Architects: Legally Protected

July 23, 2009

architect

Those who toil within the Spada towers like to socialise with our journalistic brethren from time to time – and a good thing it is too, for it allows us to uncover anecdotes such as this one.

It will come as no surprise to readers of this blog that certain professional terms are legally protected – indeed, we have previously wondered why the term ‘solicitor’ is deemed worthy of protection, but the term ‘accountant’ is not. Based on a conversation last night with a journalist, we can confirm that the term ‘architect’ very definitely is – and that the Architects Registration Board is jealously guarding this.

The scribe in question, whose name and that of his publication shall remain a secret, interviewed an individual who described himself as an ‘architect’. The piece was duly published – but it turned out that the person in question was in fact not a qualified architect. This came to light as, within a few days of the piece being published, the publication had received a sternly worded legal letter from the Architects Registration Board demanding a correction.

Good on them we say – after all, architects have spent at least seven years training and should be protected against what is essentially fraud. But this tale does raise some interesting issues – first, the old chestnut of which professions deserve legal protection. And second – what lengths should journalists be going to to check job titles of those who claim to be members of a protected profession? And what help should professional bodies be providing them to expedite this process?

Picture of a (legally protected) architect at work courtesy of andreea on Flickr.

 

Comments

Please submit comments to Swordplay below.

From the inside of the maze, ethically outwards

February 9, 2012

Curious times in the media; strange days at The Times.

Would ‘Dacre Cards‘ – the system of licensing journalists proposed by Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre – have prevented the embarrassment now palpable at the Times over the NightJack story?

Times editor James Harding’s evidence to the Leveson Inquiry seemed heartfelt and contrite, albeit that the paper’s former long-serving and much-respected lawyer, Alastair Brett, seems to have been, er, rather dropped in it. Clearly, mistakes were made with regard to NightJack by young reporter Patrick Foster who, once he had hacked into NightJack’s account and thus discovered his identity, then embarked on a quest to expose it via legitimate methods. This, as Inquiry counsel Robert Jay QC put it, was “rather like working from the inside of the maze out”.

But had Foster been licensed via a Dacre Card, would this unsavoury episode in the Times’s history have been avoided?

We suspect not. A raft of laws were in existence at precisely the time when many News of the World journalists seemed to believe that they were entitled to hack any phone they liked. Those laws forbade them from doing so, and yet made no difference. Aside from the obvious objection to them – that they will squeeze out freelancers and citizen journalists – Dacre Cards would simply amount to something to circumvent.

What is really required is an ethical shake-up, from top to bottom. Society generally – not just journalists – needs a sense that some things are just plain wrong.

Supreme Court on Twitter

February 6, 2012

Something remarkable happened today. Yes, the Supreme Court launched its Twitter feed. It even has a Twitter policy, one of caveats, disclaimers and little by way of illumination but regardless: who would have thought that the successor body to the House of Lords would stoop to engage with the world of tweets, hashtags and retweets?

We look forward to the day when court business will be conducted via Twitter. Meantime, check out this link for an excellent blog on the Supreme Court.

Not so right said Fred

February 2, 2012
fred hat

So Farewell, then, Sir Fred Goodwin.

Now you are just Fred.

Not Right Said Fred, but plain Fred.

The Forfeiture Committee did for you.

No one had heard of it before,

But Dave said it had to act, and it did.

Trouble is that no one knows what to think.

Is it ‘Alas, poor Fred‘,

Or ‘Hurray! Sir Fred is dead!’?

We don’t know.

Do you?

By A. Mob, aged 1,378 and a half.