It is almost beyond belief that the findings detailed in Barrister Michael Reiners and Alex Coppen’s exposé — “How Long Can the CPS Ignore the Criminality of Hope Not Hate?” — have not ignited a national scandal.
The article lays out, in exhaustive, factual, and legally grounded fashion, an argument that should deeply trouble any citizen who values transparency, the rule of law, and basic fairness.
And yet, here we are.
For over a decade, an organisation with significant reach, Hope Not Hate, has not only evaded legal scrutiny, it has flourished under the guise of charitable virtue, soaking up institutional funding, celebrity endorsements, and even state support. If Barrister Reiners and Coppen’s article is proven to be correct. It’s staggering. How has Hope not Hate gone unpunished? Have Brits been so thoroughly hypnotised by the word “antifascist” that we’ve failed to inspect the conduct of those cloaked in its banner?
The article by Reiners and Alex Coppen presents a disturbing catalogue of alleged misconduct: unlawful surveillance, doxxing, libel, misuse of charitable status, politically partisan activity, regulatory arbitrage, intimidation, data breaches, and harassment. It painstakingly lays out connections between personnel, structural loopholes, and funding flows, all of which suggest a strategic effort to circumvent the very legal and ethical norms the organisation purports to uphold.
Most damning are the allegations of coercive, blackmail-style tactics, reported overlaps with state intelligence structures, and what may amount to criminal breaches of the Data Protection Act, Bribery Act, Terrorism Act, and Serious Crime Act. When an organisation is publicly accused, with apparently substantial documentation, of engaging in such practices over many years, the lack of action by the Crown Prosecution Service or Charity Commission becomes increasingly difficult to explain.
Except perhaps it isn’t. As the article outlines, those tasked with oversight, including Attorney General Richard Hermer KC, are reported to have prior associations with the very organisation in question. That is not merely improper. It raises fundamental concerns about impartiality and undermines public trust in the rule of law itself.
Reiners and Coppen’s article doesn’t traffic in hyperbole. It cites statute. It references case law. It even invokes Aquinas and Kant, because the moral framework at stake is ancient… and deeply relevant. The authors argue that Hope Not Hate appears to operate on the twisted logic that “the ends justify the means,” even when those means include disinformation, reputational harm, and, if the allegations are proven, unlawful conduct.
What’s most astonishing is not the scale of these claims, but that Hope Not Hate appears to have acted for years with minimal scrutiny — all while positioning itself as a public watchdog, collecting taxpayer money, and collaborating with institutions that should, in principle, be holding it accountable.
The metaphor drawn from The Tailor of Panama, which the article opens with, is especially apt. This is not just a story of alleged dishonesty, it’s a case of institutional self-deception, where powerful actors accept fiction as truth because it suits their ends. It’s about an establishment so eager to signal virtue that it allies itself, perhaps unknowingly, with tactics that would be condemned under any other banner.
The fact is for many, Hope Not Hate is not considered fringe. It is referenced by the BBC. Its reports are cited in Parliament. Its materials influence policymaking. That should concern us, not because it campaigns, but because of how it campaigns, as Reiners and Coppen’s article explains.
Let’s be absolutely clear: groups like Hope Not Hate have every right to express their views. They have every right to investigate and criticise as they see fit. But they do not have the right to harass, fabricate, or destroy reputations under the cover of charitable status — if that is indeed what has occurred.
It certainly appears, from the evidence compiled by Reiners and Coppen, that the British public may have been misled. Misled by a name. Misled by a narrative. Misled by a press that, until now, has seemingly refused to ask difficult questions — and misled, possibly, by a state that has chosen to look away.
Read the article. It is masterfully written, exhaustively sourced, and calmly presented. There is no hysteria, only law, history, documents, quotes, and uncomfortable truth. And those truths demand a public reckoning.
In one particularly revealing moment, even Hope Not Hate’s Chief Executive Nick Lowles has acknowledged circulating a hoax list of protestors in 2024, telling journalists:
“Yes, the list was a hoax. But just look at the front pages of today’s papers. An anti-racist message is being transmitted to millions of homes this morning.”
If that doesn’t chill your spine, you aren’t paying attention. This isn’t justice. This isn’t anti-racism. This isn’t antifascism. This is manipulation in pursuit of power and based on lies.
If we are still a country that believes in equal justice under the law, then the CPS must act. If we are still a country with a free press, then more journalists must follow Reiners and Coppen’s lead. And if we are still a democracy, the public must ask the question:
How long have we been duped? And why hasn’t anyone stopped them?
Read the full article and decide for yourself: https://restorationist.org.uk/how-long-can-the-cps-ignore-hope-not-hates-criminality
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, written in response to a publicly available article, and offered for the purposes of public interest, analysis, and discussion.
