Please send letters for the website, clearly marked FORUM, to Julia Dawson at: julia.dawson@emap.com or The Architectural Review, Greater London House, Hampstead Road, London NW1 7EJ, England. DIGITAL EDITION SIR: An 'Eagle-Eyed' colleague of mine spotted an interesting piece of digital editing in your recent feature 'Pax Romana' (AR October 2006). In the photo on p54, there is a handrail around the top of the building, which has been partially taken out in photograph 3 on p57. This highlights an issue that those of us who are tasked with promoting good health and safety design, have to battle with daily. The issue is the 'well designed' handrail. The reason given, in London especially, is that 'the Planners won't allow a rail'. Few buildings get decently designed rails, which is probably why the Planners have a distrust of them, and often extending the parapet upwards to a safe height is avoided to keep the bulk and mass of the building down – so no protection to the edge of the roof. The Building Manager will come along afterwards and erect an 'off the shelf' system, that has few aesthetic virtues and the whole point of the original reasons for not having a rail are not only lost but exacerbated. This is a major area where 'Safety by Design' can result in safer buildings and no doubt many of your readers will feel particularly uncomfortable when snagging the roof of a building that has no edge restraint. Harnesses and safety wire systems are but an inconvenient substitute! Maybe a beautiful handrail competition should be launched. Yours etc JIM COX, Rolfe Judd Architecture Editorial reply: The 'handrail' in question is actually temporary scaffolding as the building was only just complete. It was removed digitally by the photographer before the pictures were passed to the AR. We apologise for any confusion and would welcome any initiative to beautify the humble handrail.