Lord Nelson would have been justly proud of the Arts Council response ‘…. Arts Council England told us that the investigation found no public money was misused, while admitting that it sought no receipts or invoices from Primary Events’.
I wonder whether they would like to explain to the taxpayer precisely what due diligence they carried out prior to disbursing public funds; what follow up they undertook to ensure that the stated purpose for which the funds were being sought were in fact utilised by the applicant for that purpose; what requirements they imposed as to proof; what steps they took to enquire once the complaint was made and how they justify the clean bill of health?’ I have no doubt that the responses could be redacted as necessary to comply with s40 of the FOI Act 2005. Perhaps receiving a large number of such requests might persuade the Arts Council to look through their telescope using its good eye?
For anyone cutting and pasting, I think the language of the second question I posted could usefully be simplified to:
‘what follow-up did they undertake to ensure that the stated purpose for which the funds were being sought was in fact being carried out or (if checked subsequently) had in face been carried out?’
Good investigative journalism accompanied by humility to acknowledge that at this stage 'the jury is out' and that things might change as more information come to light. We need more of this. I have just subscribed as a 'Miller'. Keep up the good work!
I have nothing against Sacha Lord at all (in fact I like the way he has raised the profile of the night time economy for Manchester) but I absolutely detest people with power and/or money threatening to sue people with less power or money to shut them up. And I really like The Mill.
Huge well done for not immediately backing down Joshi and team. I have nothing useful to share in terms of evidence for or against your story but it is very, very odd that there is no factual response/high level evidence offered in the lawyer’s letter as to why the story isn’t true.
I’m a big fan of the work of Dan Niedle of Tax Policy Associates ( and I work in tax myself) who has also done a fair number of investigations into financial wrongdoing and the legal threat letters associated with publishing those allegations. If you do decide to keep fighting this after the Tuesday deadline tomorrow, he would be a good person to get in touch with.
A strong indicator of how useful a media resource is is "how often is it sued by powerful people and organisations?". Private Eye is routinely sued, and wins, which is why politicians and business leaders don't like it, and why libel laws in the UK are so favourable to claimants (to the extent that libel tourism remains a massive issue).
The Mill in being sued has demonstrated to me its value in holding local leaders to account. If the truth is that everything is fine and above board, then that evidence (or refutation of the presented evidence) can also be shared and the Mill will publish it, I'm sure.
Keep up the good work, maybe reach out to PI for advice on dealing with angry rich people suing you, and point us to any crowdfunding for legal costs!
Readers: This is why we need The Mill in an era of corruption which drains your taxes, health and human rights. Please do some extra investigating ASAP to support these journalists.
This story demonstrates that you are providing a vital public good for us all as you try to hold powerful local people and their organisations to account. It also highlights what has been lost after the hollowing out of local media outlets over the last couple of decades - this kind of scrutiny simply doesn't exist in most of the country now, meaning people with nefarious intentions can act with impunity if they so wish.
I couldn't be more proud of you and your team Joshi - all power to you, and my fellow Millers and I will support you in any way we can.
Whilst not the main aim of the story I can’t help but focus on Arts Councils role in it all.
Anybody who has ever applied for ACE funding knows how restrictive it can be, requiring organisations and individuals to jump though hoops for every last pound.
The fact that they asked for no proof of how the £400k had been spent is astounding and speaks to a questionable culture in which those who know how to play the system are able to secure vast amounts of money whilst smaller players fight for scraps.
The Mill stories last year about Wigan Old Courts and Oldham Coliseum give cause for concern about how ACE goes about its decision making and scrutiny processes. They seem to overscrutinise when it suits them and let things go when it suits them. Where's the consistency?
A wow read. For me, a subscriber of The Mill and resident of this often fine but sometimes not city for over 30yrs, this is a sad read for the following reason. You are clearly a journalist with talent and integrity but you’re also young enough to possess the relative innocence which happily comes with youth. It’s sad to me because you have discovered at this youthful moment what many of us took much longer to realise, the moment we lost our political innocence - that this is how Manchester works. It’s both shocking and terribly disappointing when it’s laid bare to you. Of course when we look at the wider UK recently spotlighted - Post Office, blood scandal, et al - it’s not just Manchester is it, but many large organisations who crave public adoration. Those who shout the loudest about how brilliant they are, how brilliant those around them are, and how brilliant Manchester (or whatever) is, get into a club which is extraordinarily cliquey and which is in most instances for life. But if you rock that boat, if you criticise others in the club for any poor behaviour, crap standards or bad management, the ranks close and you’re out. Protectionism kicks in. Protect each other and we protect the club, whether it’s thoroughly rotten or just a bit shoddy. And heaven forbid if you ever step off the Brand Manchester track by saying something particular should have been done much, much better than it was. Because then what you’re effectively saying is that Manchester as a whole hasn’t Done Things Differently, you’re saying it’s Done Things Badly. And that’s not allowed. Ever. It’s a nonsense of course, we live in a fantastic city full of opportunities but not everything is perfect. You’re just not allowed to say it out loud in polite company. There will be total shut down. They won’t even answer your emails / letters / questions. I applaud you for doing this, the behemoth which is MCC is so very rarely accountable or answerable. It doesn’t have to be and you’re making it. For those of us bruised by it for whatever reason, you will maybe even spearhead an independent body in the city to scrutinise MCC - can you even imagine that…
I’m not suggesting Manchester City council doesn’t need holding to account however I would point out that this particular story has nothing to do with them whatsoever. So often people think issues which fall at the door of MCC are the problem of Andy Burnham and GMCA and vice versa
Agreed Sian. Having dealt with various art organisations funding schemes over the past two decades, this is no surprise. We don't live in a meritocracy. If you're mates with the right people, your face fits and can keep your mouth shut, you'll go far. I'm glad I'm out of it.
All reference to the company on the internet is “security” - including companies house and, crucially, their own website.
“The festival and event side of the business has grown significantly over the last 4 years. Primary now deliver service ranging from staff provision to full event management for clients such as THE WAREHOUSE PROJECT, FESTIVAL REPUBLIC, PARKLIFE and LIVE NATION”
Like you said, Joshi - yes, you do full event management for these clients because these clients are you??
Oh it’s so insidious! Selina emeny seems to be on the books for the ones Sacha isn’t… but then they’re both on the books for another company. So yes, providing services to these companies because they’re involved in them.
Also lol at “ The festival and event side of the business has grown significantly over the last 4 years” - as it might IF it had had a significant cash injection 🧐
I've just signed up to your main £150 supporter packages. Your questions of Lord's grant funding seem perfectly legitimate and I do not like to see legitimate questions dodged by recourse to the likes of Carter Fuck and their ilk. If you end up paying to defend this I will pledge to support.
A quite brilliant post Joshi.
Lord Nelson would have been justly proud of the Arts Council response ‘…. Arts Council England told us that the investigation found no public money was misused, while admitting that it sought no receipts or invoices from Primary Events’.
I wonder whether they would like to explain to the taxpayer precisely what due diligence they carried out prior to disbursing public funds; what follow up they undertook to ensure that the stated purpose for which the funds were being sought were in fact utilised by the applicant for that purpose; what requirements they imposed as to proof; what steps they took to enquire once the complaint was made and how they justify the clean bill of health?’ I have no doubt that the responses could be redacted as necessary to comply with s40 of the FOI Act 2005. Perhaps receiving a large number of such requests might persuade the Arts Council to look through their telescope using its good eye?
Thanks Michael. Those are great questions. Anyone who fancies emailing and FOI-ing Arts Council England is most welcome.
Agreed re the usefulness of doing this
For anyone cutting and pasting, I think the language of the second question I posted could usefully be simplified to:
‘what follow-up did they undertake to ensure that the stated purpose for which the funds were being sought was in fact being carried out or (if checked subsequently) had in face been carried out?’
This is when having KCs in the crew comes in handy.
Even better when they have a basic grip of the English language ;)
(Please ignore the ‘their/its’ confusion at the end of my last comment!)
Good investigative journalism accompanied by humility to acknowledge that at this stage 'the jury is out' and that things might change as more information come to light. We need more of this. I have just subscribed as a 'Miller'. Keep up the good work!
I have nothing against Sacha Lord at all (in fact I like the way he has raised the profile of the night time economy for Manchester) but I absolutely detest people with power and/or money threatening to sue people with less power or money to shut them up. And I really like The Mill.
Huge well done for not immediately backing down Joshi and team. I have nothing useful to share in terms of evidence for or against your story but it is very, very odd that there is no factual response/high level evidence offered in the lawyer’s letter as to why the story isn’t true.
I’m a big fan of the work of Dan Niedle of Tax Policy Associates ( and I work in tax myself) who has also done a fair number of investigations into financial wrongdoing and the legal threat letters associated with publishing those allegations. If you do decide to keep fighting this after the Tuesday deadline tomorrow, he would be a good person to get in touch with.
Dear Joshi, just upgraded to paid. If they are trying to shut you up, you're worth supporting. Good luck!
A strong indicator of how useful a media resource is is "how often is it sued by powerful people and organisations?". Private Eye is routinely sued, and wins, which is why politicians and business leaders don't like it, and why libel laws in the UK are so favourable to claimants (to the extent that libel tourism remains a massive issue).
The Mill in being sued has demonstrated to me its value in holding local leaders to account. If the truth is that everything is fine and above board, then that evidence (or refutation of the presented evidence) can also be shared and the Mill will publish it, I'm sure.
Keep up the good work, maybe reach out to PI for advice on dealing with angry rich people suing you, and point us to any crowdfunding for legal costs!
Just upgraded to paid. Good luck. The country needs this kind of journalism.
Readers: This is why we need The Mill in an era of corruption which drains your taxes, health and human rights. Please do some extra investigating ASAP to support these journalists.
This story demonstrates that you are providing a vital public good for us all as you try to hold powerful local people and their organisations to account. It also highlights what has been lost after the hollowing out of local media outlets over the last couple of decades - this kind of scrutiny simply doesn't exist in most of the country now, meaning people with nefarious intentions can act with impunity if they so wish.
I couldn't be more proud of you and your team Joshi - all power to you, and my fellow Millers and I will support you in any way we can.
Whilst not the main aim of the story I can’t help but focus on Arts Councils role in it all.
Anybody who has ever applied for ACE funding knows how restrictive it can be, requiring organisations and individuals to jump though hoops for every last pound.
The fact that they asked for no proof of how the £400k had been spent is astounding and speaks to a questionable culture in which those who know how to play the system are able to secure vast amounts of money whilst smaller players fight for scraps.
The Mill stories last year about Wigan Old Courts and Oldham Coliseum give cause for concern about how ACE goes about its decision making and scrutiny processes. They seem to overscrutinise when it suits them and let things go when it suits them. Where's the consistency?
A wow read. For me, a subscriber of The Mill and resident of this often fine but sometimes not city for over 30yrs, this is a sad read for the following reason. You are clearly a journalist with talent and integrity but you’re also young enough to possess the relative innocence which happily comes with youth. It’s sad to me because you have discovered at this youthful moment what many of us took much longer to realise, the moment we lost our political innocence - that this is how Manchester works. It’s both shocking and terribly disappointing when it’s laid bare to you. Of course when we look at the wider UK recently spotlighted - Post Office, blood scandal, et al - it’s not just Manchester is it, but many large organisations who crave public adoration. Those who shout the loudest about how brilliant they are, how brilliant those around them are, and how brilliant Manchester (or whatever) is, get into a club which is extraordinarily cliquey and which is in most instances for life. But if you rock that boat, if you criticise others in the club for any poor behaviour, crap standards or bad management, the ranks close and you’re out. Protectionism kicks in. Protect each other and we protect the club, whether it’s thoroughly rotten or just a bit shoddy. And heaven forbid if you ever step off the Brand Manchester track by saying something particular should have been done much, much better than it was. Because then what you’re effectively saying is that Manchester as a whole hasn’t Done Things Differently, you’re saying it’s Done Things Badly. And that’s not allowed. Ever. It’s a nonsense of course, we live in a fantastic city full of opportunities but not everything is perfect. You’re just not allowed to say it out loud in polite company. There will be total shut down. They won’t even answer your emails / letters / questions. I applaud you for doing this, the behemoth which is MCC is so very rarely accountable or answerable. It doesn’t have to be and you’re making it. For those of us bruised by it for whatever reason, you will maybe even spearhead an independent body in the city to scrutinise MCC - can you even imagine that…
I’m not suggesting Manchester City council doesn’t need holding to account however I would point out that this particular story has nothing to do with them whatsoever. So often people think issues which fall at the door of MCC are the problem of Andy Burnham and GMCA and vice versa
Agreed Sian. Having dealt with various art organisations funding schemes over the past two decades, this is no surprise. We don't live in a meritocracy. If you're mates with the right people, your face fits and can keep your mouth shut, you'll go far. I'm glad I'm out of it.
I think that under the surface there’s a lot of people who’ve had the type of experience you describe Mike, me included.
Keep up the good work Josh and Jack. The truth will out, and great journalism like this should be applauded.
The Mill writes brilliant articles every week, MSM is finished.
Stick with it. If you need a fighting fund then post a link.
All reference to the company on the internet is “security” - including companies house and, crucially, their own website.
“The festival and event side of the business has grown significantly over the last 4 years. Primary now deliver service ranging from staff provision to full event management for clients such as THE WAREHOUSE PROJECT, FESTIVAL REPUBLIC, PARKLIFE and LIVE NATION”
Like you said, Joshi - yes, you do full event management for these clients because these clients are you??
Oh it’s so insidious! Selina emeny seems to be on the books for the ones Sacha isn’t… but then they’re both on the books for another company. So yes, providing services to these companies because they’re involved in them.
Also lol at “ The festival and event side of the business has grown significantly over the last 4 years” - as it might IF it had had a significant cash injection 🧐
I've just signed up to your main £150 supporter packages. Your questions of Lord's grant funding seem perfectly legitimate and I do not like to see legitimate questions dodged by recourse to the likes of Carter Fuck and their ilk. If you end up paying to defend this I will pledge to support.
Thank you.
Well laid out argument, reserving the possibility of error but restating the case.
It takes courage to question wealthy powerful individuals and institutions! I admire and respect you even more.