Born in Essex, I became a Londoner when the Greater London Council was formed and Ilford, Essex became the London Borough of Redbridge. Nobody asked me, I was forcibly redesignated and, to be honest, I really had no complaints about my new status.

However, over the years I became a Bristolian at University, an Avonian when I got married, a Somersetian when County of Avon was deleted, a Hertfordonion when I moved back to the metropolis and, finally a Essex boy again, when I returned to Epping.

Even though I worked in London for 25 years, travelling in daily, I was never afforded any concessions by London-centric organisations. TfL steadfastly refused to accept that I was just as much a part of London as the folk down the road. And now, as a pensioner, I am refused concessionary fares.

And now, I have to accept London taking a ride in Essex with its RideLondon Cycling Festival. Essex roads will be closed for the entire weekend for the benefit of a few thousand Lycra clad, two wheeled road hogs. OK, I may be a Grumpy Old Man, but what gives London the right to ruin my weekend?

Professor David Coley, a phsyics graduate and theoretical nuclear physics post-graduate, has declared that high-carbon buildings are morally indefensible, and could even be considered racist. Apparently, materials usage should become a moral issue and, as Architects, we should be conducting a complete rethink over common design elements including high levels of glazing and excessive use of steel and concrete. We should consider our Clients’ building projects from a moral standpoint based on their lifetime carbon impact.

This comes from a man who appears to have no formal training in design.

But why stop at racism? What about the moral implications of the over-use of timber and its associated problems of deforestation. How about buildings that discriminate against the poor? Let’s bring in Mosques, Catholic and Protestant Churches, Synagogues and Bhuddist Temples, all of which discriminate against non-believers?

I personally follow the Construction Logistics and Community Safety (CLOCS) project, which aims to prevent deaths and serious injuries to vulnerable road users. Should I be declaring that buildings are murderers or manslaughterers and should be charged accordingly?

I get the fact that Professor Coley wants to put tackling climate change at the top of the agenda, particularly coming up to COP26 in Glasgow, but to over-egg the pudding by making irrelevant comments such as the racist element of inanimate objects puts his arguments in the ‘ridiculous beyong belief’ category.

At the risk of annoying some interest groups, and putting myself in the path of trollers, should we be advocating a TBM (Timber Buildings Matter) campaign and getting Insulate Britain to blockade the Shard, Gherkin, Walkie Talkie and Cheesegrater et al.