There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Really?
“It’s ok. These people are good” is how it starts.
Let that go through and the Peter Thiel funded “Rational Immigration” charity will be campaigning for Restore. On the reopening of Shark Island as a deportation camp for immigrants. With a £50 million budget.
A charity can only campaign (in politics) against what is indisputably bad (like racism). Theil could try that but he'd be struck down imo.
I've had chats with our local HnH bod. Their literature says they campaign against Reform and the Far Right. They know they can't endorse one party for election (and maybe Charity) law reasons, as well as possibly adding an election expense onto a candidate , merely referring voters to the various tactical voting websites. I think someone has worked out the many snags and steered a path through.
Still if ReFuk objects it is up them to start a legal challenge - they should have enough crypto to afford it.
Yes that's what I was thinking. Against *that* (and therefore them) not for Lab or Con or LD etc. It's another Reform whinge basically. They're always at it.
The letter being shared on social media from Hope not Hate isn't that though. It explicitly says its a two horse race between Labour and Reform UK, only Andy Burnham for Labour can do this, that and the other "good" things, Reform will do all these "bad" things. Their "get out" I guess, is it doesn't say vote Andy Burnham, it says vote for positive change, don't vote for Reform, but the only positive change being described is Andy Burnham.
If this is the line we are allowing to be trend, that is getting very close to American PAC type activity before the Citizen United case blew up in the face of those who brought it. The Citizen United cased did the opposite of what the people bringing it wanted, they already thought the sort of thing Hope Not Hate letter did was over the line, where in the US you could have similar organisations on the left and right say there is this big issue in this election, candidate A stands for it, yeahhhhhh, candidate B stands against it, boooooo, but never said "Vote Candidate A", but just to make clear Candidate B is really bad.
HNH's mission statement is to combat the organised far right in all its forms, the policies that give succour to it, in the places most susceptible.
Hence the letter. Ok, so Reform don't like it. That's understandable. But, you know, diddums. If it's illegal they know what to do. I doubt it is but of course I could be wrong. In any case it's hardly one step away from superPACs.
Tbh I rarely see merit in 'slippery slope' arguments. In my experience it's often a technique employed to mask partisanship on the issue at hand.
If that really is their mission statement it’s not clear to me that they should be a charity at all
Birmingham's claim to be the second city is purely reliant on a quirk of history whereby more of the conurbation is within the boundaries of Birmingham City Council than is the case for Manchester and Manchester City Council.
The West Midlands conurbation has more people than the Greater Manchester one - unless you count places nearer to Liverpool than Manchester, and Merseyside is a different conurbation to GM.
Dozens of staff members at the University of Nottingham have taken to the picket line ahead of a 61-day strike over drastic cuts to the workforce. The initial day of industrial action on Friday (May 22) comes before University and College Union members are proposing to strike for 61 days from Monday, June 1, to Friday, July 31.
The strike action was called by the union as the university plans to cut more than 700 jobs and shut down more than 40 degree courses, including modern languages and music.
Dozens of staff members at the University of Nottingham have taken to the picket line ahead of a 61-day strike over drastic cuts to the workforce. The initial day of industrial action on Friday (May 22) comes before University and College Union members are proposing to strike for 61 days from Monday, June 1, to Friday, July 31.
The strike action was called by the union as the university plans to cut more than 700 jobs and shut down more than 40 degree courses, including modern languages and music.
They plan to slash the department that gave the world MRI scanners.
Madness for UK plc.
Been hearing rumours all week. Chemistry looking to cut academic staff by 30%! There is only so much recruiting overseas students over home can do. One thing I had heard was that the Uni had acquired an expensive extra bit of campus that isn't paying its way. How true that is I have no idea.
Dozens of staff members at the University of Nottingham have taken to the picket line ahead of a 61-day strike over drastic cuts to the workforce. The initial day of industrial action on Friday (May 22) comes before University and College Union members are proposing to strike for 61 days from Monday, June 1, to Friday, July 31.
The strike action was called by the union as the university plans to cut more than 700 jobs and shut down more than 40 degree courses, including modern languages and music.
Go back in time and don't buy the massive former HMRC site in the city centre with no real idea what to do with it other than some vague bollocks about research-industry liaison and links and a place for the business school.
Also find out the buildings are all listed before you agree to buy it.
Dozens of staff members at the University of Nottingham have taken to the picket line ahead of a 61-day strike over drastic cuts to the workforce. The initial day of industrial action on Friday (May 22) comes before University and College Union members are proposing to strike for 61 days from Monday, June 1, to Friday, July 31.
The strike action was called by the union as the university plans to cut more than 700 jobs and shut down more than 40 degree courses, including modern languages and music.
They plan to slash the department that gave the world MRI scanners.
Madness for UK plc.
Been hearing rumours all week. Chemistry looking to cut academic staff by 30%! There is only so much recruiting overseas students over home can do. One thing I had heard was that the Uni had acquired an expensive extra bit of campus that isn't paying its way. How true that is I have no idea.
I've heard the same. Poor investment decisions in a new/refurbished campus.
It's more than £1,000 per person in the UK. It would be compensation payouts averaging £1m to 73,400 people.
Can that possibly be right?
Blood scandal, post office scandal,???
About a billion had been paid out as part of the Horizon redress scheme, but the total quoted is a total of compensation debt - so compensation that's acknowledged as required but that hasn't been made yet.
I'm going to have to look at the report the article is based on to get the details, I guess, but it feels bonkers.
82% (£60bn) is for clinical negligence. So this must be claims that are being paid out over decades, rather than a lump sum payment. I'd thought that these claims were normally paid out as a lump sum, with a trust then established to manage the lump sum, but it would appear not.
The annual cost of all compensation schemes reached £4.9bn in 2024-25.
How does this report account for the move away (aiui) from "Lump Sum" settlements?
My blogging colleague Anna Raccoon (Sue Cameron-Blackie) stood in a General Election on this issue in iirc 2017 from her deathbed:
Mrs Cameron-Blackie was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer - leiomyosarcoma - six years ago and was given two months to live two years ago.
She decided to stand two weeks ago after discovering the NHS Litigation Authority annual report for April 2015-16 online.
According to the report the NHS has put aside £56.4bn for payouts to be made over several decades to people who sue the organisation for medical negligence.
Mrs Cameron-Blackie, who moved to Reedham two years ago, was 'speechless' after finding the report and is campaigning solely on the issue to prevent the NHS paying out so much money in litigation.
A problem here is that, increasingly, big organisations see the costs of fines as the cost of doing business.
See the Chief Constable who committed prolonged and deliberate contempt of court. His Farce will pay the fine. No repercussions for him. Just cut some overtime for the beat.
Indeed also see utilities companies leaving street scars in city centres rather than putting back to how it was before
Personally if that happened by me I’d gladly introduce the ceo of any company to a baseball bat if it was not rectified in a month or so
Take the CEOs total remuneration today. Fine him 100% of any increase above that for the rest of his tenure. Be nice and give him RPI.
So any of the usual “125% merited pay rise” stuff is lost to them.
On top of the baseball bat ?
Wrapped in barbed wire WWE style
The remuneration thing would hurt more than the bat I reckon. They would just expense the stay at a luxury hotel/hospital for the bat.
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Malmesbury is right. Be careful what you wish for.
I know what I'm wishing for - a brake on Reform's progress before things get out of hand. That said, I can see the point. HNH campaigning for LAB feels wrong to me (whether legal or not). Campaigning *against* REF otoh - that feels ok. More than ok really.
HNH would be a lot more credible if they campaigned against hate on both ends of the horseshoe.
Its often the way with these things. I have been involved in Athena Swann for many years. If you don't know it started out looking at barriers to female success in academia, aiming at things like a culture of working long hours (not conducive to childcare), and many other things (women taking career breaks to look after/raise offspring). Its morphed into a wider look at work culture but all too often its still just about women. I asked a question once about the gender imbalance on the pharmacy course (it heavily skews female) and whether we should be worried or look into the reasons.
Fell on rather stony ground.
Ok but I don't think there's an obligation for campaigning groups to widen their activities beyond what they want to concentrate on.
No, but its the hypocrisy that amuses more, me than anything else.
I don't know about that.
Say I form an org to fight antisemitism. Our mission is to detect, call out and condemn it wherever it rears its head. So we do that with laser focus and we don't comment on any other types of racism.
Is that hypocritical of us? I don't think so.
No. The aim and focus is clearly stated.
But when you state that you are against hate and racism but ignore hate and racism directed at Jews then, yes, people are entitled to call out your hypocrisy and one-eyed approach to your mission.
Generally quite correct. An antiracist is not if they are relaxed about, or don't see, or even worse share antisemitic sentiment, because antisemitism is racism against Jews. That makes them a racist.
I don't, however, think an org which openly says its mission is to combat the far right needs to also be on high alert for racism in other political spaces. There's the matter of budget and focus. Also the fact that racism is undeniably more prevalent on the far right than anywhere else.
For me the (not really hypocrisy but something far worse, something dark and telling) would be if an org that exists to expose racism on the far right in practice excludes antisemitism (on the far right) from that. I don't know enough of HNH to comment on this but I would hope that's not the case.
They have reported on the two Reform Councillors who have been defenestrated since the 7/5 for antisemitism related reasons (one "Holocaust is a hoax" type, one Hitler enthusiast - posting cover of Mein Kampf, the Sonnenrad symbol and so on).
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Malmesbury is right. Be careful what you wish for.
I know what I'm wishing for - a brake on Reform's progress before things get out of hand. That said, I can see the point. HNH campaigning for LAB feels wrong to me (whether legal or not). Campaigning *against* REF otoh - that feels ok. More than ok really.
HNH would be a lot more credible if they campaigned against hate on both ends of the horseshoe.
Its often the way with these things. I have been involved in Athena Swann for many years. If you don't know it started out looking at barriers to female success in academia, aiming at things like a culture of working long hours (not conducive to childcare), and many other things (women taking career breaks to look after/raise offspring). Its morphed into a wider look at work culture but all too often its still just about women. I asked a question once about the gender imbalance on the pharmacy course (it heavily skews female) and whether we should be worried or look into the reasons.
Fell on rather stony ground.
Ok but I don't think there's an obligation for campaigning groups to widen their activities beyond what they want to concentrate on.
No, but its the hypocrisy that amuses more, me than anything else.
I don't know about that.
Say I form an org to fight antisemitism. Our mission is to detect, call out and condemn it wherever it rears its head. So we do that with laser focus and we don't comment on any other types of racism.
Is that hypocritical of us? I don't think so.
It's a square/rectangle thing.
Antisemitism is a form of hate.
Not all hate is antisemitism.
So an anti-hate organisation should include anti-antisemitism but an anti-antisemitism doesn't need to go wider.
Well the name, hope not hate, is very wide so you need to look at the mission statement for the focus. It's clear from there that it's the 'organised far right' who they have in the cross hairs.
That's fair enough imo. Ditto some other org whose declared target is the organised far left.
But, to your point, if they have no interest in antisemitism on the far right that would be remiss and reprehensible. I don't know if that's the case or not. I'd hope not.
If that's their mission then they're political, and if that's allowed by current law they'd better hope Reform - or Restore - don't win the next election.
We're all in trouble if that happens. I doubt legal precedent niceties would matter much either way.
Anyway, let's not even contemplate that. Andy's here now.
Dozens of staff members at the University of Nottingham have taken to the picket line ahead of a 61-day strike over drastic cuts to the workforce. The initial day of industrial action on Friday (May 22) comes before University and College Union members are proposing to strike for 61 days from Monday, June 1, to Friday, July 31.
The strike action was called by the union as the university plans to cut more than 700 jobs and shut down more than 40 degree courses, including modern languages and music.
"An OpenAI model has disproved a central conjecture in discrete geometry
Fields medalist Tim Gowers, writing in the companion paper, calls the result “a milestone in AI mathematics.” According to leading number theorist Arul Shankar, “In my opinion this paper demonstrates that current AI models go beyond just helpers to human mathematicians – they are capable of having original ingenious ideas, and then carrying them out to fruition”."
Dozens of staff members at the University of Nottingham have taken to the picket line ahead of a 61-day strike over drastic cuts to the workforce. The initial day of industrial action on Friday (May 22) comes before University and College Union members are proposing to strike for 61 days from Monday, June 1, to Friday, July 31.
The strike action was called by the union as the university plans to cut more than 700 jobs and shut down more than 40 degree courses, including modern languages and music.
Go back in time and don't buy the massive former HMRC site in the city centre with no real idea what to do with it other than some vague bollocks about research-industry liaison and links and a place for the business school.
Also find out the buildings are all listed before you agree to buy it.
If only it were that easy!
I’m guess “nothing but may be the government will give us more money if we complain loudly”
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Really?
“It’s ok. These people are good” is how it starts.
Let that go through and the Peter Thiel funded “Rational Immigration” charity will be campaigning for Restore. On the reopening of Shark Island as a deportation camp for immigrants. With a £50 million budget.
A charity can only campaign (in politics) against what is indisputably bad (like racism). Theil could try that but he'd be struck down imo.
I've had chats with our local HnH bod. Their literature says they campaign against Reform and the Far Right. They know they can't endorse one party for election (and maybe Charity) law reasons, as well as possibly adding an election expense onto a candidate , merely referring voters to the various tactical voting websites. I think someone has worked out the many snags and steered a path through.
Still if ReFuk objects it is up them to start a legal challenge - they should have enough crypto to afford it.
Yes that's what I was thinking. Against *that* (and therefore them) not for Lab or Con or LD etc. It's another Reform whinge basically. They're always at it.
The letter being shared on social media from Hope not Hate isn't that though. It explicitly says its a two horse race between Labour and Reform UK, only Andy Burnham for Labour can do this, that and the other "good" things, Reform will do all these "bad" things. Their "get out" I guess, is it doesn't say vote Andy Burnham, it says vote for positive change, don't vote for Reform, but the only positive change being described is Andy Burnham.
If this is the line we are allowing to be trend, that is getting very close to American PAC type activity before the Citizen United case blew up in the face of those who brought it. The Citizen United cased did the opposite of what the people bringing it wanted, they already thought the sort of thing Hope Not Hate letter did was over the line, where in the US you could have similar organisations on the left and right say there is this big issue in this election, candidate A stands for it, yeahhhhhh, candidate B stands against it, boooooo, but never said "Vote Candidate A", but just to make clear Candidate B is really bad.
HNH's mission statement is to combat the organised far right in all its forms, the policies that give succour to it, in the places most susceptible.
Hence the letter. Ok, so Reform don't like it. That's understandable. But, you know, diddums. If it's illegal they know what to do. I doubt it is but of course I could be wrong. In any case it's hardly one step away from superPACs.
Tbh I rarely see merit in 'slippery slope' arguments. In my experience it's often a technique employed to mask partisanship on the issue at hand.
If that really is their mission statement it’s not clear to me that they should be a charity at all
Looks like a good cause to me. Certainly beats Eton College on the 'benefiting society' front. Anyway they are, so it's presumably passed the test.
But opinion noted. I'll put you down for zero pounds.
They have reported on the two Reform Councillors who have been defenestrated since the 7/5 for antisemitism related reasons (one "Holocaust is a hoax" type, one Hitler enthusiast - posting cover of Mein Kampf, the Sonnenrad symbol and so on).
Sonnenrad is absolutely fine now. Ukraine have rehabilitated it by having it on Azov's badge.
Obviously, I'm in favour of charities going after the various flavours of racists.
Equally, the Electoral Commission needs to keep a line between charitable activity in the political sphere and political campaigning. Otherwise we will be up to our ears in crusty jugglers soft money, before you can say "BNP scum".
I really don't want the world where a "charity" funded by Peter Thiel etc can dump a zillion quid in a UK election.
Is Farage covering up more crypto-related funding? The Byline Times (I know) reports:
Nigel Farage was paid £50,000 in personal speaking fees by two cryptocurrency businesses in October 2025 – one of them owned by Dragons’ Den investor Steven Bartlett – in the same month he told Reuters he was “not aware” of crypto businesses funding his party, Byline Times can reveal.
The Reform UK leader received £30,000 from Blockworks Inc on 13 October and a further £20,000 from Zebu Group Limited on 22 October, according to the UK Parliament Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Both payments were for keynote appearances at the companies’ crypto-industry conferences in London.
The interview with Reuters was on 22 October at Zebu Live, the London cryptocurrency summit for which Zebu Group was due to pay Farage £20,000 that same day. Asked by Reuters whether any crypto asset businesses were donors to Reform UK, Farage said: “not that I’m aware of”, and added that “we might have had some sponsorship at the conference”.
He should lean into this and do Nigecoin. The highly regarded Fukker voters would lap it up before the inevitable rug pull
I don't actually hate Big Nige like I do Kemi. He's just an actor playing a character for money. It'd be like hating Steve McFadden for Sharongate.
Meh, Nigey has done unquantifiable damage to Blighty and he hasn't even got himself into 10 Downing Street yet. There again I am not keen on racist, anti-semite, pro-Trump grifters whoever they are, particularly those who are friends with Nathan Gill and big-up Vladimir Putin. I am pissed at him however, Family (and extended family)-Farage all have free-movement EU passports, mine do not.
I don't see the harm in Mrs Badenoch. I wouldn't vote for her, and she doesn't appear to be the sharpest tool in the box, but save for her ludicrous Reform-style rhetoric, she seems relatively harmless and unlikely to ever seen high office anyway.
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Really?
“It’s ok. These people are good” is how it starts.
Let that go through and the Peter Thiel funded “Rational Immigration” charity will be campaigning for Restore. On the reopening of Shark Island as a deportation camp for immigrants. With a £50 million budget.
A charity can only campaign (in politics) against what is indisputably bad (like racism). Theil could try that but he'd be struck down imo.
I've had chats with our local HnH bod. Their literature says they campaign against Reform and the Far Right. They know they can't endorse one party for election (and maybe Charity) law reasons, as well as possibly adding an election expense onto a candidate , merely referring voters to the various tactical voting websites. I think someone has worked out the many snags and steered a path through.
Still if ReFuk objects it is up them to start a legal challenge - they should have enough crypto to afford it.
Yes that's what I was thinking. Against *that* (and therefore them) not for Lab or Con or LD etc. It's another Reform whinge basically. They're always at it.
The letter being shared on social media from Hope not Hate isn't that though. It explicitly says its a two horse race between Labour and Reform UK, only Andy Burnham for Labour can do this, that and the other "good" things, Reform will do all these "bad" things. Their "get out" I guess, is it doesn't say vote Andy Burnham, it says vote for positive change, don't vote for Reform, but the only positive change being described is Andy Burnham.
If this is the line we are allowing to be trend, that is getting very close to American PAC type activity before the Citizen United case blew up in the face of those who brought it. The Citizen United cased did the opposite of what the people bringing it wanted, they already thought the sort of thing Hope Not Hate letter did was over the line, where in the US you could have similar organisations on the left and right say there is this big issue in this election, candidate A stands for it, yeahhhhhh, candidate B stands against it, boooooo, but never said "Vote Candidate A", but just to make clear Candidate B is really bad.
HNH's mission statement is to combat the organised far right in all its forms, the policies that give succour to it, in the places most susceptible.
Hence the letter. Ok, so Reform don't like it. That's understandable. But, you know, diddums. If it's illegal they know what to do. I doubt it is but of course I could be wrong. In any case it's hardly one step away from superPACs.
Tbh I rarely see merit in 'slippery slope' arguments. In my experience it's often a technique employed to mask partisanship on the issue at hand.
If that really is their mission statement it’s not clear to me that they should be a charity at all
Looks like a good cause to me. Certainly beats Eton College on the 'benefiting society' front. Anyway they are, so it's presumably passed the test.
But opinion noted. I'll put you down for zero pounds.
A good cause doesn’t equal a charity.
And Eton does a huge amount outside of the school that it is best known for
They have reported on the two Reform Councillors who have been defenestrated since the 7/5 for antisemitism related reasons (one "Holocaust is a hoax" type, one Hitler enthusiast - posting cover of Mein Kampf, the Sonnenrad symbol and so on).
Sonnenrad is absolutely fine now. Ukraine have rehabilitated it by having it on Azov's badge.
I think that depends what you do with it.
A Swastika is fine on Essex County Hall, but not on a Nazi flag !
Obviously, I'm in favour of charities going after the various flavours of racists.
Equally, the Electoral Commission needs to keep a line between charitable activity in the political sphere and political campaigning. Otherwise we will be up to our ears in crusty jugglers soft money, before you can say "BNP scum".
I really don't want the world where a "charity" funded by Peter Thiel etc can dump a zillion quid in a UK election.
On that note we can shake. Politics in the US is an excellent negative role model. Just do the opposite and we won't go far wrong.
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Really?
“It’s ok. These people are good” is how it starts.
Let that go through and the Peter Thiel funded “Rational Immigration” charity will be campaigning for Restore. On the reopening of Shark Island as a deportation camp for immigrants. With a £50 million budget.
A charity can only campaign (in politics) against what is indisputably bad (like racism). Theil could try that but he'd be struck down imo.
I've had chats with our local HnH bod. Their literature says they campaign against Reform and the Far Right. They know they can't endorse one party for election (and maybe Charity) law reasons, as well as possibly adding an election expense onto a candidate , merely referring voters to the various tactical voting websites. I think someone has worked out the many snags and steered a path through.
Still if ReFuk objects it is up them to start a legal challenge - they should have enough crypto to afford it.
Yes that's what I was thinking. Against *that* (and therefore them) not for Lab or Con or LD etc. It's another Reform whinge basically. They're always at it.
The letter being shared on social media from Hope not Hate isn't that though. It explicitly says its a two horse race between Labour and Reform UK, only Andy Burnham for Labour can do this, that and the other "good" things, Reform will do all these "bad" things. Their "get out" I guess, is it doesn't say vote Andy Burnham, it says vote for positive change, don't vote for Reform, but the only positive change being described is Andy Burnham.
If this is the line we are allowing to be trend, that is getting very close to American PAC type activity before the Citizen United case blew up in the face of those who brought it. The Citizen United cased did the opposite of what the people bringing it wanted, they already thought the sort of thing Hope Not Hate letter did was over the line, where in the US you could have similar organisations on the left and right say there is this big issue in this election, candidate A stands for it, yeahhhhhh, candidate B stands against it, boooooo, but never said "Vote Candidate A", but just to make clear Candidate B is really bad.
HNH's mission statement is to combat the organised far right in all its forms, the policies that give succour to it, in the places most susceptible.
Hence the letter. Ok, so Reform don't like it. That's understandable. But, you know, diddums. If it's illegal they know what to do. I doubt it is but of course I could be wrong. In any case it's hardly one step away from superPACs.
Tbh I rarely see merit in 'slippery slope' arguments. In my experience it's often a technique employed to mask partisanship on the issue at hand.
If that really is their mission statement it’s not clear to me that they should be a charity at all
I don't think that is the mission statement of the Charitable Trust.
Tsunami on the Gilt markets this morning mostly UK
After many doom mongering right wing experts predicting 6% record recent fall below 5% at one point.
Which one ? There are multiple different timescales.
Burnham calming them earlier this week has helped when he backed away from his ‘the bond markets will be my bitch’ attitude and said the reverse.
Also politics is helping and the feeling the gulf conflict will resolve. It’s not right wing to warn of the consequences of the bond market. Was it ‘right wing’ that the Bond markets clipped Trumps wings over tariffs.
Worth pointing out since labour came to power our bonds have performed poorly. They weren’t great before the election. They’ve got worse. But, muh, Truss. We are now above the G7 range.
The prospect of some kind of peace deal with US and Iran is likely the cause, and anyone cheering a 4.9% 10 year bond has no understanding of the additional cost to our borrowing and the implication for the country
It is Friday , time to set up the share options for the killing on Monday, getting to b eweekly for the grifters.
Dozens of staff members at the University of Nottingham have taken to the picket line ahead of a 61-day strike over drastic cuts to the workforce. The initial day of industrial action on Friday (May 22) comes before University and College Union members are proposing to strike for 61 days from Monday, June 1, to Friday, July 31.
The strike action was called by the union as the university plans to cut more than 700 jobs and shut down more than 40 degree courses, including modern languages and music.
Go back in time and don't buy the massive former HMRC site in the city centre with no real idea what to do with it other than some vague bollocks about research-industry liaison and links and a place for the business school.
Also find out the buildings are all listed before you agree to buy it.
Well, certainly before you find out whether your physics department can put together a... gadget to level the site nicely. As opposed to playing* with buildings which are listed.
*Listed buildings in the UK - two choices. Endless fun for someone who likes doing building work themselves, slowly over decades and a side order of paperwork. Or a nightmare for everyone else. So, if you are an Angry Man With Bike Clips On Your Corduroys (and love DIY legal stuff), do your own building work and have infinite time, have at it.
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Really?
“It’s ok. These people are good” is how it starts.
Let that go through and the Peter Thiel funded “Rational Immigration” charity will be campaigning for Restore. On the reopening of Shark Island as a deportation camp for immigrants. With a £50 million budget.
A charity can only campaign (in politics) against what is indisputably bad (like racism). Theil could try that but he'd be struck down imo.
I've had chats with our local HnH bod. Their literature says they campaign against Reform and the Far Right. They know they can't endorse one party for election (and maybe Charity) law reasons, as well as possibly adding an election expense onto a candidate , merely referring voters to the various tactical voting websites. I think someone has worked out the many snags and steered a path through.
Still if ReFuk objects it is up them to start a legal challenge - they should have enough crypto to afford it.
I think they are organised as is common for charities with a subsidiary that *can* campaign. They have Hope not Hate Limited, which is a private company, and HOPE unlimited Charitable Trust.
It's a similar pattern to how charities have commercial companies for their shops.
Except completely different.
I disagree. The comparison is setting up an organisation as allowed by law to meet desired objectives. I've long been critical of the tax advantages afforded charity shops, but that's the law, so I have to accept it.
That they have just come out of a Charity Commission Compliance Enquiry suggests that it is OK under the law as it stands.
The Spectator have been gnawing on this bone for several years, and have not laid much of a finger on them. HNH output is all based on research and data which is published, so if they are incompetent or under-lawyered there is plenty of opportunity to sue. I can understand by those who do not like them for political reasons get frustrated.
Dozens of staff members at the University of Nottingham have taken to the picket line ahead of a 61-day strike over drastic cuts to the workforce. The initial day of industrial action on Friday (May 22) comes before University and College Union members are proposing to strike for 61 days from Monday, June 1, to Friday, July 31.
The strike action was called by the union as the university plans to cut more than 700 jobs and shut down more than 40 degree courses, including modern languages and music.
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Really?
“It’s ok. These people are good” is how it starts.
Let that go through and the Peter Thiel funded “Rational Immigration” charity will be campaigning for Restore. On the reopening of Shark Island as a deportation camp for immigrants. With a £50 million budget.
A charity can only campaign (in politics) against what is indisputably bad (like racism). Theil could try that but he'd be struck down imo.
I've had chats with our local HnH bod. Their literature says they campaign against Reform and the Far Right. They know they can't endorse one party for election (and maybe Charity) law reasons, as well as possibly adding an election expense onto a candidate , merely referring voters to the various tactical voting websites. I think someone has worked out the many snags and steered a path through.
Still if ReFuk objects it is up them to start a legal challenge - they should have enough crypto to afford it.
Yes that's what I was thinking. Against *that* (and therefore them) not for Lab or Con or LD etc. It's another Reform whinge basically. They're always at it.
The letter being shared on social media from Hope not Hate isn't that though. It explicitly says its a two horse race between Labour and Reform UK, only Andy Burnham for Labour can do this, that and the other "good" things, Reform will do all these "bad" things. Their "get out" I guess, is it doesn't say vote Andy Burnham, it says vote for positive change, don't vote for Reform, but the only positive change being described is Andy Burnham.
If this is the line we are allowing to be trend, that is getting very close to American PAC type activity before the Citizen United case blew up in the face of those who brought it. The Citizen United cased did the opposite of what the people bringing it wanted, they already thought the sort of thing Hope Not Hate letter did was over the line, where in the US you could have similar organisations on the left and right say there is this big issue in this election, candidate A stands for it, yeahhhhhh, candidate B stands against it, boooooo, but never said "Vote Candidate A", but just to make clear Candidate B is really bad.
HNH's mission statement is to combat the organised far right in all its forms, the policies that give succour to it, in the places most susceptible.
Hence the letter. Ok, so Reform don't like it. That's understandable. But, you know, diddums. If it's illegal they know what to do. I doubt it is but of course I could be wrong. In any case it's hardly one step away from superPACs.
Tbh I rarely see merit in 'slippery slope' arguments. In my experience it's often a technique employed to mask partisanship on the issue at hand.
If that really is their mission statement it’s not clear to me that they should be a charity at all
Looks like a good cause to me. Certainly beats Eton College on the 'benefiting society' front. Anyway they are, so it's presumably passed the test.
But opinion noted. I'll put you down for zero pounds.
A good cause doesn’t equal a charity.
And Eton does a huge amount outside of the school that it is best known for
Eton is one of very few private schools who actually do a fair amount of work locally for “charity” and they’ve done it for a long time
Birmingham's claim to be the second city is purely reliant on a quirk of history whereby more of the conurbation is within the boundaries of Birmingham City Council than is the case for Manchester and Manchester City Council.
I grew up in the 1970s and Birmingham then was without question the second city. Undoubtedly there has been unprecedented decline. Earlier in the week I posted a (very biased against Attlee and Wilson) video which explained the Distribution of Industry Act 1945 and the post war plan to curb investment in full- employment Birmingham in favour of areas of industrial decline like the South Wales coalfields, Lowland Scotland , the North East, North West and South and West Yorkshire.
As a Brummie I can cry in my beer that Birmingham is now an undoubted shite hole, but it remains Britain's second city.
Dozens of staff members at the University of Nottingham have taken to the picket line ahead of a 61-day strike over drastic cuts to the workforce. The initial day of industrial action on Friday (May 22) comes before University and College Union members are proposing to strike for 61 days from Monday, June 1, to Friday, July 31.
The strike action was called by the union as the university plans to cut more than 700 jobs and shut down more than 40 degree courses, including modern languages and music.
Dozens of staff members at the University of Nottingham have taken to the picket line ahead of a 61-day strike over drastic cuts to the workforce. The initial day of industrial action on Friday (May 22) comes before University and College Union members are proposing to strike for 61 days from Monday, June 1, to Friday, July 31.
The strike action was called by the union as the university plans to cut more than 700 jobs and shut down more than 40 degree courses, including modern languages and music.
Last 20 years ago quite a few universities either opened or seriously explored opening overseas campuses. I have no idea if they end up being as profitable as I presume the Vice Chancellors who were coming up with these plans thought they would be.
Obviously, I'm in favour of charities going after the various flavours of racists.
Equally, the Electoral Commission needs to keep a line between charitable activity in the political sphere and political campaigning. Otherwise we will be up to our ears in crusty jugglers soft money, before you can say "BNP scum".
I really don't want the world where a "charity" funded by Peter Thiel etc can dump a zillion quid in a UK election.
Dozens of staff members at the University of Nottingham have taken to the picket line ahead of a 61-day strike over drastic cuts to the workforce. The initial day of industrial action on Friday (May 22) comes before University and College Union members are proposing to strike for 61 days from Monday, June 1, to Friday, July 31.
The strike action was called by the union as the university plans to cut more than 700 jobs and shut down more than 40 degree courses, including modern languages and music.
They plan to slash the department that gave the world MRI scanners.
Madness for UK plc.
40 years ago? Is it still value added?
I believe the uni still gets royalties.
In general this is an area where the UK universities are absolutely terrible. US universities get things protected and licencd / or get shares in all these start-ups that spin out of their research and provides huge revenue.
Birmingham's claim to be the second city is purely reliant on a quirk of history whereby more of the conurbation is within the boundaries of Birmingham City Council than is the case for Manchester and Manchester City Council.
I grew up in the 1970s and Birmingham then was without question the second city. Undoubtedly there has been unprecedented decline. Earlier in the week I posted a (very biased against Attlee and Wilson) video which explained the Distribution of Industry Act 1945 and the post war plan to curb investment in full- employment Birmingham in favour of areas of industrial decline like the South Wales coalfields, Lowland Scotland , the North East, North West and South and West Yorkshire.
As a Brummie I can cry in my beer that Birmingham is now an undoubted shite hole, but it remains Britain's second city.
Birmingham's problem was that it had too many Tories...
Dozens of staff members at the University of Nottingham have taken to the picket line ahead of a 61-day strike over drastic cuts to the workforce. The initial day of industrial action on Friday (May 22) comes before University and College Union members are proposing to strike for 61 days from Monday, June 1, to Friday, July 31.
The strike action was called by the union as the university plans to cut more than 700 jobs and shut down more than 40 degree courses, including modern languages and music.
Last 20 years ago quite a few universities either opened or seriously explored opening overseas campuses. I have no idea if they end up being as profitable as I presume the Vice Chancellors who were coming up with these plans thought they would be.
One of my nieces is on the staff at Nottingham. She seems to spend a reasonable amount of time every so often in Malaysia.
Obviously, I'm in favour of charities going after the various flavours of racists.
Equally, the Electoral Commission needs to keep a line between charitable activity in the political sphere and political campaigning. Otherwise we will be up to our ears in crusty jugglers soft money, before you can say "BNP scum".
I really don't want the world where a "charity" funded by Peter Thiel etc can dump a zillion quid in a UK election.
sweet summer child.......
I'm quite aware of the "soft" money already here. 5 Bernies to Nigel is just the crudest part of that. The dam is pretty leaky - that's no reason to open the sluice gates full on.
Obviously, I'm in favour of charities going after the various flavours of racists.
Equally, the Electoral Commission needs to keep a line between charitable activity in the political sphere and political campaigning. Otherwise we will be up to our ears in crusty jugglers soft money, before you can say "BNP scum".
I really don't want the world where a "charity" funded by Peter Thiel etc can dump a zillion quid in a UK election.
sweet summer child.......
I'm quite aware of the "soft" money already here. 5 Bernies to Nigel is just the crudest part of that. The dam is pretty leaky - that's no reason to open the sluice gates full on.
I meant your hope of the Electoral Commission being in any way interested in trying to commit to any widening of what might be considered political activity.
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Really?
“It’s ok. These people are good” is how it starts.
Let that go through and the Peter Thiel funded “Rational Immigration” charity will be campaigning for Restore. On the reopening of Shark Island as a deportation camp for immigrants. With a £50 million budget.
A charity can only campaign (in politics) against what is indisputably bad (like racism). Theil could try that but he'd be struck down imo.
Hope not hate is a manipulative organisation that coarsens and pollutes the political debate. It falls well short of the political impartiality expected of charities, but gets away with it by dividing its 'charitable arm' from its 'campaigning arm' and making the ludicrous assertion that the two are unrelated.
I'm sorry but this far right populism that's on the march all over the place is getting huge dollops of money and social media backing from shady billionaires and hostile foreign governments. So I'm not going to fret too much about a niche org like HNH working against it. These are troubling times. It's a battle for the ages and it must be won. All hands to the wheel.
Essentially you've been radicalised and the sad thing is you still believe yourself to be a moderate.
I am radically opposed to the UK succumbing to morally and financially ruinous populism, yes. All the moderation in the world will be no use if that happens.
I think you'll find most people who've succumbed to just putting a leeeetle finger on the 'right' side of the democratic scales convinced themselves that there were urgent moral reasons for doing so.
Dozens of staff members at the University of Nottingham have taken to the picket line ahead of a 61-day strike over drastic cuts to the workforce. The initial day of industrial action on Friday (May 22) comes before University and College Union members are proposing to strike for 61 days from Monday, June 1, to Friday, July 31.
The strike action was called by the union as the university plans to cut more than 700 jobs and shut down more than 40 degree courses, including modern languages and music.
Dozens of staff members at the University of Nottingham have taken to the picket line ahead of a 61-day strike over drastic cuts to the workforce. The initial day of industrial action on Friday (May 22) comes before University and College Union members are proposing to strike for 61 days from Monday, June 1, to Friday, July 31.
The strike action was called by the union as the university plans to cut more than 700 jobs and shut down more than 40 degree courses, including modern languages and music.
Dozens of staff members at the University of Nottingham have taken to the picket line ahead of a 61-day strike over drastic cuts to the workforce. The initial day of industrial action on Friday (May 22) comes before University and College Union members are proposing to strike for 61 days from Monday, June 1, to Friday, July 31.
The strike action was called by the union as the university plans to cut more than 700 jobs and shut down more than 40 degree courses, including modern languages and music.
Last 20 years ago quite a few universities either opened or seriously explored opening overseas campuses. I have no idea if they end up being as profitable as I presume the Vice Chancellors who were coming up with these plans thought they would be.
One of my nieces is on the staff at Nottingham. She seems to spend a reasonable amount of time every so often in Malaysia.
Whereas we spun out part of my course to ... Plymouth.
I may be getting a glamourous trip next March to lecture down there in the deep South...
Obviously, I'm in favour of charities going after the various flavours of racists.
Equally, the Electoral Commission needs to keep a line between charitable activity in the political sphere and political campaigning. Otherwise we will be up to our ears in crusty jugglers soft money, before you can say "BNP scum".
I really don't want the world where a "charity" funded by Peter Thiel etc can dump a zillion quid in a UK election.
sweet summer child.......
I'm quite aware of the "soft" money already here. 5 Bernies to Nigel is just the crudest part of that. The dam is pretty leaky - that's no reason to open the sluice gates full on.
I meant your hope of the Electoral Commission being in any way interested in trying to commit to any widening of what might be considered political activity.
Well, give them a kick. They need one.
Maybe we should setup a charity to give the Charity Commission a kick as well?
Birmingham's claim to be the second city is purely reliant on a quirk of history whereby more of the conurbation is within the boundaries of Birmingham City Council than is the case for Manchester and Manchester City Council.
I grew up in the 1970s and Birmingham then was without question the second city. Undoubtedly there has been unprecedented decline. Earlier in the week I posted a (very biased against Attlee and Wilson) video which explained the Distribution of Industry Act 1945 and the post war plan to curb investment in full- employment Birmingham in favour of areas of industrial decline like the South Wales coalfields, Lowland Scotland , the North East, North West and South and West Yorkshire.
As a Brummie I can cry in my beer that Birmingham is now an undoubted shite hole, but it remains Britain's second city.
I went to Manchester Uni in the early 70s. Great Uni, especially for Maths, but the city was a dump. It has made huge progress since to become one of Britain's favourite cities.
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Malmesbury is right. Be careful what you wish for.
I know what I'm wishing for - a brake on Reform's progress before things get out of hand. That said, I can see the point. HNH campaigning for LAB feels wrong to me (whether legal or not). Campaigning *against* REF otoh - that feels ok. More than ok really.
HNH would be a lot more credible if they campaigned against hate on both ends of the horseshoe.
Its often the way with these things. I have been involved in Athena Swann for many years. If you don't know it started out looking at barriers to female success in academia, aiming at things like a culture of working long hours (not conducive to childcare), and many other things (women taking career breaks to look after/raise offspring). Its morphed into a wider look at work culture but all too often its still just about women. I asked a question once about the gender imbalance on the pharmacy course (it heavily skews female) and whether we should be worried or look into the reasons.
Fell on rather stony ground.
Ok but I don't think there's an obligation for campaigning groups to widen their activities beyond what they want to concentrate on.
No, but its the hypocrisy that amuses more, me than anything else.
I don't know about that.
Say I form an org to fight antisemitism. Our mission is to detect, call out and condemn it wherever it rears its head. So we do that with laser focus and we don't comment on any other types of racism.
Is that hypocritical of us? I don't think so.
No. The aim and focus is clearly stated.
But when you state that you are against hate and racism but ignore hate and racism directed at Jews then, yes, people are entitled to call out your hypocrisy and one-eyed approach to your mission.
It says on their website, “At HOPE not hate, our mission is to work tirelessly to expose and oppose far-right extremism.” They report on anti-Semitism by far right extremists
But not, presumably, by Green party members chanting "From the River to the Sea"?
Green Party members are not, usually, far right extremists. HNH have their mission, they carry out their mission. It’s like complaining that the RSPB does nothing for squirrels.
Type thing. You're doing it more pithy than me.
The RSPB does not have a catch all name that gives the impression that it wishes to protect all animals.
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Really?
“It’s ok. These people are good” is how it starts.
Let that go through and the Peter Thiel funded “Rational Immigration” charity will be campaigning for Restore. On the reopening of Shark Island as a deportation camp for immigrants. With a £50 million budget.
A charity can only campaign (in politics) against what is indisputably bad (like racism). Theil could try that but he'd be struck down imo.
I've had chats with our local HnH bod. Their literature says they campaign against Reform and the Far Right. They know they can't endorse one party for election (and maybe Charity) law reasons, as well as possibly adding an election expense onto a candidate , merely referring voters to the various tactical voting websites. I think someone has worked out the many snags and steered a path through.
Still if ReFuk objects it is up them to start a legal challenge - they should have enough crypto to afford it.
I think they are organised as is common for charities with a subsidiary that *can* campaign. They have Hope not Hate Limited, which is a private company, and HOPE unlimited Charitable Trust.
It's a similar pattern to how charities have commercial companies for their shops.
Except completely different.
I disagree. The comparison is setting up an organisation as allowed by law to meet desired objectives. I've long been critical of the tax advantages afforded charity shops, but that's the law, so I have to accept it.
That they have just come out of a Charity Commission Compliance Enquiry suggests that it is OK under the law as it stands.
The Spectator have been gnawing on this bone for several years, and have not laid much of a finger on them. HNH output is all based on research and data which is published, so if they are incompetent or under-lawyered there is plenty of opportunity to sue. I can understand by those who do not like them for political reasons get frustrated.
Picking up on a minor point, apparently HMRC are becoming 'interested' in Gift Aid donations. Allegedly there's some evidence that some individuals have 'Gift Aided' more than they've actually paid in tax!
TBH, I'm not surprised. Mrs C is a very low taxpayer..... her pension is such that some years she pays tax and some years she doesn't, depending on the allowance level ..... so I've counselled her never to Gift Aid anything as we don't want the Revenue taking an interest in our affairs. Not, of course because we've anything to hide, but because of the cost, in time and aggravation, of dealing with HMRC.
They have reported on the two Reform Councillors who have been defenestrated since the 7/5 for antisemitism related reasons (one "Holocaust is a hoax" type, one Hitler enthusiast - posting cover of Mein Kampf, the Sonnenrad symbol and so on).
Sonnenrad is absolutely fine now. Ukraine have rehabilitated it by having it on Azov's badge.
I note the two terrorists that died in the attack on the San Diego Mosque sported Sonnenrad symbols on their clothing.
Burnham has today committed to Labour’s manifesto pledges on tax (after failing to do so mid-week). That means he cannot raise the top rate of income tax as he proposed at conference
Birmingham's claim to be the second city is purely reliant on a quirk of history whereby more of the conurbation is within the boundaries of Birmingham City Council than is the case for Manchester and Manchester City Council.
I grew up in the 1970s and Birmingham then was without question the second city. Undoubtedly there has been unprecedented decline. Earlier in the week I posted a (very biased against Attlee and Wilson) video which explained the Distribution of Industry Act 1945 and the post war plan to curb investment in full- employment Birmingham in favour of areas of industrial decline like the South Wales coalfields, Lowland Scotland , the North East, North West and South and West Yorkshire.
As a Brummie I can cry in my beer that Birmingham is now an undoubted shite hole, but it remains Britain's second city.
Birmingham's problem was that it had too many Tories...
Birmingham was very much a city built by one nation Tories like the Chamberlain family. With hindsight the Distribution of Industry Act didn't work for Birmingham although I work on the premise that the idea was Birmingham was self sufficient and could look after itself. I don't think there is necessarily a partisan argument that either Labour or Conservatives killed Birmingham, but if you pushed me I would point out Thatcher's deregulation of the City in 1986 and the subsequent unfettered access for foreign companies to own UK assets didn't help.
JD Wetherspoon is set to open its first ever pub in London’s Theatreland district, with a new West End mega-boozer taking over part of what was once the Trocadero.
The pub will be known as Piccadilly Hall, named in tribute to the original Piccadilly/Pikadilly Hall – the 17th century mansion that gave its name to Piccadilly Circus. It will open at 30 Shaftesbury Avenue – most recently home to the now-shuttered Coyote Ugly bar.
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Malmesbury is right. Be careful what you wish for.
I know what I'm wishing for - a brake on Reform's progress before things get out of hand. That said, I can see the point. HNH campaigning for LAB feels wrong to me (whether legal or not). Campaigning *against* REF otoh - that feels ok. More than ok really.
HNH would be a lot more credible if they campaigned against hate on both ends of the horseshoe.
Its often the way with these things. I have been involved in Athena Swann for many years. If you don't know it started out looking at barriers to female success in academia, aiming at things like a culture of working long hours (not conducive to childcare), and many other things (women taking career breaks to look after/raise offspring). Its morphed into a wider look at work culture but all too often its still just about women. I asked a question once about the gender imbalance on the pharmacy course (it heavily skews female) and whether we should be worried or look into the reasons.
Fell on rather stony ground.
Ok but I don't think there's an obligation for campaigning groups to widen their activities beyond what they want to concentrate on.
No, but its the hypocrisy that amuses more, me than anything else.
I don't know about that.
Say I form an org to fight antisemitism. Our mission is to detect, call out and condemn it wherever it rears its head. So we do that with laser focus and we don't comment on any other types of racism.
Is that hypocritical of us? I don't think so.
No. The aim and focus is clearly stated.
But when you state that you are against hate and racism but ignore hate and racism directed at Jews then, yes, people are entitled to call out your hypocrisy and one-eyed approach to your mission.
It says on their website, “At HOPE not hate, our mission is to work tirelessly to expose and oppose far-right extremism.” They report on anti-Semitism by far right extremists
But not, presumably, by Green party members chanting "From the River to the Sea"?
Green Party members are not, usually, far right extremists. HNH have their mission, they carry out their mission. It’s like complaining that the RSPB does nothing for squirrels.
Type thing. You're doing it more pithy than me.
The RSPB does not have a catch all name that gives the impression that it wishes to protect all animals.
Yes, that's why I'm doing a bit more work than bondy on this one. Going the extra mile to nail down all the nuance.
JD Wetherspoon is set to open its first ever pub in London’s Theatreland district, with a new West End mega-boozer taking over part of what was once the Trocadero.
The pub will be known as Piccadilly Hall, named in tribute to the original Piccadilly/Pikadilly Hall – the 17th century mansion that gave its name to Piccadilly Circus. It will open at 30 Shaftesbury Avenue – most recently home to the now-shuttered Coyote Ugly bar.
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Really?
“It’s ok. These people are good” is how it starts.
Let that go through and the Peter Thiel funded “Rational Immigration” charity will be campaigning for Restore. On the reopening of Shark Island as a deportation camp for immigrants. With a £50 million budget.
A charity can only campaign (in politics) against what is indisputably bad (like racism). Theil could try that but he'd be struck down imo.
Hope not hate is a manipulative organisation that coarsens and pollutes the political debate. It falls well short of the political impartiality expected of charities, but gets away with it by dividing its 'charitable arm' from its 'campaigning arm' and making the ludicrous assertion that the two are unrelated.
I'm sorry but this far right populism that's on the march all over the place is getting huge dollops of money and social media backing from shady billionaires and hostile foreign governments. So I'm not going to fret too much about a niche org like HNH working against it. These are troubling times. It's a battle for the ages and it must be won. All hands to the wheel.
Essentially you've been radicalised and the sad thing is you still believe yourself to be a moderate.
I am radically opposed to the UK succumbing to morally and financially ruinous populism, yes. All the moderation in the world will be no use if that happens.
I think you'll find most people who've succumbed to just putting a leeeetle finger on the 'right' side of the democratic scales convinced themselves that there were urgent moral reasons for doing so.
We'll have to ask the shady billionaires and hostile foreign governments what they are then.
JD Wetherspoon is set to open its first ever pub in London’s Theatreland district, with a new West End mega-boozer taking over part of what was once the Trocadero.
The pub will be known as Piccadilly Hall, named in tribute to the original Piccadilly/Pikadilly Hall – the 17th century mansion that gave its name to Piccadilly Circus. It will open at 30 Shaftesbury Avenue – most recently home to the now-shuttered Coyote Ugly bar.
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Malmesbury is right. Be careful what you wish for.
I know what I'm wishing for - a brake on Reform's progress before things get out of hand. That said, I can see the point. HNH campaigning for LAB feels wrong to me (whether legal or not). Campaigning *against* REF otoh - that feels ok. More than ok really.
HNH would be a lot more credible if they campaigned against hate on both ends of the horseshoe.
Its often the way with these things. I have been involved in Athena Swann for many years. If you don't know it started out looking at barriers to female success in academia, aiming at things like a culture of working long hours (not conducive to childcare), and many other things (women taking career breaks to look after/raise offspring). Its morphed into a wider look at work culture but all too often its still just about women. I asked a question once about the gender imbalance on the pharmacy course (it heavily skews female) and whether we should be worried or look into the reasons.
Fell on rather stony ground.
Ok but I don't think there's an obligation for campaigning groups to widen their activities beyond what they want to concentrate on.
No, but its the hypocrisy that amuses more, me than anything else.
I don't know about that.
Say I form an org to fight antisemitism. Our mission is to detect, call out and condemn it wherever it rears its head. So we do that with laser focus and we don't comment on any other types of racism.
Is that hypocritical of us? I don't think so.
No. The aim and focus is clearly stated.
But when you state that you are against hate and racism but ignore hate and racism directed at Jews then, yes, people are entitled to call out your hypocrisy and one-eyed approach to your mission.
It says on their website, “At HOPE not hate, our mission is to work tirelessly to expose and oppose far-right extremism.” They report on anti-Semitism by far right extremists
But not, presumably, by Green party members chanting "From the River to the Sea"?
Green Party members are not, usually, far right extremists. HNH have their mission, they carry out their mission. It’s like complaining that the RSPB does nothing for squirrels.
Type thing. You're doing it more pithy than me.
The RSPB does not have a catch all name that gives the impression that it wishes to protect all animals.
Alex Wickham @alexwickham · 1h And another: Burnham has today committed to Labour’s manifesto pledges on tax (after failing to do so mid-week). That means he cannot raise the top rate of income tax as he proposed at conference
Alex Wickham @alexwickham · 1h And another: Burnham has today committed to Labour’s manifesto pledges on tax (after failing to do so mid-week). That means he cannot raise the top rate of income tax as he proposed at conference
JD Wetherspoon is set to open its first ever pub in London’s Theatreland district, with a new West End mega-boozer taking over part of what was once the Trocadero.
The pub will be known as Piccadilly Hall, named in tribute to the original Piccadilly/Pikadilly Hall – the 17th century mansion that gave its name to Piccadilly Circus. It will open at 30 Shaftesbury Avenue – most recently home to the now-shuttered Coyote Ugly bar.
Emilio Casalicchio @e_casalicchio 🚨 BURNHAM MEDIA HUDDLE
- Suggests social care should be on NHS via a specific "social care levy"
===
Oh dear God.
It's not a bad idea. Brown wanted a National Care Service, and Johnson applied a social care levy. We have fifteen million people scheduled to die in the next fifteen years, and somebody has to look after them. Which will need money.
JD Wetherspoon is set to open its first ever pub in London’s Theatreland district, with a new West End mega-boozer taking over part of what was once the Trocadero.
The pub will be known as Piccadilly Hall, named in tribute to the original Piccadilly/Pikadilly Hall – the 17th century mansion that gave its name to Piccadilly Circus. It will open at 30 Shaftesbury Avenue – most recently home to the now-shuttered Coyote Ugly bar.
JD Wetherspoon is set to open its first ever pub in London’s Theatreland district, with a new West End mega-boozer taking over part of what was once the Trocadero.
The pub will be known as Piccadilly Hall, named in tribute to the original Piccadilly/Pikadilly Hall – the 17th century mansion that gave its name to Piccadilly Circus. It will open at 30 Shaftesbury Avenue – most recently home to the now-shuttered Coyote Ugly bar.
Spoons has an interesting USP. Their margins are low so they rely on volume sales, oh and dole boys getting pissed at 9 am.
I wouldn’t go into a Wetherspoons if you paid me ! Full of Reform voters !
Be grateful like Asda and Morrisons keeps the riff raff out of Waitrose, RyanAir and Jet2 keep the riff raff from spoiling your holidays, Spoons keeps the riff raff out of decent boozers.
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Really?
“It’s ok. These people are good” is how it starts.
Let that go through and the Peter Thiel funded “Rational Immigration” charity will be campaigning for Restore. On the reopening of Shark Island as a deportation camp for immigrants. With a £50 million budget.
A charity can only campaign (in politics) against what is indisputably bad (like racism). Theil could try that but he'd be struck down imo.
I've had chats with our local HnH bod. Their literature says they campaign against Reform and the Far Right. They know they can't endorse one party for election (and maybe Charity) law reasons, as well as possibly adding an election expense onto a candidate , merely referring voters to the various tactical voting websites. I think someone has worked out the many snags and steered a path through.
Still if ReFuk objects it is up them to start a legal challenge - they should have enough crypto to afford it.
Yes that's what I was thinking. Against *that* (and therefore them) not for Lab or Con or LD etc. It's another Reform whinge basically. They're always at it.
The letter being shared on social media from Hope not Hate isn't that though. It explicitly says its a two horse race between Labour and Reform UK, only Andy Burnham for Labour can do this, that and the other "good" things, Reform will do all these "bad" things. Their "get out" I guess, is it doesn't say vote Andy Burnham, it says vote for positive change, don't vote for Reform, but the only positive change being described is Andy Burnham.
If this is the line we are allowing to be trend, that is getting very close to American PAC type activity before the Citizen United case blew up in the face of those who brought it. The Citizen United cased did the opposite of what the people bringing it wanted, they already thought the sort of thing Hope Not Hate letter did was over the line, where in the US you could have similar organisations on the left and right say there is this big issue in this election, candidate A stands for it, yeahhhhhh, candidate B stands against it, boooooo, but never said "Vote Candidate A", but just to make clear Candidate B is really bad.
HNH's mission statement is to combat the organised far right in all its forms, the policies that give succour to it, in the places most susceptible.
Hence the letter. Ok, so Reform don't like it. That's understandable. But, you know, diddums. If it's illegal they know what to do. I doubt it is but of course I could be wrong. In any case it's hardly one step away from superPACs.
Tbh I rarely see merit in 'slippery slope' arguments. In my experience it's often a technique employed to mask partisanship on the issue at hand.
If that really is their mission statement it’s not clear to me that they should be a charity at all
Looks like a good cause to me. Certainly beats Eton College on the 'benefiting society' front. Anyway they are, so it's presumably passed the test.
But opinion noted. I'll put you down for zero pounds.
A good cause doesn’t equal a charity.
And Eton does a huge amount outside of the school that it is best known for
I guess 'good' can be subjective other than with slam dunk things like Battersea cats and dogs.
Anycase, regardless of our (unaligned) views both Eton and HNH are charities. They both pass whatever our test is.
On income from donations, you'll be pleased to hear, Eton wins by a factor of ten.
JD Wetherspoon is set to open its first ever pub in London’s Theatreland district, with a new West End mega-boozer taking over part of what was once the Trocadero.
The pub will be known as Piccadilly Hall, named in tribute to the original Piccadilly/Pikadilly Hall – the 17th century mansion that gave its name to Piccadilly Circus. It will open at 30 Shaftesbury Avenue – most recently home to the now-shuttered Coyote Ugly bar.
Emilio Casalicchio @e_casalicchio 🚨 BURNHAM MEDIA HUDDLE
- Suggests social care should be on NHS via a specific "social care levy"
===
Oh dear God.
It's not a bad idea. Brown wanted a National Care Service, and Johnson applied a social care levy. We have fifteen million people scheduled to die in the next fifteen years, and somebody has to look after them. Which will need money.
Oh don't get me wrong - there are huge problems, not least the £ issue and a levy is one possible solution (presumably he is bringing back his old Brownite day's policy of a levy on every estate on death for social) but getting the NHS to run it???!!!! OMG.
JD Wetherspoon is set to open its first ever pub in London’s Theatreland district, with a new West End mega-boozer taking over part of what was once the Trocadero.
The pub will be known as Piccadilly Hall, named in tribute to the original Piccadilly/Pikadilly Hall – the 17th century mansion that gave its name to Piccadilly Circus. It will open at 30 Shaftesbury Avenue – most recently home to the now-shuttered Coyote Ugly bar.
Emilio Casalicchio @e_casalicchio 🚨 BURNHAM MEDIA HUDDLE
- Suggests social care should be on NHS via a specific "social care levy"
===
Oh dear God.
It's not a bad idea. Brown wanted a National Care Service, and Johnson applied a social care levy. We have fifteen million people scheduled to die in the next fifteen years, and somebody has to look after them. Which will need money.
Oh don't get me wrong - there are huge problems, not least the £ issue and a levy is one possible solution (presumably he is bringing back his old Brownite day's policy of a levy on every estate on death for social) but getting the NHS to run it???!!!! OMG.
JD Wetherspoon is set to open its first ever pub in London’s Theatreland district, with a new West End mega-boozer taking over part of what was once the Trocadero.
The pub will be known as Piccadilly Hall, named in tribute to the original Piccadilly/Pikadilly Hall – the 17th century mansion that gave its name to Piccadilly Circus. It will open at 30 Shaftesbury Avenue – most recently home to the now-shuttered Coyote Ugly bar.
Birmingham's claim to be the second city is purely reliant on a quirk of history whereby more of the conurbation is within the boundaries of Birmingham City Council than is the case for Manchester and Manchester City Council.
I grew up in the 1970s and Birmingham then was without question the second city. Undoubtedly there has been unprecedented decline. Earlier in the week I posted a (very biased against Attlee and Wilson) video which explained the Distribution of Industry Act 1945 and the post war plan to curb investment in full- employment Birmingham in favour of areas of industrial decline like the South Wales coalfields, Lowland Scotland , the North East, North West and South and West Yorkshire.
As a Brummie I can cry in my beer that Birmingham is now an undoubted shite hole, but it remains Britain's second city.
Birmingham's problem was that it had too many Tories...
Well that's a problem shared by the nation as a whole for the best part of a century.
JD Wetherspoon is set to open its first ever pub in London’s Theatreland district, with a new West End mega-boozer taking over part of what was once the Trocadero.
The pub will be known as Piccadilly Hall, named in tribute to the original Piccadilly/Pikadilly Hall – the 17th century mansion that gave its name to Piccadilly Circus. It will open at 30 Shaftesbury Avenue – most recently home to the now-shuttered Coyote Ugly bar.
JD Wetherspoon is set to open its first ever pub in London’s Theatreland district, with a new West End mega-boozer taking over part of what was once the Trocadero.
The pub will be known as Piccadilly Hall, named in tribute to the original Piccadilly/Pikadilly Hall – the 17th century mansion that gave its name to Piccadilly Circus. It will open at 30 Shaftesbury Avenue – most recently home to the now-shuttered Coyote Ugly bar.
Emilio Casalicchio @e_casalicchio 🚨 BURNHAM MEDIA HUDDLE
- Suggests social care should be on NHS via a specific "social care levy"
===
Oh dear God.
It's not a bad idea. Brown wanted a National Care Service, and Johnson applied a social care levy. We have fifteen million people scheduled to die in the next fifteen years, and somebody has to look after them. Which will need money.
Oh don't get me wrong - there are huge problems, not least the £ issue and a levy is one possible solution (presumably he is bringing back his old Brownite day's policy of a levy on every estate on death for social) but getting the NHS to run it???!!!! OMG.
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Malmesbury is right. Be careful what you wish for.
I know what I'm wishing for - a brake on Reform's progress before things get out of hand. That said, I can see the point. HNH campaigning for LAB feels wrong to me (whether legal or not). Campaigning *against* REF otoh - that feels ok. More than ok really.
HNH would be a lot more credible if they campaigned against hate on both ends of the horseshoe.
Its often the way with these things. I have been involved in Athena Swann for many years. If you don't know it started out looking at barriers to female success in academia, aiming at things like a culture of working long hours (not conducive to childcare), and many other things (women taking career breaks to look after/raise offspring). Its morphed into a wider look at work culture but all too often its still just about women. I asked a question once about the gender imbalance on the pharmacy course (it heavily skews female) and whether we should be worried or look into the reasons.
Fell on rather stony ground.
Ok but I don't think there's an obligation for campaigning groups to widen their activities beyond what they want to concentrate on.
No, but its the hypocrisy that amuses more, me than anything else.
I don't know about that.
Say I form an org to fight antisemitism. Our mission is to detect, call out and condemn it wherever it rears its head. So we do that with laser focus and we don't comment on any other types of racism.
Is that hypocritical of us? I don't think so.
No. The aim and focus is clearly stated.
But when you state that you are against hate and racism but ignore hate and racism directed at Jews then, yes, people are entitled to call out your hypocrisy and one-eyed approach to your mission.
It says on their website, “At HOPE not hate, our mission is to work tirelessly to expose and oppose far-right extremism.” They report on anti-Semitism by far right extremists
But not, presumably, by Green party members chanting "From the River to the Sea"?
Green Party members are not, usually, far right extremists. HNH have their mission, they carry out their mission. It’s like complaining that the RSPB does nothing for squirrels.
No they’re far left Jew haters now they’ve onboarded lots of the old Labour left.
Oddly enough HNH are less vocal on that.
Excusing HNH simply because you approve of their political target is one take I guess
I am not excusing HNH. What I’m saying is that if you want to support squirrels, don’t give money to the RSPB.
JD Wetherspoon is set to open its first ever pub in London’s Theatreland district, with a new West End mega-boozer taking over part of what was once the Trocadero.
The pub will be known as Piccadilly Hall, named in tribute to the original Piccadilly/Pikadilly Hall – the 17th century mansion that gave its name to Piccadilly Circus. It will open at 30 Shaftesbury Avenue – most recently home to the now-shuttered Coyote Ugly bar.
Spoons has an interesting USP. Their margins are low so they rely on volume sales, oh and dole boys getting pissed at 9 am.
I wouldn’t go into a Wetherspoons if you paid me ! Full of Reform voters !
The £1.43 pint (yes here in London!) is quite a thrill to experience. You feel you're beating the system, being the opposite of a mug. Either that or (equally powerful) you get a sensation of going back in time. It's perhaps this latter that Reform voters go there looking for.
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Really?
“It’s ok. These people are good” is how it starts.
Let that go through and the Peter Thiel funded “Rational Immigration” charity will be campaigning for Restore. On the reopening of Shark Island as a deportation camp for immigrants. With a £50 million budget.
A charity can only campaign (in politics) against what is indisputably bad (like racism). Theil could try that but he'd be struck down imo.
I've had chats with our local HnH bod. Their literature says they campaign against Reform and the Far Right. They know they can't endorse one party for election (and maybe Charity) law reasons, as well as possibly adding an election expense onto a candidate , merely referring voters to the various tactical voting websites. I think someone has worked out the many snags and steered a path through.
Still if ReFuk objects it is up them to start a legal challenge - they should have enough crypto to afford it.
I think they are organised as is common for charities with a subsidiary that *can* campaign. They have Hope not Hate Limited, which is a private company, and HOPE unlimited Charitable Trust.
It's a similar pattern to how charities have commercial companies for their shops.
Except completely different.
I disagree. The comparison is setting up an organisation as allowed by law to meet desired objectives. I've long been critical of the tax advantages afforded charity shops, but that's the law, so I have to accept it.
That they have just come out of a Charity Commission Compliance Enquiry suggests that it is OK under the law as it stands.
The Spectator have been gnawing on this bone for several years, and have not laid much of a finger on them. HNH output is all based on research and data which is published, so if they are incompetent or under-lawyered there is plenty of opportunity to sue. I can understand by those who do not like them for political reasons get frustrated.
Yes, perhaps I should go around calling other posters the c word and discussing things rhyming with booming bangs, but expect to remain un-banned because these actions are committed by my campaigning arm, Luckyguy1983 Ltd., which has absolutely nothing to do with me.
JD Wetherspoon is set to open its first ever pub in London’s Theatreland district, with a new West End mega-boozer taking over part of what was once the Trocadero.
The pub will be known as Piccadilly Hall, named in tribute to the original Piccadilly/Pikadilly Hall – the 17th century mansion that gave its name to Piccadilly Circus. It will open at 30 Shaftesbury Avenue – most recently home to the now-shuttered Coyote Ugly bar.
Spoons has an interesting USP. Their margins are low so they rely on volume sales, oh and dole boys getting pissed at 9 am.
I wouldn’t go into a Wetherspoons if you paid me ! Full of Reform voters !
The £1.43 pint (yes here in London!) is quite a thrill to experience. You feel you're beating the system, being the opposite of a mug. Either that or (equally powerful) a sensation of going back in time. It's perhaps this latter that Reform voters go there looking for.
It's the MVP of pubs. Bit like Wizz Air - they don't pretend to give you other than a chair and get your Gdansk in a couple of hours.
The reason that people go there, is low cost. Too many, the pub has moved out of the casual "lets have a drink, on the spur of the moment" thing - and become the "expensive, planned outing".
If Burnham wants the NHS to run social care he will have to nationalise 1000s of small care agencies.
Not necessarily. Those agencies could contract to supply services, as do doctors, pharmacists, dentists and opticians.
He could set up a nationalised governing body that acts as an umbrella standardisng care, boosting skills and qualifications and crucially purchasing in bulk to save costs.
JD Wetherspoon is set to open its first ever pub in London’s Theatreland district, with a new West End mega-boozer taking over part of what was once the Trocadero.
The pub will be known as Piccadilly Hall, named in tribute to the original Piccadilly/Pikadilly Hall – the 17th century mansion that gave its name to Piccadilly Circus. It will open at 30 Shaftesbury Avenue – most recently home to the now-shuttered Coyote Ugly bar.
Spoons has an interesting USP. Their margins are low so they rely on volume sales, oh and dole boys getting pissed at 9 am.
I wouldn’t go into a Wetherspoons if you paid me ! Full of Reform voters !
The £1.43 pint (yes here in London!) is quite a thrill to experience. You feel you're beating the system, being the opposite of a mug. Either that or (equally powerful) a sensation of going back in time. It's perhaps this latter that Reform voters go there looking for.
It's the MVP of pubs. Bit like Wizz Air - they don't pretend to give you other than a chair and get your Gdansk in a couple of hours.
The reason that people go there, is low cost. Too many, the pub has moved out of the casual "lets have a drink, on the spur of the moment" thing - and become the "expensive, planned outing".
I actually like Spoons. It's great to have a few (perfectly decent) pints and change from a tenner. My nearest one is a nice place too. There's nothing grotty about it.
JD Wetherspoon is set to open its first ever pub in London’s Theatreland district, with a new West End mega-boozer taking over part of what was once the Trocadero.
The pub will be known as Piccadilly Hall, named in tribute to the original Piccadilly/Pikadilly Hall – the 17th century mansion that gave its name to Piccadilly Circus. It will open at 30 Shaftesbury Avenue – most recently home to the now-shuttered Coyote Ugly bar.
Oooohhhh... that's only about eight minutes walk from my apartment. And it'll be better than the Sam Smiths pubs that dominate the area.
I love Sam Smith beer!!!
Are their pubs rubbish then these days?
I think they're excellent (Angel in the Fields at Marylebone is a particular favourite). They're not great for wine drinkers though: the choice is generic red, white or rose - and no fizz.
Birmingham's claim to be the second city is purely reliant on a quirk of history whereby more of the conurbation is within the boundaries of Birmingham City Council than is the case for Manchester and Manchester City Council.
I grew up in the 1970s and Birmingham then was without question the second city. Undoubtedly there has been unprecedented decline. Earlier in the week I posted a (very biased against Attlee and Wilson) video which explained the Distribution of Industry Act 1945 and the post war plan to curb investment in full- employment Birmingham in favour of areas of industrial decline like the South Wales coalfields, Lowland Scotland , the North East, North West and South and West Yorkshire.
As a Brummie I can cry in my beer that Birmingham is now an undoubted shite hole, but it remains Britain's second city.
Birmingham's problem was that it had too many Tories...
Birmingham was very much a city built by one nation Tories like the Chamberlain family. With hindsight the Distribution of Industry Act didn't work for Birmingham although I work on the premise that the idea was Birmingham was self sufficient and could look after itself. I don't think there is necessarily a partisan argument that either Labour or Conservatives killed Birmingham, but if you pushed me I would point out Thatcher's deregulation of the City in 1986 and the subsequent unfettered access for foreign companies to own UK assets didn't help.
Birmingham was a mish mash
The outstanding Quaker led Cadbury family a unique example.
A visit to Bournville village and the museum a real eye opener.
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Really?
“It’s ok. These people are good” is how it starts.
Let that go through and the Peter Thiel funded “Rational Immigration” charity will be campaigning for Restore. On the reopening of Shark Island as a deportation camp for immigrants. With a £50 million budget.
A charity can only campaign (in politics) against what is indisputably bad (like racism). Theil could try that but he'd be struck down imo.
I've had chats with our local HnH bod. Their literature says they campaign against Reform and the Far Right. They know they can't endorse one party for election (and maybe Charity) law reasons, as well as possibly adding an election expense onto a candidate , merely referring voters to the various tactical voting websites. I think someone has worked out the many snags and steered a path through.
Still if ReFuk objects it is up them to start a legal challenge - they should have enough crypto to afford it.
Yes that's what I was thinking. Against *that* (and therefore them) not for Lab or Con or LD etc. It's another Reform whinge basically. They're always at it.
The letter being shared on social media from Hope not Hate isn't that though. It explicitly says its a two horse race between Labour and Reform UK, only Andy Burnham for Labour can do this, that and the other "good" things, Reform will do all these "bad" things. Their "get out" I guess, is it doesn't say vote Andy Burnham, it says vote for positive change, don't vote for Reform, but the only positive change being described is Andy Burnham.
If this is the line we are allowing to be trend, that is getting very close to American PAC type activity before the Citizen United case blew up in the face of those who brought it. The Citizen United cased did the opposite of what the people bringing it wanted, they already thought the sort of thing Hope Not Hate letter did was over the line, where in the US you could have similar organisations on the left and right say there is this big issue in this election, candidate A stands for it, yeahhhhhh, candidate B stands against it, boooooo, but never said "Vote Candidate A", but just to make clear Candidate B is really bad.
HNH's mission statement is to combat the organised far right in all its forms, the policies that give succour to it, in the places most susceptible.
Hence the letter. Ok, so Reform don't like it. That's understandable. But, you know, diddums. If it's illegal they know what to do. I doubt it is but of course I could be wrong. In any case it's hardly one step away from superPACs.
Tbh I rarely see merit in 'slippery slope' arguments. In my experience it's often a technique employed to mask partisanship on the issue at hand.
If that really is their mission statement it’s not clear to me that they should be a charity at all
I don't think that is the mission statement of the Charitable Trust.
Hope not Hate limited isn't a charity, so the entire thread has set off on a false premise. There is a linked charitable arm but that doesn't campaign
JD Wetherspoon is set to open its first ever pub in London’s Theatreland district, with a new West End mega-boozer taking over part of what was once the Trocadero.
The pub will be known as Piccadilly Hall, named in tribute to the original Piccadilly/Pikadilly Hall – the 17th century mansion that gave its name to Piccadilly Circus. It will open at 30 Shaftesbury Avenue – most recently home to the now-shuttered Coyote Ugly bar.
Spoons has an interesting USP. Their margins are low so they rely on volume sales, oh and dole boys getting pissed at 9 am.
I wouldn’t go into a Wetherspoons if you paid me ! Full of Reform voters !
The £1.43 pint (yes here in London!) is quite a thrill to experience. You feel you're beating the system, being the opposite of a mug. Either that or (equally powerful) a sensation of going back in time. It's perhaps this latter that Reform voters go there looking for.
It's the MVP of pubs. Bit like Wizz Air - they don't pretend to give you other than a chair and get your Gdansk in a couple of hours.
The reason that people go there, is low cost. Too many, the pub has moved out of the casual "lets have a drink, on the spur of the moment" thing - and become the "expensive, planned outing".
I actually like Spoons. It's great to have a few (perfectly decent) pints and change from a tenner. My nearest one is a nice place too. There's nothing grotty about it.
The City ones are getting more and more popular. The other places seem to be chasing madder and madder pricing.
JD Wetherspoon is set to open its first ever pub in London’s Theatreland district, with a new West End mega-boozer taking over part of what was once the Trocadero.
The pub will be known as Piccadilly Hall, named in tribute to the original Piccadilly/Pikadilly Hall – the 17th century mansion that gave its name to Piccadilly Circus. It will open at 30 Shaftesbury Avenue – most recently home to the now-shuttered Coyote Ugly bar.
Oooohhhh... that's only about eight minutes walk from my apartment. And it'll be better than the Sam Smiths pubs that dominate the area.
I love Sam Smith beer!!!
Are their pubs rubbish then these days?
I think they're great (Angel in the Fields at Marylebone is a particular favourite). They're not great for wine drinkers though: the choice is generic red, white or rose - and no fizz.
Each to their own, but IMO their offering is unpalatable filth not fit for human consumption. That they removed branding from their pubs to catch out the unwary suggests I'm not alone in that view.
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Really?
“It’s ok. These people are good” is how it starts.
Let that go through and the Peter Thiel funded “Rational Immigration” charity will be campaigning for Restore. On the reopening of Shark Island as a deportation camp for immigrants. With a £50 million budget.
A charity can only campaign (in politics) against what is indisputably bad (like racism). Theil could try that but he'd be struck down imo.
I've had chats with our local HnH bod. Their literature says they campaign against Reform and the Far Right. They know they can't endorse one party for election (and maybe Charity) law reasons, as well as possibly adding an election expense onto a candidate , merely referring voters to the various tactical voting websites. I think someone has worked out the many snags and steered a path through.
Still if ReFuk objects it is up them to start a legal challenge - they should have enough crypto to afford it.
I think they are organised as is common for charities with a subsidiary that *can* campaign. They have Hope not Hate Limited, which is a private company, and HOPE unlimited Charitable Trust.
It's a similar pattern to how charities have commercial companies for their shops.
Except completely different.
I disagree. The comparison is setting up an organisation as allowed by law to meet desired objectives. I've long been critical of the tax advantages afforded charity shops, but that's the law, so I have to accept it.
That they have just come out of a Charity Commission Compliance Enquiry suggests that it is OK under the law as it stands.
The Spectator have been gnawing on this bone for several years, and have not laid much of a finger on them. HNH output is all based on research and data which is published, so if they are incompetent or under-lawyered there is plenty of opportunity to sue. I can understand by those who do not like them for political reasons get frustrated.
Yes, perhaps I should go around calling other posters the c word and discussing things rhyming with booming bangs, but expect to remain un-banned because these actions are committed by my campaigning arm, Luckyguy1983 Ltd., which has absolutely nothing to do with me.
Just to be clear are you saying that you are against Hope Not Hate because they have campaigned against the BNP and far-right organisations?
There are some reports on Twitter that a charity may possibly have been campaigning for Andy Burnham, which apparently is illegal.
It will be interesting if there are legal issues with it as the same organisation has been active in many election campaigns.
Which charity?
Hope not Hate.
Well there you go. That's on-mission and intra-vires.
The last thing we need is charities getting into political campaigning.
That will turn into an ocean of soft money, American style, used to buy elections.
£5 million bungs is bad enough. And that needs treading on. Otherwise, the next one will be £50 million and buy an election outright.
Hope Not Hate though - they have to campaign against the Ghastlies. Special case.
Really?
“It’s ok. These people are good” is how it starts.
Let that go through and the Peter Thiel funded “Rational Immigration” charity will be campaigning for Restore. On the reopening of Shark Island as a deportation camp for immigrants. With a £50 million budget.
A charity can only campaign (in politics) against what is indisputably bad (like racism). Theil could try that but he'd be struck down imo.
I've had chats with our local HnH bod. Their literature says they campaign against Reform and the Far Right. They know they can't endorse one party for election (and maybe Charity) law reasons, as well as possibly adding an election expense onto a candidate , merely referring voters to the various tactical voting websites. I think someone has worked out the many snags and steered a path through.
Still if ReFuk objects it is up them to start a legal challenge - they should have enough crypto to afford it.
Yes that's what I was thinking. Against *that* (and therefore them) not for Lab or Con or LD etc. It's another Reform whinge basically. They're always at it.
The letter being shared on social media from Hope not Hate isn't that though. It explicitly says its a two horse race between Labour and Reform UK, only Andy Burnham for Labour can do this, that and the other "good" things, Reform will do all these "bad" things. Their "get out" I guess, is it doesn't say vote Andy Burnham, it says vote for positive change, don't vote for Reform, but the only positive change being described is Andy Burnham.
If this is the line we are allowing to be trend, that is getting very close to American PAC type activity before the Citizen United case blew up in the face of those who brought it. The Citizen United cased did the opposite of what the people bringing it wanted, they already thought the sort of thing Hope Not Hate letter did was over the line, where in the US you could have similar organisations on the left and right say there is this big issue in this election, candidate A stands for it, yeahhhhhh, candidate B stands against it, boooooo, but never said "Vote Candidate A", but just to make clear Candidate B is really bad.
HNH's mission statement is to combat the organised far right in all its forms, the policies that give succour to it, in the places most susceptible.
Hence the letter. Ok, so Reform don't like it. That's understandable. But, you know, diddums. If it's illegal they know what to do. I doubt it is but of course I could be wrong. In any case it's hardly one step away from superPACs.
Tbh I rarely see merit in 'slippery slope' arguments. In my experience it's often a technique employed to mask partisanship on the issue at hand.
If that really is their mission statement it’s not clear to me that they should be a charity at all
I don't think that is the mission statement of the Charitable Trust.
Hope not Hate limited isn't a charity, so the entire thread has set off on a false premise. There is a linked charitable arm but that doesn't campaign
And it's not true to say they only campaign against racism from the right. They were also vocal in calling out Corbynite antisemitism.
JD Wetherspoon is set to open its first ever pub in London’s Theatreland district, with a new West End mega-boozer taking over part of what was once the Trocadero.
The pub will be known as Piccadilly Hall, named in tribute to the original Piccadilly/Pikadilly Hall – the 17th century mansion that gave its name to Piccadilly Circus. It will open at 30 Shaftesbury Avenue – most recently home to the now-shuttered Coyote Ugly bar.
Spoons has an interesting USP. Their margins are low so they rely on volume sales, oh and dole boys getting pissed at 9 am.
I wouldn’t go into a Wetherspoons if you paid me ! Full of Reform voters !
The £1.43 pint (yes here in London!) is quite a thrill to experience. You feel you're beating the system, being the opposite of a mug. Either that or (equally powerful) you get a sensation of going back in time. It's perhaps this latter that Reform voters go there looking for.
The young people love Spoons because it's cheap. My daughter is aways in the Brockley Barge when she's back from Uni.
JD Wetherspoon is set to open its first ever pub in London’s Theatreland district, with a new West End mega-boozer taking over part of what was once the Trocadero.
The pub will be known as Piccadilly Hall, named in tribute to the original Piccadilly/Pikadilly Hall – the 17th century mansion that gave its name to Piccadilly Circus. It will open at 30 Shaftesbury Avenue – most recently home to the now-shuttered Coyote Ugly bar.
Spoons has an interesting USP. Their margins are low so they rely on volume sales, oh and dole boys getting pissed at 9 am.
I wouldn’t go into a Wetherspoons if you paid me ! Full of Reform voters !
The £1.43 pint (yes here in London!) is quite a thrill to experience. You feel you're beating the system, being the opposite of a mug. Either that or (equally powerful) a sensation of going back in time. It's perhaps this latter that Reform voters go there looking for.
It's the MVP of pubs. Bit like Wizz Air - they don't pretend to give you other than a chair and get your Gdansk in a couple of hours.
The reason that people go there, is low cost. Too many, the pub has moved out of the casual "lets have a drink, on the spur of the moment" thing - and become the "expensive, planned outing".
I actually like Spoons. It's great to have a few (perfectly decent) pints and change from a tenner. My nearest one is a nice place too. There's nothing grotty about it.
The City ones are getting more and more popular. The other places seem to be chasing madder and madder pricing.
I like visiting the Crosse Keys whenever I'm near Bank station.
Alex Wickham @alexwickham · 1h And another: Burnham has today committed to Labour’s manifesto pledges on tax (after failing to do so mid-week). That means he cannot raise the top rate of income tax as he proposed at conference
I wouldn’t be surprised if he still raised the additional rate of income tax to 50% given it only affects a few rich people who mainly won’t vote for him. In economic terms though it won’t help
JD Wetherspoon is set to open its first ever pub in London’s Theatreland district, with a new West End mega-boozer taking over part of what was once the Trocadero.
The pub will be known as Piccadilly Hall, named in tribute to the original Piccadilly/Pikadilly Hall – the 17th century mansion that gave its name to Piccadilly Circus. It will open at 30 Shaftesbury Avenue – most recently home to the now-shuttered Coyote Ugly bar.
Comments
Madness for UK plc.
City of Westminster is #1 and City of London #2
Also find out the buildings are all listed before you agree to buy it.
Hit them in the wallet.
Perhaps I should donate.
With Councillors their vetting process has proved not to be up to scratch in some places.
I do not expect it though - they would surely have had a runner-up in the selection.
Anyway, let's not even contemplate that. Andy's here now.
Fields medalist Tim Gowers, writing in the companion paper, calls the result “a milestone in AI mathematics.” According to leading number theorist Arul Shankar, “In my opinion this paper demonstrates that current AI models go beyond just helpers to human mathematicians – they are capable of having original ingenious ideas, and then carrying them out to fruition”."
https://openai.com/index/model-disproves-discrete-geometry-conjecture/
I’m guess “nothing but may be the government will give us more money if we complain loudly”
But opinion noted. I'll put you down for zero pounds.
Obviously, I'm in favour of charities going after the various flavours of racists.
Equally, the Electoral Commission needs to keep a line between charitable activity in the political sphere and political campaigning. Otherwise we will be up to our ears in
crusty jugglerssoft money, before you can say "BNP scum".I really don't want the world where a "charity" funded by Peter Thiel etc can dump a zillion quid in a UK election.
I don't see the harm in Mrs Badenoch. I wouldn't vote for her, and she doesn't appear to be the sharpest tool in the box, but save for her ludicrous Reform-style rhetoric, she seems relatively harmless and unlikely to ever seen high office anyway.
And Eton does a huge amount outside of the school that it is best known for
A Swastika is fine on Essex County Hall, but not on a Nazi flag !
*Listed buildings in the UK - two choices. Endless fun for someone who likes doing building work themselves, slowly over decades and a side order of paperwork. Or a nightmare for everyone else. So, if you are an Angry Man With Bike Clips On Your Corduroys (and love DIY legal stuff), do your own building work and have infinite time, have at it.
The Washington Post just published an article on 2025 baby names in DC: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2026/05/22/what-dc-top-baby-name-picks-reveal-about-nation-capital/
This finding surprised me: Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't some of those names be familiar to those who know more about the history of the British monarchy than I do?
Some background: (This shouldn't have surprised me, but it did: There are now professional baby name consultants.)
That they have just come out of a Charity Commission Compliance Enquiry suggests that it is OK under the law as it stands.
The Spectator have been gnawing on this bone for several years, and have not laid much of a finger on them. HNH output is all based on research and data which is published, so if they are incompetent or under-lawyered there is plenty of opportunity to sue. I can understand by those who do not like them for political reasons get frustrated.
https://www.nottingham.edu.cn/en/index.aspx
They are also in Malaysia.
As a Brummie I can cry in my beer that Birmingham is now an undoubted shite hole, but it remains Britain's second city.
Some background: (This shouldn't have surprised me, but it did: There are now professional baby name consultants.)
No Donald's. Although maybe 2025 was a bit early.
Some background: (This shouldn't have surprised me, but it did: There are now professional baby name consultants.)
---------------
Borked. My reply:
Won't that mainly be inherited from Presidents and American Heroes?
Noah is evangelicals liking Old Testament names, some recycled from tradition - that's also in the UK, including names such as Caleb.
A quick Claude count says that list of names accounts for just under 40% of the 47 US Presidents.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjdp9zjdj0mo
Must be time for the annual stories of "but who wil pick the strawberries".....
I may be getting a glamourous trip next March to lecture down there in the deep South...
Maybe we should setup a charity to give the Charity Commission a kick as well?
Emilio Casalicchio
@e_casalicchio
🚨 BURNHAM MEDIA HUDDLE
- Suggests social care should be on NHS via a specific "social care levy"
===
Oh dear God.
TBH, I'm not surprised. Mrs C is a very low taxpayer..... her pension is such that some years she pays tax and some years she doesn't, depending on the allowance level ..... so I've counselled her never to Gift Aid anything as we don't want the Revenue taking an interest in our affairs.
Not, of course because we've anything to hide, but because of the cost, in time and aggravation, of dealing with HMRC.
https://x.com/alexwickham/status/2057824897028567292?s=20
I feel like there will be U-Turns on the U-Turns in the near future.
JD Wetherspoon is set to open its first ever pub in London’s Theatreland district, with a new West End mega-boozer taking over part of what was once the Trocadero.
The pub will be known as Piccadilly Hall, named in tribute to the original Piccadilly/Pikadilly Hall – the 17th century mansion that gave its name to Piccadilly Circus. It will open at 30 Shaftesbury Avenue – most recently home to the now-shuttered Coyote Ugly bar.
https://www.timeout.com/london/news/londons-iconic-trocadero-is-being-turned-into-one-of-the-citys-biggest-wetherspoons-pubs-052126
That's insane.
@alexwickham
·
1h
And another: Burnham has today committed to Labour’s manifesto pledges on tax (after failing to do so mid-week). That means he cannot raise the top rate of income tax as he proposed at conference
@alexwickham
·
1h
And another: Burnham has today committed to Labour’s manifesto pledges on tax (after failing to do so mid-week). That means he cannot raise the top rate of income tax as he proposed at conference
Are their pubs rubbish then these days?
Anycase, regardless of our (unaligned) views both Eton and HNH are charities. They both pass whatever our test is.
On income from donations, you'll be pleased to hear, Eton wins by a factor of ten.
Give me a whisky now.
Especially if they keep the prices in line with their other places - that area is rip-off central
Not necessarily. Those agencies could contract to supply services, as do doctors, pharmacists, dentists and opticians.
The reason that people go there, is low cost. Too many, the pub has moved out of the casual "lets have a drink, on the spur of the moment" thing - and become the "expensive, planned outing".
There are deep dark undertones though of extremes of right and left doing this sort of thing
It starts as an invasion of a few dozen and selected extreme view journalists and then mushrooms in to dictatorship and intimidation.
I've heard Harwood and Calgie were involved.
Utter scum
The outstanding Quaker led Cadbury family a unique example.
A visit to Bournville village and the museum a real eye opener.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy2x7wxjego
There is a linked charitable arm but that doesn't campaign