Dear Fellow Architect

I am writing to you concerning a matter that is very grave for me personally and I believe it is very grave for the whole profession. I will keep this as brief as possible.

I am accused by ARB of violating Professional Conduct because of a post on Facebook. I am to attend a Professional Conduct Committee on 21-22 April 2020 to defend myself. This clear indication is that if found guilty I will be struck off the register and my career will be ruined.

The RIBA are running a parallel case but their process is on hold until ARB have made their decision

I will receive no financial help in this matter [ARB have refused] and have to stay in London for a few days. I would also like to take legal advice. For this I have launched a crowd funding campaign. Please contribute here

How can posting on Facebook be considered as Professional Conduct, good or bad? I have researched ARB cases for the last ten years and all concern what would clearly be considered professional conduct. This is clearly going to be a test case and so is of vital concern to all architects

This is the first time an architect has been subject to an accusation of violating Professional Conduct for an action that has not the slightest relation to professional conduct. It concerns an action that is trivial and inconsequential. So the whole concept of professional conduct has now been widened effectively to include every aspect of an architect's life and covers every moment of it

The specific standards I am accused of violation by my Facebook post are that the architect must not "make any statement which ... is discreditable to the profession" and "they must not discriminate because of age, disability, gender, reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion of belief, sex or sexual orientation".

The second part, in this context, is an accusation of racism and so that is saying I have breached the Race Relations Act which was established by the Parliament of the United Kingdom to prevent discrimination on the grounds of race". This is a very serious accusation and so I would expect that ARB as a responsible public body would involve the police. Unaccountably this has not been done. The reason is of course that they know it would not stick and so they know their accusations are wrong. But they believe they can act as a law until themselves

Whereas you may have thought that a document called a Code of Professional Conduct referred only to your professional conduct, you now know that your governing body deems that Professional Conduct includes every aspect of your life including what you say or write in public in any context including those that have nothing remotely to do with your professional life, including those that are clearly not intended for wide distribution.

Further, "discrimination" of the types described refers not just to actions you might perform but also the actions that ARB might construe you are recommending simply from statements you have made. The scope of Professional Conduct is now effectively unlimited. It applies not just to actions that have no connection with your professional life but thoughts as well. This is the Orwellian Thought Police being visited upon architects by ARB and RIBA. This Thought Police have power to ruin you. In my case, this is at the prompting of single anonymous accuser.

This is all ridiculous, of course. So what is going on? The RIBA in their accusing documents recommended I seek guidance from any members of the RIBA Council - which I did. I had a confidential conversation with one Councillor.

Upon hearing of my predicament, this Councillor immediately concluded that my professional bodies wished to expel me because of the questions I have been asking about the conduct of those who manage the RIBA, in particular the permanent staff. This did not surprise me

I made no accusations I simply asked questions. On the contrary, Owen Luder, RIBA, twice elected president, wrote a letter to the Times making direct accusations. I quote

I have stood for RIBA Council four times asking similar questions. I queried, for instance, the abrupt unexplained departure of former Chief Executive, My Harry Rich, and what his settlement consisted of. I received no answer and as far as I know no member has been informed of the reasons for this significant change in top management of the RIBA, and its financial consequences.

In 2019 I did not stand but circulated my proposed Election Statement which included the following

RIBA Election Statement 2019

I and many RIBA members are frustrated by the lack of openness in the running of our institute. A current topic of major concern is the part sale of RIBA Enterprises to a Private Equity company. RIBA Enterprises is a highly profitable company with a healthy balance sheet. As a council member I will be insisting that members have a full explanation and can take control of events.  I will be asking the following

1. Private equity has a horrendous reputation for wealth extraction and asset stripping. The private equity model makes it all wrong as a genuine partner in business. How could such a sale be even countenanced?

2. Why was the obvious option of a members' buy-in to acquire shares in RIBA Enterprises not considered? The purchase of shares in a profitable company which members owned would have been ideal as part of a pension plan for many.

3. Mr Valance, RIBA CE, is to be CE the now part-RIBA owned RIBA Enterprises. How can he perform the role of RIBA CE as a part time job? 

4. The reason for the sale was that the RIBA Institute was in a desperate financial position on the brink of collapse. That we know, but how it arrived at this position we do not know. We require a full account

5. What is the state of play with the Fraud Squad's investigations into the RIBA regarding nearly £1M of missing funds?

There may be more up-to-date information on these matters but I have been inexplicably taken off the RIBA mailing list for the last eight months - not for the first time

So what am I accused of? I am accused of violating Professional Conduct for remarks I made on a Facebook post. They have seized on some reference I made to Judaism. Most of the post was not specific to this subject but it was mentioned

The researchers are to be congratulated on their discovery for in all the thousands and thousands of words I have published on the internet on various platforms and websites this is the only time I have ever mentioned this subject of Judaism or Jews.

The obvious reason for the search for reference to Judaism is that this is a toxic subject. Here I am accused of racism in respect of Jews - that is, anti-semiticism. [Which, as I say, if true is a matter for the police not my professional bodies.] This toxic nature is why few of you will respond to my message and to my appeal. You have to think of your livelihood and your family. I understand that.

Even though the case has yet to be decided I have already been the subject of accusations and opprobrium by architects who know me and should know better. Such is the extreme toxicity and fear surrounding the subject. And in the febrile world in which we live to be accused is to be automatically guilty

But I would hope you will also think about the consequences of this case for the remit that ARB and RIBA wish to assume for themselves over your life. I would hope you would think about the dangers of our professional bodies making false accusations against the members. I would hope you will reflect on the right of members to ask questions about the running of the RIBA.

I am sorry this is rather long but it is vital for the future of the governance of the profession. I must refer to the two statements I made that are deemed to constitute unprofessional conduct.

I preface this by stating that these remarks were made for the benefit of a small number of Facebook friends I have amongst whom I discuss political matters. Normally they would be the only ones who would see such comments or be interested in them. But I did not expect the Spanish Inquisition. I did not expect the ARB thought police

The first point is about historical fact. The second was for discussion. I would never make any attempt to proselytise either view.

Firstly I pointed out that there is no Jewish race only Jewish believers. This is a simple historical fact that no respectable historian would deny. I cite the best-selling "The Invention of the Jewish People"  2010 by Shlomo Sand . Mr Sand is a Professor at the University of Tel Aviv and, if his views have not been accepted by everyone, he has not been accused of anti-Semiticism in Israel - as I have been in UK by ARB for expressing the same view.

For pointing out this obvious well-established truth I am threatened with the destruction of my career. If we live in a society where someone can be hounded for speaking the truth we are in a very bad place indeed

The second point concerns my belief that in a free society we must have openness not secrecy. The points I made were strictly for discussion. I was making no attempt to proselytise them and nor would I. The arguments were quite detailed and I do not propose to take your time repeating them here. More discussion was necessary and indeed followed my post. For the record I withdraw them pending further reflection and discussion. I removed them from Facebook months ago

However, I am in no way ashamed of my comments and they are in no way extreme or liable to cause offense to a normal open minded person.

They would never have gained a wider hearing if it had not been for the diligence of the researcher, who is remaining anonymous, who found them - in my firm view in response to a request by ARB and RIBA to dig up some dirt on me. This was obviously the very best this person found and it is pretty tame stuff.

The vital question is - does this post on Facebook make me an unfit person to be an architect? How I violated the code of professional conduct and deserve to be struck off?

The case presentation I have received is very sloppy and contains inaccuracies which confirm the ulterior motive I have described. I will represent myself at the hearing and I feel fully able to do.

I am concerned about the form of the proceedings. For instance the solicitor ARB has engaged to formulate the accusations will not appear to be cross-examined by me. Also the person who anonymously complained will not appear as a witness. So I will be left fighting against a piece of paper without my accusers present.

This is a kangaroo court but it is also a public one and so I will be inviting my contacts in the press to attend. In my presentation I will make public the questions about the maladministration at the RIBA that Owen Luder has testified publicly to

If I am found guilty, I will then pursue the matter in the real courts for compensation for defamation of character and loss of career for a seven figure sum and I am convinced I will win. I will use a no-win no-fee lawyer.

Unfortunately it is the members who will pay this not the administrators who are bringing the case in a vain and ill-judged attempt to cover up their misdemeanours

I will receive no financial help in this matter and have to stay in London for a few days. I would also like to take legal advice. For this I have launched a crowd funding campaign. Please contribute here

Thank you for your time

Please forward this to others. I have no access to membership lists. These the management keep close to their chests so that they can control what members know and don't know. This is why almost no members know of the matters I have mentioned and have a rosy view of the management - one not shared by Owen Luder with all his experience of the RIBA

Please watch out for my candidature statement for election to the RIBA Council this year. Please attend the hearing if you can to learn the truth about how your professional bodies operate. I shall lay out in public all the information I have about the misdemeanours of the RIBA. They will not sue me because I will speak the truth

Yours sincerely

Peter Kellow RIBA


PS. You are receiving this as you are an established member of my RIBA mailing list to which you have subscribed in the past

Sent via