Architects Act 1977 

Thanks for your intervention on this page.  I agree you're probably right to remove the lengthy footnote, but my reason for supporting your removal of the reference would be different, namely that as time goes by some information loses its topical interest and becomes more abstruse (which is, I imagine, the reason it was placed in a footnote and not in the body of the text in the first place).  I therefore appreciate your placing the information on the talk page, for you never know, a serious researcher rather than just a casual visitor who takes a general interest in primary legislation may derive genuine satisfaction in finding it there; the very distinction, I hope you will agree, that marks an encyclopaedia (which should be an extensive knowledge resource) apart from a penny guide-book.  A few points however:
You have left some external links (Blair, Kelly) which had relevance to the detailed former footnote but not to the article.
There is a balance between referencing all statements and introducing clutter.  
The bullet-point statements are accurate (and, in point of fact can be verified easily enough by looking at the linked pages).  And as to technology, if you have a way to put a reference on a footnote using the edit pages, then you are a lot cleverer than I am.
Your criticism is a little disparaging.  It may of course be both accurate and justified, but pejorative language such as yours is quite difficult to read with a constructive attitude.  Perhaps it needs charity?  May I suggest that for the sake of the average grump you adopt the style of academia (which I admire but am no part of), which is to achieve a result coming up with an improvement rather than a half-baked detraction?