It's a funny old game...

I am always interested when claims are made about working in the public interest. It was clear that Rab has no conception that construction managers, at least CIOB members, have a public interest agenda at least as strong as that of the architects. Unfortunately the referee blew for time before Colin could score the winning goal.

Rab's focus on design and the impact of the designs on the landscape is to be expected. Architects understandably see themselves as guardians in that respect.

However, I am not convinced that there is not some self-kidology going on. I often ask architects whether they take their designs and show what they might look like five, 10, 30 or even 50 years on. Will the materials they use stand the test of time? Will the atmosphere enhance or detract from the appearance? Will metal cladding pick up dents? The list goes on.

We all know of buildings which look bad just a couple of years into their life. They looked good the day they were completed, probably even winning some prestigious award for the designer, but today look wretched. The answer to the question has been a variation of "no, there has not been enough money in the fee to do it", or "no, the client is not interested", or "if I suggested that I would lose the commission", or simply "are you mad?" All of which is utterly predictable, but none-the-less disappointing. A bit like a footballer being booked for diving and protesting his innocence.

Let's leave the issues of design and move onto certifying final accounts, variations etc. The contractor puts in a claim in all good faith, diligently constructed and is faced with the clients' professional advisor seeking to look like he is doing his job by trying to reduce the claim, with spurious counter claims. Who is the real professional in those circumstances? Tony Bingham and others will clearly tell you that in this case the so-called professional is a crook or at least is committing a crime. Is this a professional foul?