The Criminality of Hope Not Hate

In Britain, there is an influential organisation, mainly composed of superficially British people with some foreign blood, who despise the native British and spend their substantial financial resources attacking any Briton who follows the science or who stands up for his ethnic interests. They have the manipulative name “Hope Not Hate.” One of their number, Harry Shukman, spent 2023 infiltrating assorted British “far right” organisations: a social club called the Basket Weavers, a network of “race scientists” including myself. Hope Not Hate people, covertly record them, send dossiers to their employers, pressure their employers to fire them; in effect they try to destroy the very lives of those who dare to disagree with their Woke agenda and even the conservative newspapers in the UK take them seriously.

This is despite the fact that they openly lie. During the unrest in the summer 2024, after the Southport Massacre, the media reported the hoax list which their leader, Nick Lowles, retweeted on what he said were planned far-right riots. It was hoax, something which Lowles later confessed, so only “anti-racists” turned up, and “anti-racist” images dominated the newspapers the following day. Lowles also tweeted, knowing it wasn’t true, that an immigrant had been subject to an acid attack, which potentially breaches the Public Order Act 1986.

However, as with any tyrannical group, their lust to find new people to victimise has taken them too far; as without victims they cannot justify donations or, indeed, their existence: for them, the “far right” is eternal. From fighting chaps with some extreme sympathies, they started attacking old-school conservatives and using very legally questionable tactics, some of them related to spying on me and my friends. When the net of people a group can bully and attempt to destroy, is cast so widely then it could be “Any of us next.” It is at this point that people feel that they have no choice but to risk fighting back.

As this emerged, in a Channel 4 Documentary late last year and then in Shukman’s book on the matter Year of the Rat, Trump was elected. Suddenly, Hope Not Hate were strapped for money and had to put their staff on temporary contracts. It seems possible that they were massive beneficiaries of USAID via some of their donors, and Trump had cancelled this. So, at the same time, they were weakened and they had managed to overreach themselves and force people to retaliate against them. The results, for those of us who value freedom of inquiry, have been delightful. At the beginning of July, their leader, Nick Lowles, was forced to resign and looks like this may only be the beginning.

On 6 July 2025, a website called The Restorationist published an extremely in-depth article entitled “How Long Can the CPS Ignore The Criminality of Hope Not Hate?” The CPS is the Crown Prosecution Service. It decides whether allegations of criminal conduct are convincing enough to warrant being taken to trial. It presented detailed evidence of criminal conduct by Hope Not Hate, including targeted harassment and unlawful surveillance. But, significantly, it highlighted the devious way in which they abuse charitable status. Hope Not Hate has two arms, both of which are called Hope Not Hate. One is a charity (Hope Not Hate Charitable Trust), which has the legal restrictions imposed on all charities, and other is the sole beneficiary of this charity (Hope Not Hate Limited).

As a charity, Hope Not Hate is banned from doing anything political. As a beneficiary of a charity, it can do what it likes. Yet the charity and the beneficiary are the same people and have many of the same personnel. As the authors of the piece, one of them a barrister, noted: “The political work is carried out beyond the reach of charity law, but financed entirely through tax-advantaged donations raised under the pretext of charitable purpose.” The authors present the case that Hope Not Hate may be guilty of misconduct under the Charities Act, due to this arrangement. In the wake of the piece in The Restorationist highlighting this, Nick Lowles resigned as head of the charity. This was accompanied by a number of other resignations or reshufflings.

However, the group’s alleged greatest crime, and what may be their doing, takes us back to Harry Shukman, whom we met earlier. He presented himself, including to me personally, as “Christopher Morton,” and was trusted because he possessed a British passport in that name. He was supposedly born at Ploughley in Oxfordshire on 20 April 1992 (Hitler’s birthday; how amusing). However, there is no such birth registration, though Harold Shukman was born at Ploughley in Oxfordshire on 20 May 1992. In other words, Shukman may have had a fake passport, the possession of which is a serious criminal offence. He could not have changed his name by deed poll, as one cannot change one’s date of birth.

In a follow-up article for The Restorationist,“Hate Not Hope: The Psych Ward Strikes Back,” the passport was examined in greater depth. In the interim, Hope Not Hate, in the person of a former “researcher” called Gregory Davis, had contacted the employers of one of the earlier piece’s authors and had told that author that he ran a pornographic Twitter account, which they would publicise, and was harassed by various bots. The author wrote back refuting their attempted libel. In the follow-up piece, the author, along with various technically-minded colleagues, conducted a detailed analysis of the passport. It was found to very probably be a genuine passport, issued by His Majesty’s Passport Office. Accordingly, it was either obtained via some kind of elaborate fraud, another serious criminal offence, or Hope Not Hate has sympathisers within, or is even a component of, the British Secret Services, which seems unlikely considering that sleuths have uncovered what they have done so easily.

At the time of writing, the investigation continues, though it has clearly seriously rattled Hope Not Hate, hence their petulant and desperate response to one of the authors of the original Restorationist piece on them. By resigning as head of the charitable arm, Nick Lowles, who is, surely extremely Machiavellian (hence his justification of lying; he is as Machiavellian as the “far right” dictators he condemns—the people who justified murdering Jews or Communists for some “greater good”) must have known that he was signalling weakness, which you should never do when you are under attack. Childish lying with the hope of intimidating, as engaged in by Gregory Davis of Hope Not Hate, is another signal of weakness. We can only hope that, as this develops, this nasty, bullying enterprise is completely destroyed, allowing England to take the first few tentative steps back towards being a free country.

The Restorationist’s charges:

Like Searchlight before it, Hope Not Hate has departed from the legal and ethical boundaries of charitable activity, and is abusing a dual legal personality for cynical ends. We are of the view you have been operating in the realm of criminality for some time. Your organisation’s documented conduct towards a long series of libel victims raises several legal concerns, including the following: 

1. Blackmail contrary to section 21 of the Theft Act 1968, via threats to employment or reputation.

2. Harassment and Stalking under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, via coordinated targeting of individuals and reputational interference.

3. Surveillance Without Mandate, risking breach of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.

4. Unlawful Data Processing in breach of UK GDPR Article 6(1) and DPA 2018, using OSINT tools without consent or lawful basis.

5. Malicious Communications under the 1988 Act, section 1, including false and distressing material.

6. Computer Misuse under the 1990 Act, sections 1 and 3ZA, relating to unauthorised access and automated surveillance.

7. Use of a False Passport by at least one employee, potentially two. We have undertaken technical analysis of an unredacted copy of what appears to be an ICAO-compliant false passport, linked to your organisation. This raises immediate concerns under s.4 of the Identity Documents Act 2010, which prohibits the use or possession of false identity documents with intent to deceive. If this passport was fabricated without lawful authority, obtained from HM Passport Office fraudulently, or used for overseas travel, it constitutes a criminal offence. If it was issued or facilitated by a British government official, it raises grave constitutional questions about the use of covert powers to support or shield political activity under the guise of charity. We are pursuing FOIA disclosures from both the Charity Commission and Channel 4 to clarify the document’s origin and oversight.