimilate client instruction in the design process.
In that former free market system, the RIAI failed to attract into its ranks a significant number of architects, for whatever reasons - some without qualifications, some with - many of whom felt alienated by the culture or attitude of RIAI Members.
In a regulated market, in less than a year since compulsory registration began, they have managed to alienate far more.
The reputation of the RIAI rests in part on the fact that there are some excellentarchitects amongst them, but also on the fact that nobody having yet conducted an independent root and branch investigation into the activities and competences of their Members.
This is badge engineering at its worst, as enshrined in the automatic registration of all RIAI members without any vetting of their competence or whether good practice principles are followed in their offices.
The RIAI may argue that automatic registration of their Members was only fair, or that there would have been an insurmountable workload involved, to which I answer, "it was only fair to your Members, RIAI, not to others".
Your argument, which rests on registration, badges and assurances unsupported by independent assessment was once used by other organizations - the Catholic Church for example.
That's a species of logic we need to do without going forward.