Talk:Hope Not Hate

Claims About The Labour Left

A while back, Hope Not Hate pressed Jeremy Corbyn to take a more hard-line approach towards (what they claim was) anti-semitism within the Party. During that time, they have stated that: while much has been said, little seems to have been achieved. Could this be due an unwillingness by the then Party leadership to address the issue, or because Hope Not Hate over-stated the problem? So, although this issue is briefly highlighted, could this section include more details and background information? (Edited) 2A00:23CC:E914:E801:A002:7339:4358:41EA (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Criticism entirely missing

I just created my account to clarify: Hope Not Hate is known not to be a politically neutral institution, and some newspapers have written about its bad practices. Should this be stated somewhere in the article, and if so, where? The article is presently biased in favour of this organisation. Academician8347 (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree. HnH are heavily involved in counter-protests regarding the racist rape gangs (sorry, "grooming" gangs). They seem tremendously UNinterested in the racist rapes the gangs perpetrated. I guess those weren't hateful enough, or could it be that MeToo only applies to victims of white sexual abusers? Perish the thought; I'm sure HnH are infallibly virtuous and in no way practise double standards. 2A00:23C5:C8AC:B601:CD97:982F:E24C:A884 (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, they are extremists, many people have documented their unscrupulous activities, this article is biased. LampoonLarry (talk) 08:16, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Liron Velleman sex offences against children

Hi all, Liron Velleman has resently been convicted of a range of sex offences against children as young as 13. He has pleaded guilty to these offences and the page needs to be updated to reflect this.

https://barnetpost.co.uk/2026/01/03/former-councillor-pleads-guilty-to-sex-offences/ ~2026-53390 (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I reverted your recent edit to this article because it did not include a citation. Please cite a reliable source as per WP:REFBEGIN and be sure to adhere to WP:BLP as this concerns information about a living person. – Mandelbr0t (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Sadly it's true, not sure how we deal with it in an NPOɅ way.. Doug Weller talk 09:53, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Velleman is mentioned once in the article as being their Political Organiser. I am not sure how important this role is in the context of the article. HNH do not seem to list anybody currently in this role on their website. Neither of the sources above even mention HNH and clearly he committed these offences on his own time and own behalf and not theirs. Both sources say that he is currently unemployed and so clearly he is no longer the PO for HNH. We don't know when he left HNH but his most recent post on their blog is from 2022, which predates the offences by about two years. Velleman is not notable in his own right. If he was it would go in his own article. As he isn't, we probably shouldn't really be writing about it here when it has nothing to do with HNH. It is likely, but not certain, that they had already parted ways before the offences were carried out, possibly when he became a Barnet councillor.

So, maybe we should just remove the mention of him as Political Organiser, as this is no longer the case?

If this needs covering in Wikipedia at all then Barnet London Borough Council or Whetstone (ward) would seem like better places. DanielRigal (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I’ll remove him. Doug Weller talk 18:37, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Support removal per Daniel R arguments BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Per Daniel R, I have added mention of Velleman's conviction to the page on the ward. There is probably enough coverage in RS to warrant that.Boynamedsue (talk) 09:05, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

That article says he will be sentenced on the 10th, but this later BBC article from the 10th sets the sentencing at a later date. I suppose we'll find out if it blows up into a bigger thing. Halbared (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Even if it does, this won't be the article to cover it. Unless Reliable Sources mention HNH in their coverage then it's not relevant enough for even a mention here. DanielRigal (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• Just regards Velleman, it appears he stopped working as PO for Hope not Hope at some point prior between February and April 2023, when he was known by what I think is his married name "Woodcock-Velleman". The article seems to have been out of date. I would agree that if RS make the connection between HnH and Velleman's offending then we should add Velleman and his conviction to the article.Boynamedsue (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I have noticed this from the Evening Standard , which does state Velleman used to work for HnH but doesn't give a timeframe. Was the Standard RS, or was there some kerfuffle about that? The offences date to after his employment and it is a very slender mention...Boynamedsue (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Given he almost certainly wasn't there at the time it would be tendentious to mention here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

There is an RfC on its reliability at WP:RSN

Doug Weller talk 09:37, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Direct link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC_on_HOPE_not_hate

This thread is about a blog cited in that RfC which has published a hit piece on HnH: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Restorationist_/_restoremag.com_and_The_Great_Repeal_/_greatrepeal.com

Previous archived threads can be found here: 2018, 2019, 2025. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Unmerging Nick Lowles?

He's authored a book as well, was pretty prominent in his career with Searchlight, and there is sigcov about him. I think we could support two separate articles. They're not really synonymous. Thoughts? PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Sources must directly support material

As per the core content policies, sources must directly support material in the article. Were there a reliable secondary source that states the article subject "campaigned against Brexit" that might warrant inclusion. But there isn't. As per WP:UNSOURCED, material must not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the content. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:52, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Per my explanation: Plz don't make uncharitable aspersions ("making things up"); the section is titled Brexit, it covers *multiple* parties, & is about Brexit movement(s) broadly; e.g., the "Hope not Hate said 'election has just been called (...) and our priority is clear – we're going to be taking on Nigel Farage and his Brexit party, to make sure they don't win any seats.' The organisation funded research (...) used to encourage pro-Remain tactical voting".

Would lede be better as ___ pro-Brexit parties? How would you word it? I just looked at the various categories and their contents and wanted to represent them all, not selectively.

Unrelatedly, changing the title to a specific party from 1/3 paragraphs seems imprecise. Abumoh00 (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Hey, please take any specific concerns here, been waiting on your reply. Abumoh00 (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

The specific concern is in my OP. This website does not permit unsourced content or original research. Refrain from adding such material to the article repeatedly, as it's disruptive. Thanks! Cambial — foliar❧ 23:53, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

But that's not what that was, it was based off the section which explcitily was about Eu-skeptic and Brexit parties. Please be charitable. I provided several proposals, and open-ended ones. How do we summarize their posiition in the lede alongside all the other ones, we shouldn't selectively ignore it. Abumoh00 (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Neither the sources nor the article body state that the article subject mounted campaigns against Brexit. But you inserted that claim into the article four times, without adding a source. Pleas to be "charitable" will never extend to allowing editors to add content with no factual basis or source.

The lead summarises the most important parts of the article. The passing mention - one sentence - in a news article about some polling research probably isn't even worth including in the article body. It's not one of the most important parts of the article and isn't appropriate to the lead. Let's see what other editors think. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:23, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

How would you summarize that section? That is what I was trying to do, and you've made no effort to help but made accusations. Abumoh00 (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Also can you explain why UK Independence Party is a better title than Brexit or the middle-ground one I put?

It seems there are at least a couple parties mentioned. Abumoh00 (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

As I note in my previous post, this is not one of the most important parts of the article and therefore it is neither necessary nor appropriate to include it in the lead. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:08, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

This comes off as selective then for readers. Who determines what is most important introduces bias.

Also could you please answer the question regarding naming a section based on 1 paragraph of it instead of all 3? Abumoh00 (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 18 June 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 12:31, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

---

Hope not Hate → Hope Not Hate – Not is an adverb, this doesn't follow MOS:TMRULES ("For details, follow the same style as for titles of published works" which would be MOS:TITLECAPS which states that every adverb should be capitalized) and I don't see a rationale for having the current capitalization. RoseCherry64 (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

• Support: I think it might be an adjective rather than an adverb, but MOS:CT says to capitalize both of those. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
• Support per nom and BarrelProof. I think it is correctly categorized as an adverb,. Scratch that, it does seem to be an adjective here, despite what traditional grammars say. But either way it should be capitalized. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Charities commission review

HNH have been subject to multiple reviews by the charities commission, they have required them to differentiate their charitable and political advocacy arm. They have also drawn criticism from multiple MPs and journalists accusing them of misusing public and charity funds by granting it to their political advocacy arm from their charity. what elements of these developments are worthy for wikipedia? see my reverted edit for sources etc. LampoonLarry (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

In principle, what is "worthy for wikipedia" (what we include) should mirror what reliable secondary sources say about the topic. I guess that in practice though, articles will only include what the most dominant active editors want to include. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:49, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

The current paragraph on this is confusing and misleading as it conflates different objections and investigations and different times and uses primary sources that contradict the text. Needs some disentangling BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:04, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Could you elaborate further on what inconsistencies you've found to be present here? From what I can see the sources back up these events. My understanding of events is from the sources is:

CC opens case in 2024 advising differentiation of company and charity, little action is taken

In 2025 complaints were made by MPs and others, CC escalates to requiring them to take action

Finally HNH Charity is belatedly restructured. LampoonLarry (talk) 09:19, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

To start with, the first two footnotes in that para are to primary sources, one of which gives a different name from in the text. This isn’t the right section for them. The last footnote is also a primary source. And the middle set of notes (with refs that unhelpfully don’t give dates) include two that pre-date and two that post date the latest government statement in the last note. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2026 (UTC)