May 22Liked by The Mill, Joshi Herrmann, Mollie Simpson
When The Mill launched on a wing and a prayer, it seemed like a worthwhile thing to support. Since then it has become essential, and this story is a coming of age. Thank you Joshi for your determination, and for your recruitment skills. It's a great team (and Jack Dulhanty is such a private eye name that he has to star in a Manchester noir series). For The Mill to be recognised and supported by senior figures in journalism is a real tribute. Thank you.
To simply say that I am very impressed with the quality of journalism on this story has to take into account the remarkably high standards that you always set.
Great reporting Millers. Lord spent Lockdown (and since) making it all about him, as a self appointed voice of the people. If you're going to do that, you need to make sure you're on the right side.
I don't see that GMCA/Burnham were ever going to do anything else to be honest - if they had nothing to do with the application (no reason why they would) then there would be no reason for them to know anything about it. And they're not very well going to say anything off the cuff.
I think the real question is why Arts Council England didn't review it properly the first time round and then how many other applications like this might have gone through which shouldn't have.
I think that's a perfectly fair perspective, Graham, but I obviously disagree. If you appoint someone as an advisor and serious claims are made against them, you should investigate them, not rely on another body to do so. The GMCA and the mayor represent people in GM, not the Arts Council, and it is they who appointed and work with Sacha Lord. I think it reflects extremely poorly on them that they stonewalled for so long, refusing to answer perfectly legitimate questions from a whole range of journalists. It goes against basic principles of transparency and democracy. I'm not at all surprised that stance didn't hold.
I mean I don't want to detract from a great piece of reporting on a really important story, not that anything I have to say could do that.
But the point isn't necessarily about what you would have liked but what is realistic: we all may have wanted them to say something sooner but it was never going to happen. Not least because (at least based on the timelines given in the articles anyway) they would have only found out about it a week or so ago just before the rest of us did, plus whatever facts or documentation you sent them would need to be checked thoroughly, and their own lawyers will have been advising them to say nothing. I suppose the best they could have done was "we'll take a look but no comment", but even that will have been advised against that as it could be seen to give credence to the claims and potentially open them to liability themselves (which is what their lawyers would have said).
Thanks Graham. I see what you're saying. But I remain shocked that their response was not a simple 'These are very serious allegations. We will need time to look into them'. The fact they didn't do that raises the obvious question (being asked in different ways by lots of people on Twitter/Reddit etc) about whether the mayor's friendship/closeness to Lord played a part in the response. I don't know if that's the case, but I think it's a very reasonable question.
Their response would have been the same regardless. I am big fans of the Mill but the link with Burnham is tenuous, it’s highly plausible that he had no idea about the application until recently and GMCA’s response is exactly as you’d expect regardless of their friendship given the fact that a) they had no involvement in the grant and b) Lords role to me has always been a bit of a nonsense.
Fair enough. But it isn't tenuous at all - he appointed the guy as his advisor, he appears in public with him a lot, his GMCA has released lots of statements quoting him, he invited him to address council leaders at GM meetings, he posted a pic with him straight after his election victory. If you do all those things, then you need to answer questions when they arise. Especially if your political project is supposed to be about openness, honesty and moving away from the sordid 'ways of Westminster'. The past week has been *very* Westminster.
I don’t want to repeat anything Graham has said but I think it was naive to expect any other response. As I said it’s quite possible that he had no idea about the application until last week, and I’m not sure what an investigation would have looked like as they’d have no access to any of the information given they weren’t the applicant or the funder. I imagine you’d have got exactly the same response if Lord was in the same position but had very little to do with Burnham personally.
I think the adviser aspect is about political judgement and whether there should be someone in a post such as that - even if it's unpaid - where there is a possible conflict of interest. The Arts Council aspect of the story could be potentially massive, as pointed out above.
Early in the last century, Roger Oldham famously wrote "The Guardian is a candid friend, and guide to sundry persons, it compliments the very good, and scarifies the worse 'uns". While the 'MG' might have flitted off down south, and the Evening News is a hollowed-out shell of its former self (what would the great Harry Evans have thought of his erstwhile paper today?), it's encouraging to see the Mill hold the great and the good of the city region to account, and, if appropriate, "scarify the worse 'uns".
This is the type of local journalism desperately needed that has been lacking from the usual players. So glad you have stuck to your guns on this and not bowed to the pressure. Keep up the fantastic work
I don’t know much about libel law and there are certainly better and more qualified people than me that can advise you on this, but I do know about criminal law and on the face of it, after having read the application there is definitely a case to answer for fraud by false representation. This latest move by the Arts Council is to be welcomed and if I were Lord I would be consulting a criminal defence lawyer as well as a defamation one.
I can see what his thinking is though and I can see why he is coming after The Mill. He does not have to show that he is innocent or guilty of a criminal offence - the presumption of innocence is with him. He just has to show that the Mill have damaged his reputation. Be careful here. It’s a preemptive tactic to get the evidence against him out of the public view. If he does that successfully and the Arts Council don’t proceed with a criminal complaint then The Mill are potentially still in trouble so you’re not out of the woods yet. My advice - not that you need it - is do not be intimidated and keep on doing what you are doing. It seems to be working so far
The good news for Mr Lord is it is a very easy case to defend. As you have pointed out on several occasions now, all he has to do is present the receipts and evidence that this was a fully operational company doing what it said it did and he is home free. If he does this now he may very well avoid what now looks like an almost inevitable police investigation. Of course, Mr Lord is innocent of any offence unless and until he pleads guilty or is found guilty by a court, but he certainly does seem to have a case to answer.
Burnham will not stand by him. He’s a politician and he will distance himself as soon as he can. He did this with the former chief constable, Ian Hopkins, when Hopkins started getting into difficulty. At first there was silence, followed by Burnham distancing himself and ultimately by condemnation. He will do the same with Lord and at the moment he seems to have gone to stage 2 - distancing. When you were breaking this story Burnham was on the news talking about the infected blood scandal and his proposed Hillsborough law - ‘Tell the truth at the first time of asking’ he is quoted as saying. He cannot afford to be seen to stand by someone who is avoiding telling anybody anything. With a general election just being called Starmer is looking to his Labour mayors as a good example of how things can be better run that the Tories. Last thing either of them need is Lord hovering around like Banquo’s ghost.
As this story has been unfolding, I've been thinking about the way SL reacted to the profile of him here a few months ago, his apparent nervousness about what was going to be written and his lack of control over the narrative. Perhaps he has been expecting some of his poorer decision making to come to light. Particularly as he will have been aware that his former business partner had already raised concerns.
As Dave said in a comment above, SL is keen to put himself at the centre of things. He should understand that this position means he will be held accountable. It goes with the territory of having a role in politics, which SL has said that he wants.
And having now read the follow up story, I'm reading "I also do not wish to stifle The Mill’s freedom of expression" as "I have realised that The Mill has popular support, including people who know the law".
There's also a sense that the grant advisor might be thrown under the bus for doing what's common practice - telling ACE what it wants to hear. Aligning your application to ACE's priorities is one thing, though. Advising an applicant to tell ACE you're not attempting to defraud them is another thing entirely.
When The Mill launched on a wing and a prayer, it seemed like a worthwhile thing to support. Since then it has become essential, and this story is a coming of age. Thank you Joshi for your determination, and for your recruitment skills. It's a great team (and Jack Dulhanty is such a private eye name that he has to star in a Manchester noir series). For The Mill to be recognised and supported by senior figures in journalism is a real tribute. Thank you.
Thanks very much Michael, lovely comment. Grateful for your support over the years.
To simply say that I am very impressed with the quality of journalism on this story has to take into account the remarkably high standards that you always set.
Exceptional.
Thank you.
Thanks Tony
Great reporting Millers. Lord spent Lockdown (and since) making it all about him, as a self appointed voice of the people. If you're going to do that, you need to make sure you're on the right side.
What a ride this story has been. I'm permo on the edge of my seat haha. Good luck 👍
That’s very good news.
Keep it up The Mill.
Manchester needs a campaigning newspaper, we used to be famous for it.
So pleased to be a Mill reader.
I'm hanging onto the coat tails of this story. So many twists and turns . Tenacious journalism right here.
Thanks Anne
I don't see that GMCA/Burnham were ever going to do anything else to be honest - if they had nothing to do with the application (no reason why they would) then there would be no reason for them to know anything about it. And they're not very well going to say anything off the cuff.
I think the real question is why Arts Council England didn't review it properly the first time round and then how many other applications like this might have gone through which shouldn't have.
I think that's a perfectly fair perspective, Graham, but I obviously disagree. If you appoint someone as an advisor and serious claims are made against them, you should investigate them, not rely on another body to do so. The GMCA and the mayor represent people in GM, not the Arts Council, and it is they who appointed and work with Sacha Lord. I think it reflects extremely poorly on them that they stonewalled for so long, refusing to answer perfectly legitimate questions from a whole range of journalists. It goes against basic principles of transparency and democracy. I'm not at all surprised that stance didn't hold.
I mean I don't want to detract from a great piece of reporting on a really important story, not that anything I have to say could do that.
But the point isn't necessarily about what you would have liked but what is realistic: we all may have wanted them to say something sooner but it was never going to happen. Not least because (at least based on the timelines given in the articles anyway) they would have only found out about it a week or so ago just before the rest of us did, plus whatever facts or documentation you sent them would need to be checked thoroughly, and their own lawyers will have been advising them to say nothing. I suppose the best they could have done was "we'll take a look but no comment", but even that will have been advised against that as it could be seen to give credence to the claims and potentially open them to liability themselves (which is what their lawyers would have said).
Thanks Graham. I see what you're saying. But I remain shocked that their response was not a simple 'These are very serious allegations. We will need time to look into them'. The fact they didn't do that raises the obvious question (being asked in different ways by lots of people on Twitter/Reddit etc) about whether the mayor's friendship/closeness to Lord played a part in the response. I don't know if that's the case, but I think it's a very reasonable question.
Their response would have been the same regardless. I am big fans of the Mill but the link with Burnham is tenuous, it’s highly plausible that he had no idea about the application until recently and GMCA’s response is exactly as you’d expect regardless of their friendship given the fact that a) they had no involvement in the grant and b) Lords role to me has always been a bit of a nonsense.
Fair enough. But it isn't tenuous at all - he appointed the guy as his advisor, he appears in public with him a lot, his GMCA has released lots of statements quoting him, he invited him to address council leaders at GM meetings, he posted a pic with him straight after his election victory. If you do all those things, then you need to answer questions when they arise. Especially if your political project is supposed to be about openness, honesty and moving away from the sordid 'ways of Westminster'. The past week has been *very* Westminster.
I don’t want to repeat anything Graham has said but I think it was naive to expect any other response. As I said it’s quite possible that he had no idea about the application until last week, and I’m not sure what an investigation would have looked like as they’d have no access to any of the information given they weren’t the applicant or the funder. I imagine you’d have got exactly the same response if Lord was in the same position but had very little to do with Burnham personally.
I think the adviser aspect is about political judgement and whether there should be someone in a post such as that - even if it's unpaid - where there is a possible conflict of interest. The Arts Council aspect of the story could be potentially massive, as pointed out above.
Both the Arts Council and GMCA should be answering your questions in the public interest
Love this journalism! Thank you for real reporting. Rare these days.
Early in the last century, Roger Oldham famously wrote "The Guardian is a candid friend, and guide to sundry persons, it compliments the very good, and scarifies the worse 'uns". While the 'MG' might have flitted off down south, and the Evening News is a hollowed-out shell of its former self (what would the great Harry Evans have thought of his erstwhile paper today?), it's encouraging to see the Mill hold the great and the good of the city region to account, and, if appropriate, "scarify the worse 'uns".
This is the type of local journalism desperately needed that has been lacking from the usual players. So glad you have stuck to your guns on this and not bowed to the pressure. Keep up the fantastic work
Well done The Mill - not bad for an almost-4-year-old 😁
(I hate bullies too)
Please come to the birthday party if you can
I don’t know much about libel law and there are certainly better and more qualified people than me that can advise you on this, but I do know about criminal law and on the face of it, after having read the application there is definitely a case to answer for fraud by false representation. This latest move by the Arts Council is to be welcomed and if I were Lord I would be consulting a criminal defence lawyer as well as a defamation one.
I can see what his thinking is though and I can see why he is coming after The Mill. He does not have to show that he is innocent or guilty of a criminal offence - the presumption of innocence is with him. He just has to show that the Mill have damaged his reputation. Be careful here. It’s a preemptive tactic to get the evidence against him out of the public view. If he does that successfully and the Arts Council don’t proceed with a criminal complaint then The Mill are potentially still in trouble so you’re not out of the woods yet. My advice - not that you need it - is do not be intimidated and keep on doing what you are doing. It seems to be working so far
The good news for Mr Lord is it is a very easy case to defend. As you have pointed out on several occasions now, all he has to do is present the receipts and evidence that this was a fully operational company doing what it said it did and he is home free. If he does this now he may very well avoid what now looks like an almost inevitable police investigation. Of course, Mr Lord is innocent of any offence unless and until he pleads guilty or is found guilty by a court, but he certainly does seem to have a case to answer.
Burnham will not stand by him. He’s a politician and he will distance himself as soon as he can. He did this with the former chief constable, Ian Hopkins, when Hopkins started getting into difficulty. At first there was silence, followed by Burnham distancing himself and ultimately by condemnation. He will do the same with Lord and at the moment he seems to have gone to stage 2 - distancing. When you were breaking this story Burnham was on the news talking about the infected blood scandal and his proposed Hillsborough law - ‘Tell the truth at the first time of asking’ he is quoted as saying. He cannot afford to be seen to stand by someone who is avoiding telling anybody anything. With a general election just being called Starmer is looking to his Labour mayors as a good example of how things can be better run that the Tories. Last thing either of them need is Lord hovering around like Banquo’s ghost.
As this story has been unfolding, I've been thinking about the way SL reacted to the profile of him here a few months ago, his apparent nervousness about what was going to be written and his lack of control over the narrative. Perhaps he has been expecting some of his poorer decision making to come to light. Particularly as he will have been aware that his former business partner had already raised concerns.
As Dave said in a comment above, SL is keen to put himself at the centre of things. He should understand that this position means he will be held accountable. It goes with the territory of having a role in politics, which SL has said that he wants.
And having now read the follow up story, I'm reading "I also do not wish to stifle The Mill’s freedom of expression" as "I have realised that The Mill has popular support, including people who know the law".
There's also a sense that the grant advisor might be thrown under the bus for doing what's common practice - telling ACE what it wants to hear. Aligning your application to ACE's priorities is one thing, though. Advising an applicant to tell ACE you're not attempting to defraud them is another thing entirely.