Your Party CEC Meeting Combined Report: 8th March 2026

Your Party Central Executive Committee (CEC) Meeting: Sunday 8th March 2026. This was a hybrid meeting, 3-5.45pm on Zoom and in London. 9 CEC members + 2 staff attended in person, 14 CEC members + 2 more staff attended via Zoom.

23 of the 24 CEC elected members were in attendance

For reference, the CEC normally comprises of 14 members from The Many slate, 7 from the Grassroots Left slate and 3 independents.

Below is a short summary of the meeting (extracted from various statements issued by committee members shortly after)…

• The meeting was delayed by 20mins due to sound issues with the Zoom set up

• The agenda was circulated to CEC members at 7.53pm on 7th March. Further revisions to the Officers’ Roles and Responsibilities and an Iran statement were also shared at 11.04pm (i.e. less than 24 hours advance notice). Further changes were also made to the papers, overnight, that members were not made aware of before voting. Some amendments gave the CEC significantly expanded scope, as well as the number of roles, compared to the roles decided constitutionally at conference, and this includes the responsibilities of senior staff from the party secretariat.

• Ahead of the meeting, the interim Scottish Executive Committee (SEC) and Niall Christie, submitted an open letter stressing the urgent need to approve the process to elect a permanent SEC, so they can hold regional meetings to discuss standing candidates in the upcoming Holyrood election in May, as well as start the process of electing an election oversight committee (EOC) and selecting candidates (where needed). Despite receiving repeated assurances that these matters would be discussed by the CEC on the 8th March, they were not. Niall asked when the Interim SEC should expect a response to the open letter and was told that the people setting the agenda hadn’t even seen the letter. Niall then presented the open letter, during the CEC meeting, to officers, for a third time.

• Also ahead of the meeting, Scottish comrades asked about unpaid expenses to date. Some CEC members did confirm they had started receiving these.

• Niall pointed out that it was undemocratic not to have a member of Scotland, or Wales, appointed to the Officers Group. Niall felt it should be under their remit to make decisions about the next steps for Scotland and Wales, not CEC officers. The Chair offered assurance that they would have chances to provide “input.” The interim SEC also agreed to meet on Monday evening (March 9) to discuss the lack of movement from the CEC and the implications this will have on democratic decisions taken at Your Party Scotland’s founding conference – including on plans for Holyrood 2026 and establishing a permanent CEC.

• Debate was heavily restricted, with only 30-60 seconds to propose motions or amendments and almost no time allowed for other perspectives. Early in the meeting, Solma tried to ask the chair for more time to discuss items but found herself being put on mute. Throughout the debate, it was suggested that members were wasting time by bringing amendments that could be discussed at a later date when, in truth, it’s likely that standing orders will now not be revisited until the start of the next CEC term. Worth noting that a number of CEC members had repeatedly proposed a full day meeting to cover everything on the agenda, but this was denied, we are told, by the chair.

• Naomi notes in her personal statement that after movers had presented their amendments “the Chair initially went straight to the vote but when challenged agreed to invite those opposed to explain why.”

• When asked why some CEC members were voting against amendments to the papers, only an occasional short explanation would be given.

• A number of documents were presented to the CEC that had been drafted without any input or CEC member consultation, such as the Standing Orders, Interim Code of Conduct and Officer Role Descriptions. For some reason, although the Standing Orders were drafted by a staff member on the 4th March and members had been informed, during an earlier CEC meeting (on the 3rd March), that the Interim Code of Conduct had also been pre-drafted by the returning officer, these documents were not circulated to the CEC until 7.53pm on 7th March, the evening before the meeting. Members also feel that if the documents had been collaboratively drafted by the CEC, as they should have been, there wouldn’t have been as many amendments submitted.

• Members submitted a number of interventions in favour of greater democracy, accountability and healthy debate. Member’s also offered interventions to promote greater inclusivity and in support of anti-racist policies. These amendments would bring the documents in line with Trade Unions and other movements (so not controversial or unusual). However, all but one amendments was voted down.

• Despite CEC members submitting amendments in advance, as requested, the chair decided that some amendments could not be considered because they were “getting in the way of business.” A move seen by others on the CEC as an attempt to undermine the party’s collective leadership model, approved at conference. Some of the submissions that didn’t make it onto the agenda include Anti-racism (including the Together march on 28 March), organised equality sections and Your Party Scotland – elections and open letter. Items that were on the agenda but not afforded sufficient time included Financial transparency and Local elections campaigning. One important item on the agenda, Local branch set-up, did not  get addressed at all due to lack of sufficient time. Consequently, some CEC Members were left feeling that CEC meetings are deliberately opaque and undemocratic, denying some CEC members full participation, denying the wider membership proper representation, and undermining unity.

• Members also raised concerns that there are still no direct channels of communications with other members or with HQ.

• In Sam Gorst’s report, following the meeting, we learned that the meeting was rushed, it felt disorganised and was “marked by urgency, tension and a palpable sense of division.” He describes the atmosphere as “tense” adding that “an undercurrent of frustration and suspicion hung in the air”

• Sam seems to think that “the two main factions had meticulously organised their strategies to secure success with their preferred motions and positions,” which, he felt, once again, ensured that independent candidates were sidelined or excluded.

• Sam also describes how he had taken some time to painstakingly compile a detailed report addressing key concerns such as “branch development, funding, candidate selection and international outreach” which was not circulated by the interim staff, as he had requested.

• Sam admits he voted for the Many slate when the officers were being elected. He also voted for some of the motions presented by the Grassroots Left slate, but he felt some of the motions presented by GL were either “unproductive” or “potentially intended to weaponise the process against a staff member (in the meeting) and the interim Chairperson.” Sam felt that GL may have been using “procedural tactics as weapons,” which would be unacceptable in his view.

• Sam feels that the independents were, once again, excluded from proceedings. He reminds us that members of the CEC are elected to represent a region or country, so excluding them is effectively denying that region or country their voice. He hopes that now that the Officers have been elected that we wont see a repeat of this at the next meeting.

• Naomi made an interesting observation in her personal statement… “there were no amendments other than those submitted by Grassroots Left-aligned CEC members.” Grassroots Left constitute just 7 of the 24 CEC members. However, Sam Gorst (Independent) said that he had submitted an amendment but it didn’t get onto the agenda for some reason.

STANDING ORDERS, AMENDMENTS:

1) A section from the Membership Officers’ role on working with diverse communities, encouraging inclusive participation in party activities (including BAME groups and underrepresented members), a necessary part of a party that stands for equality and anti-oppression, appeared to have been intentionally removed from the revised documents that were sent to CEC members at 11pm the night before the meeting. When members requested for it to be reinstated and for the word ‘BAME’ to be replaced with ‘Global Majority,’ it was voted down. Some CEC members also noted that a combination of other points that were allowed to pass, essentially placed a large part of the running of this party in the hands of the Officer Group and staff members.

2) A number of CEC members repeatedly requested that the meeting time (for the 8^th March) be extended from 2hrs to a full day, in order to allow enough time to co-create, debate, and agree on the all-important CEC’s founding documents. Members understood that these important documents would essentially “set the tone, precedent and operational reality of the committee.” Although the meeting was extended, it was only by an extra 45mins and then 20mins were lost due to technical issues with the zoom feature. A number of CEC members expressed their concerns that the collective leadership model, voted for at conference, had been shelved, and real power now resides with the Officers Group and their ‘Secretariat’ (staff). Further, due to time limitations, the CEC were unable to discuss many of the items on the agenda. Some members noted that the vital task of branch formations was listed as the last item on the agenda, and no papers had been submitted ahead of time. Some CEC members are now planning to put in a request to the Chair (who has sole responsibility and authority over setting agendas and timings), that an appropriate amount of time is set aside to discuss branch formations properly.

3) STV Elections for National Officer roles (as defined by the constitution) was also rejected (14 votes against). All officer roles went to members who stood on The Many slate.

4) Megan Clarke proposed an amendment on the frequency of meetings (seconded by Solma Ahmed). The draft standing orders left it open to being decided on an adhoc and infrequent basis, which meant that the general management the party would fall on the officer group or the secretariat, not the collective leadership that members had voted for. The amendment proposed an online weekly meeting (2hrs) and a one, full-day, hybrid meeting every month, to be rotated around the regions and nations for accessibility. This amendment was also rejected (14 votes against). When asked why this amendment wasn’t approved, Megan was told that weekly meetings could be inaccessible, which seemed illogical to other members who felt that regular, scheduled, meetings would be ‘more’ accessible, if anything. One member also added that their personal circumstances would not permit them to commit that amount of time.

5) Megan Clarke also proposed an amendment asking for more notice for meetings, seconded by Grace Lewis, arguing that a little extra notice would allow members more time to plan their schedules and also to seek opinions from their members on  any specific motions, submissions and amendments. This amendment was also rejected (14 votes against).

6) Solma Ahmed then proposed an amendment on the Sovereignty of the CEC, seconded by Candi Williams. Solma proposed that it should be up to the CEC to decide on confidential items in meetings, rather than being instructed by the officer group or secretariat, and that topics could be revisited within three months where necessary. One CEC member raised a concern that this could bog down the CEC with issues that could get brought back, over and over again. This amendment was also rejected (13 votes against).

7) Sophie Wilson then presented an amendment on Accountability of the Secretariat, seconded by Niall Christie. It proposed that the identities of the paid secretariat be available to all Your Party members, that minutes of their meetings be made available to the CEC and that the Secretariat should be subject to recall. A counter argument was presented that the Secretariat should be protected, given the strong feelings against them as referenced by social media posts referring to them as ‘unelected bureaucrats.’ Essentially they should remain protected until the online abuse ends. Despite’s Sophie conceding to remove the section on publicly naming staff, the amendment was still rejected, without further explanation (14 votes against).

8) Sophie Wilson then presented an amendment on CEC meeting sections, seconded by Solma Ahmed. The amendment proposed that CEC meetings should be separated into parts. Some parts would be exclusively for CEC members and some where the secretariat would also be in attendance. It also proposed that some parts should be reserved for confidential business, a common practice in the trade union and labour movement. Despite there being no counter argument, the amendment was rejected (14 votes against).

9) Grace Lewis then presented an amendment on limiting the power of the chair, seconded by Solma Ahmed. The amendment proposed that CEC members could overrule the chair by a simple majority (down from a 2⁄3 vote). It also proposed removing the chair’s privilege, alongside the secretary, to decide which motions feature on the agenda, replacing it with a more collaborative priority ballot based on members’ submissions. Another speaker argued that this could be a recipe for dysfunction of the committee “as witnessed in the last few minutes” and would lead to instability. The amendment was rejected (14 votes against).

10) Niall Christie then presented an amendment on ways of working for the CEC and officer group, seconded by Solma Ahmed, which stated that a vote of no confidence in an officer would require a simple majority (down from a 2⁄3 vote), and could
be tabled at any CEC meeting (not just at an AGM). It also proposed that the CEC should be responsible for all operational, financial and regulatory matters, not just the officer group. The amendment was rejected (14 votes against).

VOTE ON THE UNAMENDED STANDING ORDERS:

The CEC then voted on the unamended standing orders. The vote passed with 14  members voting to endorse them and only 8 votes against, with 1 abstention (Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi).

INTERIM CODE OF CONDUCT, AMENDMENTS:

While the CEC were to discuss the pre-drafted ‘Interim Code of Conduct,’ we were informed that the Chair would be tasked with developing “a more comprehensive code of conduct, to be presented to the next CEC meeting”

1) Megan Clarke presented amendments on transparency as the default, seconded by Candi Williams, where she proposed adding two new clauses… (3.1) “By default, internal discussions and strategic planning will not be marked confidential, and will only be marked as such if explicitly and actively decided by the CEC members present in the relevant CEC meeting.” and (3.2) “It shall be the responsibility of the CEC to make judgements on potential breaches by way of a majority vote of CEC members present at a quorate CEC meeting,” to be added to the end of the point about breaches being referred to party procedures. The amendment was rejected (14 votes against).

2) Candi Williams then proposed two amendments, seconded by Grace Lewis,
in favour of enhancing inclusivity and upholding the Code of Conduct’s stated role of safeguarding against harassment, discrimination and other unethical conduct. In an effort to unite the party and to ensure that everyone on the CEC had an equal voice, in keeping with the spirit of the collective leadership model that the membership had voted for, and also to ensure we met the commitments of Your Party’s political statement on equality and inclusion, Candi proposed to…  (3.3) Add “Inclusivity” to the pre-provided list of principles in the Code of Conduct.” This amendment passed unanimously (21 votes for, zero against). Further, to safeguard against the harassment of diverse groups, Candi proposed that the development of the Code of Conduct should be workshopped by a diverse group of CEC members, elected to provide collective leadership in a format more more closely aligned with the party’s stated commitment to equality and inclusive participation… (3.4) Development of a comprehensive Code of Conduct via “a diverse sub-committee of the CEC” not solely the Chair, so remove… “Task Chair with developing a more comprehensive code of conduct, to be presented to the next CEC meeting,” and replace it with “Task a diverse sub-committee of the CEC with developing a more comprehensive Code of Conduct, to be presented to the next CEC meeting.” The second amendment was rejected (14 votes against).

VOTE ON THE INTERIM CODE OF CONDUCT

The full code of conduct was then voted on with 14 votes in favour, 4 votes against
and 4 abstentions. The contributors to this report voted against and abstained
respectively.

OFFICERS’ ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES:

The Officer roles and responsibilities document was circulated at 7.53pm (on 7th March), with an additional amendment shared at 11.04pm. It outlined responsibilities for a number of roles, including Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary, Treasurer, Political Officer and Spokesperson. Two new roles were then added overnight (Parliamentary Leader and Membership Officer), that CEC members were not made aware of in advance,

1) Candi Williams proposed an amendment, seconded by Grace Lewis, to change the agenda setting responsibilities of the Chair… (4.1) For the Chair role, this proposal sought to replace the wording: “Approve agendas in consultation with the Secretary and other officers.” with: “In consultation with the Secretary, collate agendas that are set democratically and autonomously by the CEC, consistent with local party processes as detailed in the Party’s Standing Orders, Section 2.1.” The amendment aimed to ensure that agendas are determined collectively by the CEC rather than by officers alone, respecting the party’s commitment to democratic and collective leadership. Candi argued that the CEC is the collective leadership, elected by the regional membership to represent them, so its crucial that we have a democratic way to contribute to, and set, agendas. Candi pointed out that her agenda item on anti-racism was rejected, despite being a pressing concern, given that we have Reform on the rise and the Together march around the corner. This amendment was rejected (14 votes against).

2) Before proposing her next amendment, Candi asked why clause (4.2) had been removed from the Membership Officer role’s and responsibilities. It was the only clause missing from the 2nd draft documents, shared at 11.04pm the night before the meeting. Clause (4.2) stated that the Membership Officer is expected to… “promote and maintain effective communication and engagement with diverse communities, including BAME groups, smaller local organisations, and underrepresented members, to ensure inclusive participation in party activities.” Candi then proposed two amendments, seconded by Solma Ahmed. Firstly to reinstate clause (4.2) to Membership Officer role and, secondly to replace  “BAME” with “global majority,” so it read as follows… (4.3) Promote and maintain effective communication and engagement with diverse communities, including global majority communities, smaller local organisations, and underrepresented members, to ensure inclusive participation in party activities. Candi, and a number of other CEC colleagues (Solma Ahmed, Sophie Wilson, Megan Clarke and Mel Mullings, all on the GL slate), presented informed, considered and impassioned arguments in support of both amendments. Candi pressed home the importance of being inclusive and improving participation with diverse communities, especially for a party that purports to be anti-racist. No explanation was forthcoming for why the clause had been removed in the first place, or against changing the outdated and offensive terminology. Members were simply informed there was no time for a democratic discussion, even on a matter as important as inclusion of the global majority and underrepresented members. Both amendments were rejected (14 votes against).

3) Niall Christie then proposed an amendment, seconded by Solma Ahmed, in which he argued that we should be electing national officer positions by single transferable vote (STV), as defined by the constitution set at the 2025 Your Party national conference. The amendment was rejected (11 votes against, 9 in favour and a potential 4 abstentions). Worth noting that representatives who voted against this amendment have effectively voted in contradiction to the constitution that they agreed to uphold in the code of conduct.

4) Solma Ahmed then proposed an amendment, seconded by Sophie Wilson, that members should vote to remove the extra-constitutional roles of membership
officer and parliamentary leader. Solma argued that members voted for collective leadership, not a sole leader. Sophie Wilson also reminded the panel, even if they don’t in principle disagree with the existence of these roles, the code of conduct (that they approved earlier in the meeting), clearly states that the CEC must adhere to the party’s constitution. Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi also proposed an amendment on collective parliamentary leadership and suggested that each officer elected should work with 2 other CEC members, to ensure collective leadership. Both amendments were voted down (14 votes against).

OFFICER ELECTIONS:

Again, due to time constraints, nominees could not talk about their candidacies and members were not given sufficient time to debate the suitability of the candidates.
 

CHAIR

• Jenn Forbes temporarily vacates the chair to Noor Jahan Begum for the chair election.
• Fadel Takrouri nominates Jenn Forbes for Chair, seconded by Hannah Hawkins
• Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi nominates Louise Regan for chair, seconded by Grace Lewis, arguing that she had a great reputation across the movement, is someone who is able to work with absolutely everyone and would have the confidence of the entire CEC.
• Louise Regan declines the nomination and chooses not to stand.
• Sophie Wilson nominates Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, seconded by both Zarah Sultana and Candi Williams. Candi reiterates the need for a Chair that’s willing to work and collaborate with everyone on the CEC collaboratively
• Jenn Forbes secures 14 votes, Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi secures 9 votes. Jenn Forbes elected Chair.

VICE CHAIR

• Jenn Forbes nominates Laura Smith, seconded by Noor Jahan Begum.
• Grace Lewis nominates Solma Ahmed, seconded by Zarah Sultana
• Laura Smith secures 14 votes, Solma Ahmed secures 9 votes. Laura Smith elected Vice Chair.

SECRETARY

• Dawn Aspinall proposes herself for Secretary, seconded by Hannah Hawkins.
• Megan Clarke proposes Mel Mullings, seconded by Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi
• Dawn Aspinall secures 14 votes, Megan Clarke secures 9 votes. Dawn Aspinall elected Secretary.

TREASURER

• Hannah Hawkins nominates Fadel Takrouri for Treasurer, seconded by Cassi
  Bellingham.
• Grace Lewis nominates Megan Clarke, seconded by Zarah Sultana.
• Fadel Takrouri secures 14 votes, Megan Clarke secures 9 votes. Fadel Takrouri elected Treasurer.

POLITICAL OFFICER

• Louise Regan nominated (Proposer and Seconder not noted).
• Megan Clarke nominates Grace Lewis, seconded by Zarah Sultana.
• Louise Regan secures 14 votes, Grace Lewis secures 9 votes. Louise Regan elected Political Officer.

MEMBERSHIP OFFICER

• Jenn Forbes nominates Cassi Bellingham, seconded by Hannah
  Hawkins.
• Sam Gorst nominates himself and is seconded by Sophie Wilson.
• Megan Clarke nominates Candi Williams, seconded by Naomi
  Wimborne-Idrissi.
• Cassi Bellingham secures 14 votes, Candi Williams secures 9 votes, Sam Gorst does not secure any votes. Cassi Bellingham elected Membership Officer

SPOKESPERSON

• Jenn Forbes nominates Noor Jahan Begum, seconded by Fadel Takrouri.
• Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi nominates Sophie Wilson, seconded by Megan
  Clarke.
• Noor Jahan Begum secures 14 votes, Sophie Wilson secures 9 votes. Noor Jahan Begum elected Spokesperson.

PARLIAMENTARY LEADER

• Hannah Hawkins nominates Jeremy Corbyn, seconded by Noor Jahan
  Begum.
• No other candidates came forward and 6 members abstained.
• Jeremy Corbyn elected Parliamentary Leader.

SUMMARY: All of the 8 elected officers are from The Many slate. With the exception of Jeremy Corbyn, who stood uncontested for the newly created role of Parliamentary Leader, votes went consistently 14 to 9 in favour of TM candidates. These officers now form the Organising Group which will meet regularly, with the parliamentary leader and the secretariat, between CEC meetings.

STAFF REPORTS:

CEC previously advised all reports on electoral and regulatory matters, staffing and the financial position of the party would be provided in advance of this meeting. That did not happen. At this meeting the CEC were informed…

• All papers and handover documents will be given to the Officer Group rather than the full CEC.

• The interim staff group (a small professional core with volunteer support) currently remains in place.

• Currently the party is spending £16,000 a month on staffing, plus £7,000 on
  seconded staff from the Peace and Justice Project.

• Your Party needs to create ‘accounting units’ with the Electoral Commission in order for branches to receive funds.

• Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi pointed out that Circa £670,000 in donations had been reported to the the Electoral Commission in the fourth quarter of 2025 (the amount transferred from MOU Ltd to Your Party at that time). Zarah Sultana added that MOU are ready to transfer all remaining funds to Your Party to support branches, elections and campaigns. A point of order was raised about a conflict of interest, insisting that all financial matters must go through the Officer Group. The point of order had 14 votes in favour so all discussion was immediately shut down.

IRAN STATEMENT:

Louise Regan presented a statement opposing the attacks on Iran and explained it’ importance to Your Party. The statement condemned the US–Israeli military attack on Iran, describing it as an act of aggression that risks widening the conflict across the Middle East and beyond. The statement passed unanimously.

LOCAL ELECTIONS PAPER, AMENDMENTS:

CEC members were presented with a paper on local elections strategy at 7.53pm, the night before this meeting. This paper, proposed by Louise Regan and seconded by Dawn Aspinall, asked the following questions…

• What will the process be for candidates wishing to use the Your Party emblem and
  description on the ballot paper?

• How will campaign funding be managed? Are candidates expected to self fund or
  will the party provide this?

• Who will sit on the appeals panel for potential candidates rejected from standing by the officer group?

• Why is there a proposed administrative fee for candidates wishing to go through
  Your Party due diligence? What will the amount be?

• Where there are multiple candidates seeking selection, why is it stated that the
  officers group will officiate a selection process involving local members and not the
  local CEC members who were elected by that region?

1) These questions were left unanswered. Instead, the CEC were informed that the officer group would look into them and report back.

2) Grace Lewis proposed an amendment, seconded by Megan Clarke, that Your Party should require any independent community groups that we are considering working with, in the May 2026 elections, to have explicitly socialist principles reflected in their founding documents or constitution. One CEC member argued against the amendment, describing it as “purity testing.” Mel Mullins countered that this was not purity testing but simply a measure that would ensure, at a time of rising support for Reform UK and escalating political hostility, that the people we align ourselves with, who will be operating under our banner, share our core socialist values and believe in what we stand for. Mel argued that “clarity of political identity is essential if we want working‐class communities to trust that we are fighting in their interests.” This amendment was rejected (12 votes against v 9 for and potentially 2 abstentions).

3) Niall Christie expressed concern that there were no members from either Scotland or Wales on the elected officer group and asked when the Interim Scottish Executive should expect a response to their letter. No response was provided.

4) The paper was passed with 14 in favour, but 7 members chose to abstain because they felt the paper was incredibly vague, and problematic in parts.

CLOSE OF MEETING:

• Jenn Forbes summarised what had been achieved in the meeting, including that Standing Orders and a Code of Conduct had now been agreed, and officers had been elected. In a later statement Jenn would add that the CEC has agreed to implement the members votes at the founding conference and will adopt a targeted seats strategy and support community independent groups aligned with our values. She reassures us that the full process will be published shortly and adds that the CEC plans to “work at pace to support the members in Scotland and Wales to enact their own strategies for the Holyrood and Senedd elections”

• Jenn Forbes asked members to think about the reputation of the party as they report back to the membership. She reminds members that the code of conduct governs how they behave in the meetings, as well as outside of the meetings.

• Items that were listed under Any Other Business (AOB), such as the debate over why the term “global majority” (and other underrepresented groups), had been removed from documents, and the discussion around branch formulation, were not returned to.

• In a later statement Jenn Forbes informs members that “full, official minutes [of this meeting] will be shared with members, once the CEC has approved them at the next meeting”

• No explanation given on how the report will be shared.

• Next CEC meeting scheduled for Sunday 22nd March 3-5pm. The pre-defined elements of the agenda include: Updates on local and devolved elections, Branch formation discussion, Proposal from the Chair for the full CEC Code of Conduct, Report from the Officers’ Group meeting, Together march against racism and the far-right.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hey, why not BUY ME A COFFEE if you appreciate this post, or, better still, take out a MONTHLY SUBSCRIPTION and support our work. Even if you can only commit to £1 a month, it all helps folks!

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________