We also get people who have resigned, and then consider speaking out over what has been going on. "Those still in their jobs are usually most concerned about their legal position. The vast majority are not concerned about money: their dilemma is between doing the morally right thing and risking having their friends turn against them. If they are still in work, we try and guide them carefully so that they can voice their concerns with the minimum of damage caused to themselves. But if they've already walked out, or have been sacked, they might have lost legal rights, their friends and maybe even their home. Our role then is to reassure the person that what they've done is the right thing, and that they should never have lost trust in their employer to the extent where they felt it necessary to speak out.

Often, their situation has bred paranoia, and they feel the whole world is against them; when they come to us they are able to unburden themselves and feel an enormous sense of relief.We try and pin down people's motives very early on in the process. We ask them if they are seeking to expose an individual or group of individuals, or the organisation as a whole; if the latter is the case, we would ask them if they really want to be responsible for possibly closing down an entire business and causing lots of other people to lose their jobs. Most have genuine, philanthropic motives: I've recently been dealing with someone working at a university who has knowledge of public funds being misspent, and her motive was simply wanting to expose the waste. There are others who simply want to cover their own backs, and just come to us for a bit of free legal advice, but they're in the minority."Public Concern At Work says that if you think there could be an issue that needs exposing you should:Be sure of the evidence.Raise it as a concern, not as a proven fact.Talk through doubts with someone you trust outside your organisation such as family, friends, doctor, priest or Public Concern At Work.If you cannot raise it with your manager, speak to someone senior whom you trust.And remember, it is your responsibility to raise the concern, not to solve the problem.Public Concern At Work can be contacted on: 0171-404 6609.SCOTT HUGHES. The Unionist mayor of Londonderry, who was stripped of his powers over his role in an Orange Order road block, is threatening to sue his own council. The decision by city council to effectively make Richard Dallas a lame duck mayor is one of a number of signs of nationalists' growing anger following the Orange march through Drumcree. SDLP MP Joe Hendron is tabling a parliamentary question over the alleged presence of a police authority councillor, Trevor Wilson, at a Loyalist blockade in Cookstown in the week of the Drumcree protest.

The police authority, after a meeting with the Unionist councillor, says it is taking no further action.Nationalists are also trying to remove powers from a senior Unionist councillor on Magherafelt district council, following claims that he also took part in a road block.The Catholic boycott of Protestant businesses in Castlederg, Co Tyrone, was sparked by similar allegations against local Unionist businessmen.Mr Dallas said he feared other councils would follow the lead of Derry city council and take sanctions against Unionists. The mayor, who was present at a road block on Craigavon Bridge, in the heart of Londonderry, on 10 July, said his council's decision was illegal and that he would be seeking legal advice.He had been "castigated and demonised" by the nationalist community simply for acting according to his Unionist convictions, he said.The vote on Wednesday evening means Mr Dallas has been stripped of his mayor's car, official offices and secretarial support; he is not allowed to carry out civic duties, although he insists he will attend some.Pat Devine, the SDLP leader in Londonderry, said Mr Dallas's actions had gone beyond what was reasonable for a mayor who was supposed to represent the entire local community. "We have enormous talent in this country, but it is no good unless somebody has the courage to give an architect the freedom to express that talent."Attitudes to modern architecture in Britain have been muddled for many years. Even so, Bramante (this is her first major building) says she is astonished by the treatment meted out to modern architecture. Clearly, however, sometimes a building can be too good for ordinary people."They just don't understand what they've got," says Bramante "They want it to go back to what it was.

They wanted a Portakabin, not a building, not beautiful architecture It's tragic We assumed they would enjoy this building It's too good for them. They have no respect for it."Among Bramante's concerns is the way her client is treating the bureau. "They fitted a brass letter box, when it already had a letter box," she sighs. "They are putting in blinds from John Lewis because they can get a 20 per cent discount, instead of blinds designed for the building, and they have filled it with loose furniture, even though it has specially designed fitted furniture."It is an old story and one that generations of architects have learnt to tell.