THE MONSTER OF PICCADILLY CIRCUS SIR,—Being old enough to be
Bernard Levin's grand- father, I would find life too short to continue the argument with him, but what fun it is to learn that Mr. Cotton and Mr. Blow are not the villains of the piece after all, but the dear old LCC itself!
Sir Milner Holland, acting for the developers at the Ministry inquiry, said that the Council rejected the developers' plan and that 'an alternative plan was then proposed to us by the Planning Authority and that is the one which has been adopted by us with some modifications.'
Now, poor Mr. Levin will just not know where he stands. Flat contradiction of facts about Beethoven won't help him a bit !—Yours faithfully, W. P. KING 10 New Square, Lincoln's Inn, WC2
PS.—Mr. Benton, who writes in your issue of January 8, is of course perfectly right. 1 too am right and I am afraid it is only Mr. Levin who is wrong.
I was aware of the general registration of Architects to which Mr. Benton refers and had I worded my criticism of Mr. Levin's statement about Mr. Blow a little more precisely I would, I hope, have escaped Mr. Benton's censure.
He confirms that Mr. Blow, not being a member of the Royal Institute of British Architects, is not subject to that Institute's rule quoted by Mr. Levin, which of course is all that I was trying to say—lamely, it appears.
[Bernard Levin writes : `Having not the least idea what Mr. King is talking about now, it would hardly be proper for me to comment on the merits, such as they may be, of his argument,. whatever that is.'— Editor, Spectator.]
Previous page
