N/A
Standard: £10 + VATMembers/Subscribers: Free
Members/Subscribers, log in to access
The Structural Engineer, Volume 66, Issue 15, 1988
Anthony Gee pursues the themes raised in hk previous viewpoint, published in the issue for 3 May 1988: I am flattered, but somewhat disturbed, that the Secretary felt it necessary to append his (the Institution establishment’s?) comments on my ‘Viewpoint’, an action which, as far as I know, is unprecedented. ‘Viewpoint’ is supposed to be an opportunity for individual members to express their personal views on topics associated with the profession and, while correspondence and counterviewpoints are invited from readers (members?), surely an ‘official’ reaction is not appropriate to a personal view. Were my arguments considered to be so dangerously persuasive that an attempt had to be made to, as it were, strangle them at birth?
Now that the Great Ormond Street case is over, it is worth noting some of the findings made by the Judge in the only part of the action that went to trial. J.J. Ward
Mr H. B. Gould (F) (G. Maunsell & Partners): Mr Tait is to be congratulated on a very interesting and encouraging introduction, and I think the Institution also should be congratulated in having the second such discussion in less than a year.