This week Hope Not Hate Limited (the private company) released its 'State of Hate' report for 2026. When I had a nose into the latest activities of the organisation, I was surprised to discover that it had changed the name of its charitable arm from Hope Not Hate Charitable Trust to HOPE Unlimited Charitable Trust. It’s not particularly obvious to me why this was necessary – and having delved further, I think this move raises more questions than it answers, especially about the useless Charity Commission for England and Wales.
The name-change followed the Charity Commission’s review into Hope Not Hate Charitable Trust following “repeated complaints across several years that it was not clear if the activities of Hope Not Hate Limited, a separate, non-charitable organisation, were connected to and/or endorsed by the charity”. The review concluded in January, with the Commission left satisfied that the trust had addressed concerns (an extraordinarily stupid conclusion, as you will soon see).
To add a bit of background: although charities are allowed to “engage in political activity”, they are not meant to be party-political, something Hope Not Hate Limited has often been, targeting the likes of Reform and Susan Hall, the Conservative candidate for the Mayor of London in 2024:
Hope Not Hate has been able to bypass charity rules on party politics by splitting into a private and charitable arm. The private arm receives funding from the charitable arm, which has received handsome grants from The Barrow Cadbury Trust,
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
It’s Hope not Hate that impeded the launch of GBNews, immediately contacting advertising agencies & persuading them to pull adverts for well-known brands. It continues to do so.
That sort of activity should be made illegal,IMHO.
It may be possible for an organisation such as the Free Speech Union, which would arguably have standing, to apply to a court for a declaration that the commission got it wrong and should have found hnh is not charitable.
Cafod (Catholic Agency for Overseas Development), a charity, has these and many more on their website:
https://cafod.org.uk/news/campaigning-news/rishi-sunak-offered-maths-lesson-on-climate-finance-pledge
https://cafod.org.uk/news/campaigning-news/fossil-fuel-companies-climate-emergency-blue-plaques
https://cafod.org.uk/news/campaigning-news/prayers-for-tomorrow-delivered-to-downing-street
I recognise that Cafod is possibly less politically partizan than HNH but it has definitely drunk the Climate Alarmism Kool-Aid.
As an agency for overseas development it is remarkably reluctant to help poor countries to develop to enjoy the same standards we used to enjoy in the developed world.
Their recent appeal in Church mentioned supporting a Bangladeshi farmer who now has a floating ‘garden’ (I believe they mean small farm) which can ride out the regular floods and continue to provide produce. Clever, but hardly a solution to Bangladesh’s national problems.
I have not supported Cafod for a few years now.
Tommy R’s investigation into this vile mob
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jba6E4qoKyM
The Charity Commission is another Quango which will require Reform’s urgent attention.
Indeed
Milei closed more than half the federal government ministries – easier though as there will be equivalents at state level
The problem for the haters is that their votes are splitting and their enemy is no longer RUK but the Greens and various ethic sects.
That goes on throughout the leftist “charity” sector.
A further question arises for the Electoral Commission. If the non charity arm engages in political campaigning related to candidates and parties or party contentious policies then it should be registered. It should report sources of campaign finance and its spending.
ElCom seems slow to pursue leftist campaigners.
A further issue arises in respect of their staff. If they are allowed (encouraged?) to take part in election campaigns there should be clear transparency. If the staff campaign outside working hours and do not represent themselves as being from the organisation then OK but otherwise there seems to be in-kind donations to the party or candidate.
MPs’ staff and civil servants etc ditto.
An organisation meant to be a gamekeeper but staffed by poachers perhaps?
Abolish charitable status and with it the Charity Commission. That will save us £32.35 million a year (last available annual budget figures). They are overseen by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, whose department has this as a budget: £1.6 billion (current) and £1.1 billion (capital) for 2023–24 (planned). That can go too. Afuera!
Javier Milei “Afuera” Ministries Have to Go
Afuera indeed. But it may not be ‘outside’ far enough if some QUANGO or NGO or ‘industry body’ lives on with ‘inherited’ staff. The Commission needs to be razed to the ground and sown with salt.
Once the funding is pulled they are more than welcome to see if someone wants to pay for this kind of stuff with their own money.
Looking at the list of the usual Far Left suspects, then I presume they would fund them anyway.