The Green Party supports Scottish and Welsh independence, so parties opposed to the existence of the United Kingdom represent all four parts of it in the House of Commons while providing the First Ministers of all three parts that had them. Sinn Féin has never condemned the IRA, any more than the DUP has ever condemned Ulster Resistance, which has never declared a ceasefire. Or any more than Likud has ever condemned the Irgun, the Lehi or the Haganah.
53 seats for the bloc led by Benjamin Netanyahu, much of which would, or at least should, be unconscionable on the part even of Israel’s rightist partisans in the West, never mind its centrist ones. 48 seats for the bloc led by Gadi Eisenkot, which those liberals ought to consider contained Yisrael Beiteinu. Would or should their own parties allow membership to be retained by anyone who had gone into so much as a municipal coalition with anything remotely comparable to that? And 19 seats for the Arab-led parties, which are as diverse as the rest, since there are 2.1 million Arabs in Israel, as many as the population of Slovenia, Saxony-Anhalt or Thuringia, and more than the population of each of a further 11 European countries, of each of a further four German Länder, or of Northern Ireland.
Yet unlike in 2021, a ring of fire must surround those parties, a change comparable to the removal of Coloureds from the common electoral role in the Cape in 1956 and then from the electorate altogether in 1968. Apartheid South Africa lasted 48 years, and Coloureds had the vote for the first 20 and the last 10 of them, with Indians also enfranchised in that final decade. But it was still apartheid. As is this, since United Torah Judaism is non-Zionist. It is not anti-Zionist like Neturei Karta or Satmar, but since those prove their point by boycotting even so much as voting for the Knesset, then nor is Balad, Hadash, Ra’am or Ta’al. What UTJ is, though, is Jewish, and that makes all the difference. So yes, apartheid. Even in The New Yorker, Ruth Margalit has noticed:
As the projected results of Israel’s elections were announced on Tuesday night, the atmosphere in Tel Aviv was oddly quiet. In Habima Square, which has hosted raucous anti-government protests in the past three years, only a trickle of people showed up. Some waved the Israeli flag, colored pink to signify resistance; others walked around in a daze. No one seemed to know whether to celebrate or weep.
Here’s what the results showed: A decisive majority of Israelis rejected the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. His coalition of far-right and ultra-Orthodox partners went into the election with sixty-eight seats, out of a hundred and twenty; it is projected to emerge with fifty-three—eight seats short of what Netanyahu needs to form a majority government.
Palestinian citizens of Israel voted in unprecedented numbers, with a turnout rate estimated as high as eighty per cent. Predominantly Arab parties are projected to have almost doubled their representation in the Knesset, from ten to nineteen seats. It’s not hard to imagine that the current political climate would discourage Palestinian Israelis from voting: the national-security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, openly regards them as enemies; gangs of Jewish settlers act with impunity in the West Bank; Gaza has been almost completely destroyed. Instead, their outrage seemed to have served as an extraordinary mobilizer. Many of them were reportedly inspired to vote by Ben-Gvir’s claim that he would demand the defense ministry in the next government.
But the results also show that Netanyahu’s Likud Party maintained its dominance. His main challenger, Gadi Eisenkot, fell well short of the results that most polls predicted. Eisenkot’s party, Yashar, is projected to have twenty-one seats—a decent showing for a new party, but not a groundswell by any measure. If you combine the Jewish parties and the Arab parties in the anti-Netanyahu bloc, they secured more votes. But the pro-Netanyahu bloc won more votes from Jewish Israelis. Many will view this as the election’s bottom line: that a “Zionist majority” is the only one that counts. (What they mean is a Jewish majority. The ultra-Orthodox parties are openly anti-Zionist.) Eisenkot himself seems to have adopted a similar framework when the exit polls were first released. “Netanyahu finds himself tonight facing a larger and stronger Zionist majority,” he said.
“It is disappointing, but comes as no surprise,” Noa Landau wrote in the left-leaning newspaper Haaretz, to see how Eisenkot “framed the election results in the form of a ‘Zionist’ majority for a government led by him and fell precisely—and I mean, precisely––into the trap Netanyahu laid for him.” Under the Israeli electoral system, the next step is for the country’s President, Isaac Herzog, to ask party leaders which candidate they recommend for Prime Minister. That candidate then has roughly a month to form a majority. As things stand, it is unclear whether that task will fall to Netanyahu, the leader of the largest party, or Eisenkot, who could become the leader of the largest bloc of parties. But Eisenkot would need support from Arab parties to form a coalition, and he spent his campaign equivocating on whether he would be willing to do so; some of his partners in the opposition have flatly rejected the idea.
That leaves Netanyahu. His campaign strategy in the days before the election seemed to rely on scaring the Israeli public into voting for him. In a series of interviews, Netanyahu acknowledged that the multi-billion-dollar annual defense package that the U.S. gives Israel “is over.” He added that crippling international sanctions were inevitable, so the country should be prepared to “circumvent” them by turning to cryptocurrency. (He seemed to regard his government’s policy of expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank, which has already triggered sanctions from eleven European countries, as irreversible.) The comments rattled markets and scandalized experts. “All he has to offer the Israeli economy is a bizarre solution that is common among criminal organizations,” a scathing letter signed by more than a hundred Israeli economists concluded.
Netanyahu will now do everything in his power to peel lawmakers away from the opposition to cobble together a majority. It won’t be easy. Although some opposition leaders vowed not to sit in a coalition with Arab parties, all of them vowed not to join one headed by Netanyahu. This is the deadlock that many Israelis feared going into the election. It means that the country will now face weeks or months of coalition wrangling, of raw nerves and bitter infighting—only to risk ending up in the same impasse.
Once those negotiations are exhausted, there are two likely scenarios. There will be enormous pressure from within Israel and from abroad to form some sort of national-unity government, headed by both Netanyahu and Eisenkot. Trump indicated as much, when unnamed U.S. sources told Israeli media that he wants to “make sure” that the next government does not include Ben-Gvir. On Wednesday, the popular Israeli news site Ynet laid out a possible framework for such a government. It would include Netanyahu, Eisenkot, and Naftali Bennett—a former Prime Minister who is now in the opposition. The article suggested that the three would each take a turn serving as Prime Minister, in alignment with “Trump’s vision.”
For Netanyahu, though, breaking away from his longtime ultra-Orthodox partners could spell the beginning of his political end. (The last time he turned his back on them, in 2013, his coalition splintered after less than two years.) Eisenkot and Bennett also seem unlikely to agree to a unity government anytime soon. Not only did they promise voters that they would not join forces with Netanyahu—they also personally believe that he represents an active danger to democracy. “I know Netanyahu,” Eisenkot said on a recent campaign stop, in Tel Aviv. “He’ll stop at nothing” to remain in power. Bennett, for his part, has called recent allegations that Netanyahu’s aides served as influence agents for Qatar the “most serious act of treason” in the country’s history. Yet they might reconsider if Israel seemed headed toward another imminent escalation with Iran. On Wednesday, The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. and Israel were preparing for a possible round of strikes on Iran after the American midterms.
The other scenario is that the results will be so inconclusive that, in a few months, Israelis will be sent to the ballot box again. It wouldn’t be the first time. Between 2019 and 2021, there were four rounds of elections in just two years, and the government that was ultimately sworn in dissolved within eighteen months. Netanyahu may well be counting on a repeat election. He knows that Israelis living abroad, an estimated sixty-seven thousand of whom showed up to vote in this week’s elections, are unlikely to make another trip in a few short months. And Arab Israelis are unlikely to repeat their historic turnout if they conclude that it did nothing to improve their standing. In that scenario, Netanyahu would not only stay in office, as the leader of a caretaker government; he could emerge from the next election with a wider lead and a solidified base of support. Eisenkot is clearly aware of that risk. Early on Wednesday, he said that, after an election “with such high turnout,” it would be “a mistake” to call another.
And so, in opposition circles and in online forums, momentum began gathering around a simple argument. The anti-Netanyahu bloc, along with the Arab parties, will have a decisive majority in the next parliament. Why not use it? “We can no longer accept Netanyahu’s racist division between Jewish votes and Arab votes,” Yair Golan, who heads a left-wing opposition party called the Democrats, wrote as results filtered in. Golan is the only Jewish party leader who had stated that he would happily join a coalition with an Arab party. He added, “The vote of an Israeli citizen voting in Tira”—an Arab city—“is worth exactly the same as that of an Israeli citizen voting in Givat Shmuel”—a Jewish city. Historically, it’s not only that Arab parties were excluded from coalition negotiations. They themselves refused to participate, so as not to be seen as aiding the Zionist project. That changed in 2021, when Mansour Abbas, the head of an Islamist party called Ra’am, joined Bennett’s short-lived government.
Amit Segal, a political commentator for Channel 12 who is deeply influential on the right, on Tuesday tried to brush off Arab voters’ electoral potential. “The Israeli government will not sing ‘Biladi, Biladi,’ ” he said, referring to the Egyptian national anthem, which one Arab-majority alliance had reportedly sung as returns came in. The Arab Israeli vote is largely divided between two parties: the Joint List, an alliance of factions which is projected to have twelve seats, and Ra’am, which is projected to have seven. Abbas had already proved willing to be an active member in a coalition government. Yousef Jabareen, the leader of the Joint List, expressed the same willingness on Wednesday. Jabareen said that he was prepared to “leverage our political power to advance the values we believe in.” He put forth a stark choice before the Israeli people. “It is either continued racism, continued exclusion, and continued supremacy, or genuine Jewish-Arab partnership,” he said. “We will be ready to pave the way to topple the government of Netanyahu, Ben Gvir, and Smotrich—and send them home.”
Craig Murray is at the very least more right than wrong:
Netanyahu is seeking to build a new coalition with Jewish “opposition” parties to ensure the continued exclusion of Arabs from government in Israel. It will be a long and convoluted process but I expect he will eventually succeed. In the meantime he remains in power. Next week Trump will lose control of both Houses in Washington and face challenges to his executive power. Both Trump and Netanyahu will need a new war emergency to strengthen their domestic position. I shall therefore be surprised if there is not a major US/Israeli assault on Iran by mid November, to destroy Iran’s non-existent nuclear weapons (as opposed to Israel’s real ones).
This will have disastrous consequences for everybody involved. If Trumpenyahu seeks actually to topple the Iranian government it is going to require unprecedented levels of force, such as an invasion of many hundreds of thousands of ground troops or the deployment of a nuclear weapon. Merely resuming the murderous conventional bombing will have no more result that it did before. A spectacular event might be attempted such as the destruction of the oil facilities on Kharg Island, but the environmental consequences would be enormous and choke the Gulf States, while Iran’s retaliation would be massive and the economic impacts unquantifiable.
Trump and his circle have already seen the potential for vast fortunes to be made by insider trading and futures speculation in the on/off attacks on Iran we saw previously, but a return to limited and sporadic violence is not going to meet the scale of Trump and Netanyahu’s political necessity. Personally, I have applied to go to Iran in early November to be able to report truthfully on the country and on what happens, as any attack will be accompanied by a major wave of anti-Iranian propaganda. I appreciate that this is dangerous, but I have a compulsive belief that those of us who see how dark the world is turning have a duty to stand up against invigorated western Imperialism, which currently threatens a multi-front war that could blossom into World War III.
It is extraordinary that zionists are claiming that, as Arab Israelis can vote, the Israeli elections disprove apartheid. The entire political discussion in Israel centres on how to form a coalition while keeping Arabs out of government. In the entire history of Israel there have only been 2 Arab Muslim cabinet ministers. Both were very short term and both were token “Minister Without Portfolio” – meaning they had no power over anything and crucially had zero Jewish personnel under them. The notion of any Arab Israeli ever instructing a Jewish Israeli is anathema to the racist mindset. That is, if you are interested, 00.8% of all full ministers in the history of Israel have been Muslim Arabs, who comprise almost 20% of the population. There have also been three Druze ministers over that 78 years.
Within the Knesset itself, Arab members have been repeatedly reviled, spat at, punched and entirely marginalised. The so called Israeli “opposition” explicitly campaigned both for continuing the policy in Gaza (they did not call it Genocide by name but that is what they meant), and for excluding any Arabs from the Israeli government. Zionism is plainly racism. It is proven beyond reasonable discussion on the above facts about exclusion of Arabs from government. Yet we have the entire political and media class in the UK attacking the English Green Party in a sustained onslaught for saying this simple truth. We also have schools in England being forced to teach uncritical support for Israel as a compulsory subject, based on a nonsense report by a committed zionist, commissioned by a committed zionist minister in hock to the Israeli lobby.
The report’s claim that 70% of Jewish schoolchildren had suffered anti-semitism at school, based on the self reporting of the personal experience of 29 sixth formers, has been widely ridiculed. In general, even aside from the numerous self faked instances involved in anti-semitism reporting, it is essential the UK government stops accepting the self-reporting of Jewish victimhood without question or analysis. This is a privilege it accords to no other group. I have reported over decades on the ludicrously inflated alarmist claims of the Community Security Trust of double digit increases almost in anti-semitic incidents every single year – often high double digit increases – which if true would now amount to millions of incidents annually. They include, for example. saying “Free Palestine” as an anti-semitic incident if it is within the hearing of a Jewish person.
The Community Security Trust receive £21,000,000 million annually in UK government money to safeguard the Jewish Community. By contrast the equivalent body for the Muslim community, the British Muslim Trust, receives £650,000. This is a “safe” Muslim organisation whose leadership group is replete with Orders of the British Empire. A more active Muslim body, Tell Mama, used to receive the grant but was closed down after a right wing and zionist campaign against it, on the grounds it was inflating anti-Muslim incidents. For example, Andrew Gilligan published in an attack article in the Telegraph that only 7% of Tell Mama’s documented incidents involved physical violence against Muslims. Yet this is a higher percentage than ever found in the equivalent statistics from the Community Security Trust, whose grant is not only not cancelled but ever-increasing. Indeed every single criticism levelled by Gilligan at Tell Mama – criticisms which led to the cancellation of that group’s funding – is much more true of the Community Security Trust.
This part of the Bell report was particularly interesting. I would have no problem at all sitting down to eat with a Jewish person, but I would have qualms about sitting down to eat with an open zionist of any race – which is not to say I would not do it, but I would worry about how confrontational the meal might turn. According to Bell that makes me an anti-semite, and this is where his insistence that schools accept the IHRA definition, conflating anti-semitism with criticism of Israel, is key.
Soft zionists – those who wish the long term genocide of the Palestinian people and theft of Palestinian land to proceed without too much outcry – had hoped for a change of face to lead the project – though the notion that Eisenkot, the architect of the Dahiya Doctrine of destruction of entire communities, is any less genocidal than Netanyahu is a nonsense. Now Netanyahu is still there, and my bet is that Naftali Bennett or another “opposition” leader will join him on the basis of excluding Arabs from government.
I also strongly suspect that the increase in Arab representation will lead to the end of Palestinian representation in the Knesset, through a change to the voting system, the banning of parties or simple disenfranchisement. There is precedent: Israel formally considers occupied East Jerusalem a part of Israel proper, but the 400,000 Palestinian residents there do not have the vote. Jewish settlers there do have a vote.
There is every sign that the Burnham regime is even worse than the Starmer regime on Israel and the Middle East. Burnham has sent UK fighter jets to Saudi Arabia to support attacks on Ansar Allah and the Yemeni people. Burnham has capitulated in the effective closure of the UK Consulate General in East Jerusalem, and expulsion of British diplomats, without retaliation. Burnham has brought in no new sanctions against Israel and stopped no arms supplies. Trumpeted sanctions against illegal Israeli settlers in the West Bank were a lie – nothing has happened.
Above all, the persecution of supporters of Palestine Action continues unabated. The government has no obligation to continue the case in the Supreme Court. To frame this as “letting the courts decide” or “obeying the rule of law” is sickening hypocrisy. The question is not whether the government has draconian powers in law, which will be accepted by the Supreme Court. The question is whether it was moral and correct to use them in this way. It would, for example, be legal to abolish old age pensions and invalidity benefits. If parliament voted for it, the Supreme Court would uphold it. The question is not if the Supreme Court will allow it, it is whether it is the right thing to do. Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s equation of Palestine Action activists with skinhead gangs who attack immigrants was appalling.
I believe that happily we have reached a turning point. It was hubris for Healey to make a £10 billion donation to the Nazi friendly Ukrainian dictatorship in a budget which focused attention on the very real fall in living standards in the UK. Reaction across social media and in legacy media website comment threads has been overwhelmingly negative. It has taken time for the wide gap between the public and the Establishment on the crimes of Israel to have a major effect, but I sense a change there too. Netanyahu has retained power, and the conviction of grannies and aged priests in the UK as terrorists is due to get fully underway in the New Year. Huge increases in already the World’s highest grid energy bills are going to happen at the same time. The attacks on Iran and the Ukrainian destruction of Nord Stream have had a massive combined effect on world energy prices. The people are not stupid; they understand this. It is also increasingly plain that the war agenda encompasses both the Middle East and Eastern Europe.
Devil’s Coalition of USA, Ukraine and Israel led the resistance at the UN to the General Assembly vote condemning the illegal blockade of Cuba. It feels as though events are moving at fast forward, hurtling us helter skelter either towards the widespread war which western “liberals” are advocating, or to the overthrow of neoliberalism. I do not currently see where we could land between those two alternatives.
And David Miller may not be right about everything, but he is right about this:
This week Al Jazeera’s Investigative Unit broadcast Contract Killers and the Far Right, a 46-minute undercover documentary that exposes links between Turning Point UK (TPUK) and Allan Nesbitt, whom it describes as a convicted criminal and a member of the Ulster Volunteer Force. In a secretly recorded meeting in a London hotel, Al Jazeera reports, Nesbitt said he could arrange the killing of a fictional business rival, who “can have a bad accident”. The fallout was swift. The Conservative Party suspended TPUK’s chief executive Jack Ross, a former Tory candidate, “with immediate effect pending an investigation”.
One of the less-noticed figures in the film may be the most embarrassing for a British charity. Just under seven and a half minutes in, the narrator explains that “Jack introduces Greg as the leader of the Southeast Division, an anti-immigration group”, and an on-screen caption names him as “Greg Smith, Leader, South East Division”. Photographs I have examined show a man who bears a striking resemblance to Smith wearing the steward’s vest of the Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) at the charity’s march in London on 26 November 2023, posing alongside Tommy Robinson.
What Al Jazeera filmed
Al Jazeera does not call Smith a hitman. Its headline reserves that word for Nesbitt, the “paramilitary hitman” at the centre of the investigation. What the film shows is Smith meeting Ross and the undercover reporter to plan a joint protest. “For a law-abiding citizen,” the narrator observes, “he does appear concerned the police may find out what they’re going to discuss.” The subtitles have Smith telling the reporter: “So, I’m going to have to make sure you’re not wired.”
“Once reassured that no one is listening,” the film continues, “Greg explains how his associates will provide muscle at TPUK protests.” Unsure whether he can mobilise his own men, Smith recommends the Patriots of Britain, which the narrator says “include former football hooligans notorious for pushing an anti-migrant agenda”. That is the same group Ross described Nesbitt as belonging to, according to Al Jazeera’s press release. Smith, the narrator adds, “later attended TPUK protests alongside known members of far-right groups”, among them a man Al Jazeera links to the neo-Nazi group Combat 18. The film notes that TPUK “have always denied links to the far right”. Al Jazeera says that Ross denied its findings “completely” and that “the other parties featured did not respond to our inquiries”.
The steward at the ‘Antisemitism march’
On 26 November 2023, as crowds gathered for the CAA’s march, Robinson posted a photograph of himself beside a grey-bearded man in a pale blue high-visibility vest bearing the CAA’s logo. “Here’s one of the Stewards for today’s Antisemitism march,” Robinson wrote, “he’s absolutely fine with me being here, my presence doesn’t alarm or distress him at all.” The post resurfaced in April 2024 when the rapper Lowkey quote-posted it, observing that “it appears that Tommy Robinson was welcomed by a steward from Gideon Falter’s organisation, the CAA.”
Top: the CAA steward photographed with Tommy Robinson on the day of the march.
Bottom: Greg Smith as identified in Contract Killers and the Far Right.
Set the images side by side and the resemblance is hard to miss: a strikingly similar face, a similar grey-white beard, a similar black beanie. In Al Jazeera’s footage Smith’s beanie bears a small red badge that appears to be a poppy, and the South East Division’s logo, shown on screen, reads “South East Division Remembers” and “Lest We Forget”, framed with poppies. A photographic comparison is not proof of identity, so I put the question to the CAA: was Greg Smith one of its stewards?
Close-up comparison of the CAA steward (top) and Greg Smith (bottom).
The irony is acute. Two days before the march, a CAA spokesperson told The Guardian that “the drunken far-right thugs who came to ‘protect the Cenotaph’ on Armistice Day … are not allies of the Jewish community and are not welcome at our solidarity march”. The police said Robinson was not welcome either, and he was arrested at the march for failing to comply with a police dispersal order. He was later cleared: on 23 April 2024 a district judge ruled that there was no case to answer, because the officer who authorised the order had put the wrong date on it. Yet if the photographs show what they appear to show, a man whom Al Jazeera later filmed, and whom its narrator describes as explaining how his associates would “provide muscle” at TPUK protests, was wearing the charity’s vest that day and posed with Robinson.
A charity with secret trustees
The CAA is not simply a campaign group. It is a registered charity, number 1163790, a charitable incorporated organisation registered on 1 October 2015, which reported income of £2,479,754 for 2024. Its charitable objects, as recorded on the register, are:
“To promote racial harmony for the public benefit between Jewish people wherever in the world and other members of society by the elimination of antisemitism, including raising awareness of the occurrence of antisemitism and providing advocacy, assistance, care and relief in relation to those affected by antisemitism. To advance education as regards the history, causes, effects and prevention of antisemitism for the public benefit.”
Who is responsible for meeting those objects is kept secret. The register states that “there is no trustee information available for this charity”. The Charity Commission has granted the CAA an exemption from publishing its trustees’ names on safety grounds. When a rabbi used freedom of information law to obtain them, the commission, the Information Commissioner and a tribunal all refused. Gideon Falter, its chief executive, is the public face. The people who govern it are not.
The regulator’s findings
The Charity Commission has looked at the CAA repeatedly. In 2018 it opened a regulatory compliance case over a petition declaring that Jeremy Corbyn “must go”, and had the wording changed to say Labour “must act”, “to ensure it complied with our guidance on campaigning and political activity”. A second case, which followed complaints from Jewish Voice for Labour, was closed in 2024 with “advice and guidance”. The regulator refused the group’s application to strike the CAA from the register on the ground that it lacked standing.
In September 2025 the commission went further. After complaints, among them one from John McDonnell MP, about a CAA article that called the suspension of some arms export licences to Israel “obscene”, it concluded that “not all of the content within the article was capable of furthering the charity’s objects”. It also found that the trustees’ failure to keep adequate records of the decision to publish “amounts to mismanagement”. It issued a remedial Action Plan requiring the trustees to “improve the administration, management and governance” of the charity. The CAA called the finding “baseless and unacceptable” and said it was preparing a judicial review. I can find no public report of any outcome. In February 2026 McDonnell raised fresh concerns with the commission about a CAA statement attacking the High Court’s Palestine Action ruling. No outcome has been published.
‘Not playing it straight’
The CAA’s use of the courts has fared worse. In December 2025 District Judge Michael Snow quashed the charity’s private prosecution of the comedian Reginald D Hunter. “The CAA have demonstrated by the misleading and partial way in which it summarised its application and its wilful, repeated failure to meet its disclosure obligations that its true and sole motive in seeking to prosecute RH is to have him cancelled,” he wrote. “I have no doubt that the prosecution is abusive.” He found the failures of disclosure “intentional” and described the CAA as “an organisation which is not ‘playing it straight’ but is seeking to use the criminal justice system, in this case for improper reasons”. He also ordered that his judgment be attached to all of the CAA’s future applications. The judge noted that the CAA had not told him about the Charity Commission’s compliance case. The CAA has since applied for permission to seek a judicial review.
I should declare an interest. The CAA is also prosecuting me. It alleges that posts I made on X were “menacing” under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. A fourth charge was added in October 2025, when my counsel argued that the prosecution was abusive and the court ordered the CAA to disclose internal material on how it decided to bring the case. The case is scheduled to continue on 12 November.
Should it remain a charity?
Here is a charity whose stated purpose is racial harmony. Its trustees are hidden from public view, the regulator has found mismanagement in its administration, and a judge has called one of its prosecutions abusive. Now it faces another question: did it put one of its stewards’ vests on a man Al Jazeera has since filmed offering “muscle” for protests alongside the far right? If the photographs show what they appear to, the Charity Commission should be asking how the CAA vets the people who act in its name. It should also be asking whether an organisation like this should keep the public trust, and the privileges, that charitable status confers.
No comments:
Post a Comment