Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We use cookies to personalise your experience; learn more in our Privacy and Cookie Policy. You can opt out of some cookies by adjusting your browser settings; see the cookie policy for details. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

The RIBA President is no Wolf of Wall Street

Paul Finch

The kerfuffle at Portland Place is a presidential-sized fuss over nothing, says Paul Finch

The story in The Times this week, giving more details about the alleged circumstances surrounding the temporary departure from office of the RIBA president, begs almost as many questions as it answers.

This is how it runs: a female Midlands architectural assistant seeks help from the RIBA president (Ben Derbyshire) to combat sexism and racism in a practice for which she is working. He refers her to Alan Jones, then vice-president for education, now absentee president.

He pledges to help her find work in a London practice. A relationship develops. She may or may not have spent time in the presidential flat in Portland Place. At some point Jones goes to the police complaining that he is being blackmailed, and reports himself to the institute. The secretariat goes into overdrive, dragging in the Charities Commission and launching a legal inquiry into the president’s conduct, about which there has been no complaint by any RIBA member or, indeed, anybody else. General chaos.

On the basis of what we have been told, the president scarcely qualifies as an architectural Wolf of Wall Street.

The original Times report, quickly corrected, said that the unsuccessful presidential election candidate, Elsie Owusu, would step in to take over in the event of Alan Jones resigning. In fact, it would be a decision for RIBA Council, the obvious candidates being one of the senior officers (the honorary secretary or the honorary treasurer), or potentially some other suitable candidate co-opted onto Council for the purpose.

The paper repeated its favourite quote from Elsie about the presidential election, where she said that the RIBA was a ‘one-party state’ where ‘one white, middle-aged male oligarch hands on power to another’. Although funny, the quote would have come as a surprise to three women who have been institute presidents over the past decade: Ruth Reed, Angela Brady and Jane Duncan. And I don’t think Sunand Prasad would regard himself as white.

As for presidents being oligarchs, a very light scrutiny of the Sunday Times Rich Lists suggests otherwise.

We are not living in ‘unprecedented times’

I am indebted to Jay Merrick for sending me what follows: a section of Daniel Defoe’s A Journal of the Plague Year, published decades after the 1665 outbreak of bubonic plague in London, but based on what appears to have been extensive research and first-hand accounts. It goes to show that some things (restrictions on travel, exponential increases in deaths) don’t seem to change.

The exodus of London architects to their second homes in Suffolk and Norfolk certainly rings bells. I have amended some spellings and have capitalised the City of London for clarity.

Till this week the City continued free, there having never any died, except that one Frenchman whom I mentioned before, within the whole ninety-seven parishes. Now there died four within the City, one in Wood Street, one in Fenchurch Street, and two in Crooked Lane. Southwark was entirely free, having not one yet died on that side of the water.

I lived without Aldgate, about midway between Aldgate Church and Whitechapel Bars, on the left-hand or north side of the street; and as the distemper had not reached to that side of the City, our neighbourhood continued very easy.

But at the other end of the town their consternation was very great: and the richer sort of people, especially the nobility and gentry from the west part of the city, thronged out of town with their families and servants in an unusual manner; and this was more particularly seen in Whitechapel; that is to say, the Broad Street where I lived; indeed, nothing was to be seen but wagons and carts, with goods, women, servants, children, &c.; coaches filled with people of the better sort and horsemen attending them, and all hurrying away; then empty wagons and carts appeared, and spare horses with servants, who, it was apparent, were returning or sent from the countries to fetch more people; besides innumerable numbers of men on horseback, some alone, others with servants, and, generally speaking, all loaded with baggage and fitted out for travelling, as anyone might perceive by their appearance.

This was a very terrible and melancholy thing to see, and as it was a sight which I could not but look on from morning to night (for indeed there was nothing else of moment to be seen), it filled me with very serious thoughts of the misery that was coming upon the City, and the unhappy condition of those that would be left in it.

This hurry of the people was such for some weeks that there was no getting at the Lord Mayor’s door without exceeding difficulty; there were such pressing and crowding there to get passes and certificates of health for such as travelled abroad, for without these there was no being admitted to pass through the towns upon the road, or to lodge in any inn.

Now, as there had none died in the City for all this time, my Lord Mayor gave certificates of health without any difficulty to all those who lived in the ninety-seven parishes, and to those within the liberties too for a while. 

This hurry, I say, continued some weeks, that is to say, all the month of May and June, and the more because it was rumoured that an order of the Government was to be issued out to place turnpikes and barriers on the road to prevent people travelling, and that the towns on the road would not suffer people from London to pass for fear of bringing the infection along with them, though neither of these rumours had any foundation but in the imagination, especially at-first.

I now began to consider seriously with myself concerning my own case, and how I should dispose of myself; that is to say, whether I should resolve to stay in London or shut up my house and flee, as many of my neighbours did.


Readers' comments (27)

  • Suggest Paul should google "Harvey Weinstein" to get an idea of why this situation may be wrong...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Thank you for this helpful tip. Even nicer were you to shed the creepy cloak of anonymity — we could then judge whether your comment has an ulterior motive.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I am going to pass on having you "judge" me thanks.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Recently qualified as what? And why should we take your word for it? Tell us who you are and let the readers judge!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Why on earth does it matter who this person is? I'm a reader and I don't need to judge them. The commenter made a very reasonable assessment that a man in a position of power abused his position and it had parallels with the Harvey Weinstein case.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This remains to be seen, as does the outcome of the police investigation into alleged blackmail. On the anonymity point, how do we know that your yourself are not ‘recently qualified’, and are now endorsing your earlier comment? Anonymity is part of the smelly world of poison pen letters.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Another article where the AJ is desperately trying to wash the blame off this unsuccessful president. How many more articles are we going to have to read about the disgraced Alan Jones? This man is over. The RIBA needs a president who is going to restore the glory of the profession, not someone whose most published story while in office was getting blackmailed by the mistress. As a qualified architect, I personally find this disturbing. The standards are low.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • To be clear, I write as a columnist not as the voice of AJ which, quite properly, is the province of the editor.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It is not my concern if this is a columnist's or an editor's article. What annoys me is seeing a coordinated effort to cover up for someone who has humiliated the professional body. The original article exposing this scandal was taken down shortly after being published. Then another article came out in an attempt to put out the fire that emerged. Clearly this was unsuccessful, as more details have surfaced and the issue is now covered by mainstream media. I wouldn't actually be surprised if these stories are being published/censored at the request of Alan Jone's PR firm, which if true, makes the AJ an even less credible source. We pay a subscription to read industry news and not crowdfund a PR campaign for a dysfunctional president.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Your assertions are just that.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Paul, you've written an article where you appear to make light of the fact that a professional in a position of power has engaged in a relationship with a woman in a significantly junior role and who is presumably far younger than him. Anyone is entitled to draw their own conclusions from that evidence in much the same way that you appear to have done.

    This article is made publicly available, comments are invited, and it is anyone's right to remain anonymous. By replying to comments the way you have, you undermine your position, your reputation, and the seriousness with which any of us take your writing. If I worked for AJ, I would feel ashamed at how one of its writers is speaking to its readers.

    I suggest that you reconsider how you besport yourself in these comments, which I would assume are here to encourage civilised debate and conversation, not to enable authors of articles to berate readers. I would also suggest you check your privilege before writing about matters which may involve sexual harassment - white males like us are not entitled to hold forth on what is or is not acceptable behaviour where the rights of women are concerned.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • For Phil Cooper - 'it is anyone's right to remain anonymous' - I'm not sure about that, because anonymity in a free and open society (which ours surely is, in principle if not always in practice) is likely, in my mind, to lead to the devaluation of opinions being anonymously voiced - it's not as if the Stasi is busy secretly and aggressively dissecting our lives.
    There's an analogy with women being free to completely cover themselves in public - their religion is respected, but they lose their identity and risk being viewed as less than human in this society - and even, perhaps, in their own.
    I suggest that the anonymous contributors to these comments reconsider how they besport themselves

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Just so. If the poison-pen brigade have the right to comment anonymously, then I have the right to reply, even if it means 'besporting myself', ie simply stating views, that someone else doesn't like. Fortunately freedom of speech allows that 'privilege',

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I comment anonymously because my employment contract prohibits me expressing views that may be construed as those of my employer, which would therefore include most publicly expressed views on the architectural industry. Nothing more nefarious than that. I fail to see how my pointing out the possible similarities between this case and the Harvey Weinstein case is part of any "poison pen brigade". Clearly Alan Jones thinks he has done something wrong, or why else would he have reported himself? I couldn't agree with Phil Cooper's comments more. However, it appears the author would like the whole thing swept under the carpet for fear it damages the RIBA/the professions reputation. How about we let the investigation conclude before dismissing a situation, which may involve something as serious as sexual harassment, and jumping to conclusions that the whole thing is, to quote the author, a mere "kerfuffle" and "fuss over nothing".

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It wasn’t me that jumped to conclusions about a Weinstein connection. I agree we should await developments. How sad that an employer would impose a vow of anonymity, and that an architect (if that is what you are) would accept a job with such a condition.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The tone of this article is condescending and I'm disappointed that it features on such a prominent publication for the profession.

    It's also the second or third article (depending on which is still live on the website, as mentioned by another reader) to play down the news that has broken. These articles don't actually address anything and given the serious matter of the allegations, the headings and content have been incredibly flippant.
    The approach from the AJ in these circumstances, would appear to be as dysfunctional as the ex-president.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Maybe the AJ should offer RECENTLYQUALIFIED an anonymous column?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Thank you for your helpful suggestion.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Seems as though the AJ is turning into a gossip column.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • You can agree or disagree with Paul's view. It's an opinion column. But the idea that the AJ isn't covering this matter seriously or is in the pocket of the RIBA/architectural establishment is laughable.
    We've written more than half a dozen exclusive stories since March 31 about the episode including news of Jones standing down, the possible misuse of funds, the Charity Commission involvement, the police inquiries and the fears over blackmail. Will Hurst, managing editor

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Some opinions shouldn't be offered a platform in a reputable professional publication. Making light of sexually inappropriate behaviour and abuse of power in connection with it is not a position that any such publication should deem appropriate. History will look harshly on anyone publishing this sort of thing, in much the same way it has done with other issues such as race, gender and religious oppression.

    I don't feel informed enough to say whether the AJ has been covering the matter effectively from a journalistic point of view or not, I think what is at issue is the tone with which it has been covering it. If the editorial team aims at any sort of balance, then presumably an opinion piece from someone who isn't a middle aged white man will be forthcoming?

    Perhaps a young female architect could tell us how this story feels to them, and give insight into the ways the profession makes it harder for them to progress if they can't play with the full deck of privilege we enjoy. If you think there isn't a story there, then perhaps check your genitals before expressing that opinion publicly...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I don’t mind the columns or the story but I do mind Paul Finch’s response to the comment underneath. It was ungracious unnecessarily personal and rude. It is perfectly understandable why someone would remain anonymous in a national magazine and making judgements about that in a hypercritical fashion looks silly.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The Trial by iReckon continues...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • For Crawford Wright - why, exactly, is it 'perfectly understandable why someone would remain anonymous in a national magazine'?
    The AJ is surely not just another 'national magazine' in that it's quite a specialist publication - even if you can sometimes find it on general sale in a bookstall (or, at least, used to be able to), and I wonder what sort of world it is that readers inhabit if - like 'recently qualified' - they apparently think that they've been muzzled by their employers.
    This sounds very much like the medical professionals reported by the BBC in the last couple of days being threatened with the sack for speaking up about being ignored after warning of serious inadequacies in their health authorities.
    It's not that many years since the 'secret blacklist' scandal was exposed in the construction industry, and the idea that anyone working in the architectural profession, with genuine comment to air on these pages, should have real cause to hide their identity is completely unacceptable - and should be attracting the attention of the RIBA and ARB.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Alan Jones has confessed to his crimes and must now bear the full weight of the law.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What 'crimes'?

    Time to end this conversation, I feel.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Re: Sean Walsh's comment. I am open to offers!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.

Related Jobs

Discover architecture career opportunities. Search and apply online for your dream job.
Find out more