The aldermanic election in Portsoken on 14 December 2014 provides a peek into the surreal nature of City politics. Despite three out of four candidates standing as independents, at least two of these ‘independents’ had binding party political affiliations. Labour have caused a bit of an upset in the City in recent years by successfully standing official candidates for election in three out of four ‘residential’ wards, Portsoken, Aldersgate and Cripplegate. The City has a bicameral local government system, with the aldermen representing the senior members; this ‘elite’ is still resisting party politics in name but not in practice. The common council currently has five Labour representatives.
Officially the City doesn’t work on party lines the way most other councils in the UK do, partly perhaps as a strategy to dodge interest from the Electoral Commission but also because of its fondness for doing things by committee; a case of turning politics into business and vice versa. This local authority doesn’t operate by anything like the same rules as other UK councils; it has much more money, a far smaller electorate and an anti-democratic business vote that ensures residents have little influence over it. Nonetheless many of its ‘independent’ council members belong to political parties and its decision making clearly reflects this. Portsoken is one of only four of the City’s 25 wards where residential votes actually matter. It also has a lot of deprivation with a high child poverty rate.
On Thursday ‘independent’ Prem Goyal scored an easy win over Labour’s William Campbell-Taylor, his closest rival. Goyal is an ex-Labour man who quit the party after failing by one vote to become its prospective parliamentary candidate for Bermondsey & Old Southwark in 2013. In February 2014 he set up the All People’s Party (UK) with Adedokun Lasaki. The APP exists ‘to fight for equality at the top to ensure all people are represented at the top; to give avenues and leadership opportunities to all people who want to represent their community now; and to ensure our communities always come first.’ In other words, it’s all about diverse leadership, stupid! Goyal cited the lack of diversity at the top of the Labour Party as his reason for quitting it and forming the APP.
We saw no mention of the All People’s Party in the Portsoken election material and press coverage we were able to view. We wanted to look at the APP website to discern whether Goyal was still involved with it but it presently consists of a single page with the message: “Website undergoing Maintenance. Sorry for the inconvenience. Our website is undergoing maintenance and will be back shortly!” Regardless of whether or not Goyal is still leading the APP (perhaps he could clarify), we liked what he said in this piece in the run up to his election as Portsoken alderman:
Last week, I was deeply shocked by revelations that property developers lodging planning applications to the City of London Corporation were exploiting a legal loophole to lower their social housing contributions to the Corporation.
The revelation by the Corporation’s Planning & Transportation Chairman, which was helpfully covered in issue 053 of City Matters, means that the City have missed out on over £24.5m from developers unethically trying to protect their profits.
In a further affront to the City, the profit-saving loophole allowed developers to skirt around the City Local Plan guidelines of incorporating a compulsory 30% affordable housing on-site or 60% equivalent on another site. In the long-term, this will mean that the City will fall behind the rest of London and the UK in providing adequate affordable housing provisions….
However, we should not tolerate the continued existence of this exploitative loophole in the City’s guidelines any longer. Affordable housing in the capital is becoming ever scarcer so we cannot permit developers in the City to bypass their commitments to build more affordable dwellings.
If elected Alderman, I will lobby my colleagues on the City’s Planning & Transportation Committee to close the loophole immediately before any other developers can exploit it.
The City must act now, or we risk pricing those on medium to lower incomes from living in our great City.
Loophole for City developers should not be tolerated by Prem Goyal on his Global Market Consultants website, not dated.
Of course Goyal’s commitment to social inclusion is welcome as well. Likewise, we hope that he and others seek full answers to the potential conflict of interest issues still swirling around retiring Portsoken alderman Michael Bear, not to mention Chris Hayward and James Thomson; these have been covered by mainstream media outlets like The Guardian and The Daily Mail, but City residents (let along those impacted by this matter in Islington) have yet to be get satisfactory answers about them from the Corporation.
Goyal swept to victory with 228 votes, William Campbell-Taylor for Labour trailed behind him with 143 votes. We assume both these men received mostly residential votes since they were not City establishment figures; both have left-of-centre political leanings by City standards, where the overall make up of the council is decided by right-wing business votes. It looked to us like Goyal was in a much better position to garner some Portsoken business votes than Taylor. The population in the ward is around 1000 although not all are entitled to vote. Clearly it is ridiculous to have four common councillors and an alderman to represent such a small population. Reform of the City is an issue Taylor and the local Labour Party have been taking a stand on for some years. Goyal is vocal about diversity but his positions on reforming other aspects of the Square Mile currently aren’t clear to us. But if he is as robust about overall City reform as he is on institutional racism, then we’re very much looking forward to seeing him in action as an alderman. What Goyal is quoted as saying beneath resonated with us, and we’re hoping he’ll extended his criticisms to encompass the undemocratic political set up in the City:
Mr Goyal also raised the issue of diversity at social events paid for by City’s Cash, an endowment fund made up of earnings from the Corporation’s property and investments and used “for the benefit of London as a whole”, according to its website.
He claimed the events, such as the Sheriffs’ Breakfast, excluded people with black, Asian, and minority ethnic backgrounds, as well as white people from lower socio-economic backgrounds.
“I am very concerned that we are spending the City Cash on events that are making us even more out of touch with the people we are here to represent,” he said.
Councilmen calls for sanctions amidst racism row by Jo Davy, City Matters, 20th September 2017.
In terms of political position there appear to be many similarities between Taylor and Goyal, as may be evident from this piece written when the former was first elected as a common councillor for Portsoken in 2014:
In City of London terms Portsoken ward is an anomaly. Whereas the rest of the Square Mile accommodates the tall towers of the financial services, Portsoken has two social housing estates, a primary school and a straggle of small businesses.
It’s ethnically very diverse. There are poor people who live here as well as rich people who work here. It has rough sleepers and some drugs problems as well as young families wondering where to find a piece of grass to kick a football.
It is full of the very people my party leader might refer to as “hard working Britain” – only they’re not so much better off as pissed off. They like living or working in the City but wonder whether the financial services is an industry that serves them or just itself.
They see that the City of London Corporation has immense resources which it uses to subsidise its private schools, to lobby for light touch regulation in its financial institutions and to host high-level conferences on inclusive capitalism, but not to fix the broken shutters that compromise security on their housing estate. In many ways Portsoken is the ward in the City of London that stands for the rest of the country.
You’d never guess who lives in the super-rich Square Mile by William Taylor, The Guardian, 1 June 2014.
Taylor wanted to make a point but what he was saying would have been more accurate if he’d said Portsoken and Cripplegate stood ‘for the rest of the country’. There are two council estates in the City of London, one in Portsoken and the other in Cripplegate, and additional social housing of various forms in both wards; although at least 110 social housing units for key workers have been lost in Cripplegate since he wrote his piece, something Taylor has vocally criticised.
Despite political similarities, where Goyal and Taylor differ is that the former is a businessman whereas the latter is a clergyman. While Taylor is closer to Blue Labour than Corbyn, his Christian socialism has aroused the ire of right-wing anglicans, leading to what appears to be a long running smoke and mirrors campaign against him. The local press reported it this way when it arose in the context of the recent Portsoken election:
Portsoken aldermanic candidate William Campbell-Taylor was forced to defend himself against allegations of sexual abuse this week, after becoming the target of a direct mail campaign in the Middlesex Street Estate.
Flyers accusing the Anglican priest of grooming “a vulnerable male” were distributed to Portsoken residents late last week, just over a fortnight before voters head to the polls to decide who will be the ward’s next alderman to replace the retiring Sir Michael Bear.
The flyers contain an article from orthodox anglican website virtue.org outlining a court case in which Mr Campbell-Taylor is alleged to have solicited oral sex from an unnamed male victim, and then attempted to prosecute him for speaking out. Mr Campbell-Taylor described the allegations as “false” and “defamatory”.
“This material is the work of one individual, who has been stalking and harassing William for a decade,” his spokesperson said.
“There is a ten-year restraint order in place against this individual.”…
At this stage there is no evidence linking the individual to the flyers, which have been distributed on behalf of The City Foundation, an organisation that, according to Mr Campbell-Taylor, “does not exist”.
The City Foundation’s website lists an address in Chicago and advertises “community and social change” services. The letter proposes to ban religious clergy from standing in political elections and directs people to sign a petition on change.org.
William Campbell-Taylor target of “defamatory” direct mail by Jo Davy, City Matters, 30 November 2017.
Anyone who searches is likely to conclude that at best Taylor’s spokesperson is stretching a point when they say the material is the work of one individual. While the words reproduced on the leaflet probably were produced by one person, there appears to be an ongoing campaign on this matter involving at least several more. Reading between the lines and “quote marks”, City Matters doesn’t seem to find Taylor’s defence convincing; they even legibly reproduce the “defamatory” leaflet in an illustration. This shows the flyer to be an extract from William Campbell-Taylor, the Bishop Peter Ball Report and Clergy Abuse of Power by Alan Jacobs of July 11, 2017; a repetitive follow up to the same author’s William Campbell-Taylor, Peter Ball and the Silencing of Gay Clergy Abuse posted on May 25, 2016 and William Campbell-Taylor (Rev. William Taylor), London Priest in Sexual Abuse and Blackmail Scandal attributed to Pike’s Peak News that appeared on 30 December 2015. The 2017 piece includes the following:
It since transpires that William Campbell-Taylor has allegedly expressed some recent interest in standing for public office as a Labour Party candidate in forthcoming elections to become a City of London Alderman in the Portsoken ward.
My journalist colleagues and I have therefore examined and referenced the original witness statements and William Campbell-Taylor’s email correspondence with his victim which are on the public legal record of the Court, and were reported on at the time by journalists present themselves at the hearings.
William Campbell-Taylor, the Bishop Peter Ball Report and Clergy Abuse of Power by Alan Jacobs, Virtue Online, July 11, 2017.
There seems little doubt both the original article and the flyer made from it were produced with the intention of influencing the Portsoken election but over ecclesiastical as much as political issues. As City Matters presumably discovered when they tried to investigate the claims, if you follow the online leads you end up down a rabbit hole; which make the form of the denials from Taylor’s camp even harder to understand – why say it is only one person when it appears to be several? If it was only one person it would have brought more clarity to the matter to state it was one person masquerading as several, and if this is the case they do so quite impressively.
A piece on Pike’s Peace News entitled William Campbell-Taylor (Rev. William Taylor), London Priest in Sexual Abuse and Blackmail Scandal posted December 30, 2015, provides many links for the allegations it makes but these do to little to substantiate them. Readers are even referred to a WordPress blog reporting on Pike’s Peak’s ‘exposure’ of Taylor; as well as the City of London council and Guardian websites (for matters other than the allegations), and the supposed ‘smoking guns’, a YouTube video posted by The Church Reform Group and what are allegedly articles by ‘journalists who attended the Court hearings’ at which the Taylor case was heard – but that don’t actually appear to be credible sources of information when scrutinised. We will return to these shortly. The first blog piece we invoked here is curious for the claims it makes about the backgrounds of those involved in the campaign about Taylor:
The story was researched substantially by Bruce Rodgers, a one-time Wall Street hedge fund manager-turned Episcopalian pastor, who gave up the cut and thrust of the stock market to follow Christ’s calling….“It raised interesting dilemmas for me both as an Anglican which is the state church in England, and as an American Christian where the separation of church and state is law” says Rodgers. “The Christian Gospel is a political challenge to this world, but God’s Kingdom is not of this world, and don’t Christian pastors get a bit dirty when they do secular party politics?”
William Campbell-Taylor Sexual Abuse and Blackmail exposed by Pike’s Peak News by Ben S. Fielding, Harriet’s Place, 24 May 2016.
A hedge fund manager turned pastor might well be as interested in defending the City as in pursuing a religious dispute. As well as sharing a number of religious targets with Pike’s Peak News, Harriet’s Place makes the matter seem like even more of a personal and political vendetta by attacking Taylor’s wife:
Actually, just like her other half, Kristin’s gift for self-marketing means she’s made a great deal out of being a #VicarsWife, as her blogs, Twitter and Instagram endlessly sell herself in an American fantasy of being an English clergyman’s tea-and-scones lifestyle accessory. But like Campbell-Taylor’s selling of himself as a vicar-politician, this ultimately is a marriage all for sale, all spin and marketing, with shabbily poor content… @kperers #VicarsWife has rather prostituted the Gospel’s understanding of Christian marriage, and is literally selling a cheapened product of #VicarageLife #VicarsWife for a swooning lifestyler audience…. Yes, we get your game @kperers #VicarsWife #Hypocrite married to #RevBlowJob….
The #Hashtag Marriage of Kristin Perers #Vicar’s Wife by ‘HarrietsPlace2’, Harriet’s Place, 19 April 2016.
Moving on, the YouTube video invoked as proof of Pike Peak’s claims and entitled Religious Power: Risk and Regulation – A Debate on Clergy Abuse, is 2 hours 26 minutes long with poorly recorded sound. There is no indication of where to find allegations about Taylor on it and few will be prepared to look through the whole thing to find them if they are even there. We skipped through it but didn’t find them from our less than thorough search. We had already watched the entire hour and a half of the only other video posted on YouTube by The Church Reform Group, entitled William Campbell-Taylor Caught Lying in City of London Election, apparently amateur footage of a 19 March 2014 Portsoken wardmote. This shows Taylor being subjected to a great deal of abuse after someone with a ‘question’ from the audience belligerently begins an unbelievably trivial argument over whose intervention led to some shutters being repaired on the Middlesex Street Estate; as far as we could see it didn’t prove what those who posted it claimed it did. We therefore concluded the even longer video really wasn’t worth watching in its entirety.
Companies House records show that a Church Reform Group is registered with them with the company number 09746906. This operation’s registered offices are currently c/o the National Council Of Hindu Temples in Leicester, but they were previously at a vicarage in Burnley and before that in what appears to have been either a serviced office or a company registration centre in London. The registered Church Reform Group has one resigned director, Graham Sawyer who describes himself as a minister of religion, and two active directors in the form of IT consultant Satish Kumar Sharma and teacher Daniel Diskin. Shamar is also a director of William Campbell-Taylor (prior to 2014 Camden Faith Communities Partnership) with company number 07094486; the nature of this business is described as ‘activities of religious organisations’ and it has a registered address in Portsoken. There are three other current directors and a current secretary of William Campbell-Taylor, with nine resignations, the latter were either before the change of company name, or else all on the same day shortly after. The Portsoken candidate William Campbell-Taylor is not recorded as ever having been a controlling officer of this company.
All of which leaves anyone looking into these matters not knowing what to make of them and concluding they need further investigation. While circumstantial evidence makes it look like the Church Reform Group registered at Companies House is the same entity of that name campaigning against Taylor, we have no conclusive proof of this. A conspiracy theorist might suggest: a) this is a plot to discredit Taylor; b) Taylor is guilty of misconduct and has orchestrated a ridiculous campaign against himself to cover that up; c) Taylor is working with the City establishment to undermine those seeking to politically reform it and the abuse allegations are a smokescreen to make sure attention is diverted from what he’s really doing; d) Taylor or someone else is orchestrating all this because they have a really wacky sense of humour; e) any combination of the previous four or even something else entirely. Beyond the fact that it’s a lot of smoke and mirrors we’re currently not too sure what’s going on. But given grave suspicions about Kremlin attempts to influence elections around the world, it doesn’t seem entirely impossible that right-wing Christians from the US Bible belt are attempting to interfere in local politics in the City of London.
Moving on, this is part of a mass circular sent out by the Church Reform Group in 2015 and linked to by Pike’s Peak News:
The Archbishop of Canterbury has met with survivors and campaigners around clergy abuse, and promised an independent case audit and inquiry into abuse in the Church of England within six months. Victims asked the Archbishop to focus on dealing with misconduct and abuse by Anglican clergy rather than the Church’s high profile campaigns concerning the City of London and finance.
Victims Ask Archbishop to Stop Criticising the City and Start Dealing with Clergy Abusers by Church Reform Group from a mass email available online via MailChimp.
While we also feel there is a great need to address sex abuse and grooming among the clergy of many denomination whether they be Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox, or for that matter Buddhist (where there is also a huge problem of abuse), to couple this with a demand to stop criticising the City is peculiar unless the latter is the primary concern of those making the complaints and the former is little more than a convenient stick with which to beat the Church. And if this is the case, which it seems to be, then those making these demands are doing victims of sexual abuse a huge disservice by hijacking their campaign and potentially discrediting it to further their own agenda. While some of the material attacking Taylor appears more religiously motivated, and some animated primarily by a desire to defend the vested interests of the City and financial industries, most of it seems to combine both.
While not exhausting the sources of material easily found online about Taylor and these matters, we’ll finish with what Pike’s Peak News links to from the words ‘journalists who attended to cover the Court hearing’ – which turns out to be Richard Carvath, a would-be Tory activist apparently barred from the party for homophobic and personal attacks. Carvath calls himself a ‘British Journalist’ and then pretty much holds up his hands and admits he isn’t one on his home page:
Richard Carvath, 41, has been involved in investigative print journalism since the 1990s. He also functions in PI and PMC roles. Richard supplies accredited research and intelligence to others (thus tending not to write finished articles for general publication under his own name).
Richard Carvath online. Richard Carvath – British investigative journalist by Richard Carvath from Carvath wordpress site, this is undated but appears to be a few years old.
If Carvath doesn’t write copy that merits a byline, and he admits he doesn’t, then he isn’t a journalist; it is also clear from what many others write about him online that they think the term homophobe fits him better than ‘researcher’. Blogger is a less contentious description. While Carvath has quite a few entries about Taylor’s court cases he stops reporting on them before a final verdict is reached, so even if he was a credible witness they would be quite inconclusive. The bigoted tenor of Carvath’s blogging is very evident in a piece he wrote about a fashion show:
On Monday evening (18 September) in Holborn, as part of London Fashion Week, the Turkish designer Dilara Findikoglu showcased her 2018 Collection of Satanic clothing at St Andrew’s Catholic ‘church’.
(As a protestant, I dislike using the word ‘church’ in relation to any temple of Romanism, Popery and Mariolatry. However, I’m well aware that many if not most British people today lack even a basic grasp of what Catholicism is really about, and of why Catholicism is profoundly errant and evil. Many if not most are also ignorant of the Bible, and of true Christian faith and practice. So, under sufferance, to avoid confusion, I shall refer to this Romanist temple as a ‘church’.)
The Roman Catholic ‘church’ has since apologised for hosting this Satanic event.
(Some might say ‘Why the apology?’ coming as it does from an organisation much closer to Satan than to Christ.)
Satanism’s onward march in 21st century Britain by Richard Carvath , Carvath, September 22, 2017.
And so it goes on in terms of the political and religious extremism and intolerance with regard to those ‘exposing’ Taylor. Needless to say even in the odd attack on this cleric that bends over backwards to sound reasonable, the comments underneath are laced with homophobic abuse. The piece from Pike’s Peak News that I used as my guide through this morass of bile carried on a side bar as the site’s top two recent posts: ‘Ellen Degeneres Cancels Christian Singer’ and ‘Muslim Nomads Massacre Christians in Nigeria’. The latter is probably self-explanatory, while the former is about someone having their invitation to appear on a TV show cancelled after a homophobic rant they made about gay sex being a sin went viral on social media.
It certainly appears that members of the Christian right have made a concerted attempt to influence the course of political events in both Portsoken and the City of London. Having perused what we have in the Christian blogosphere, which might be enough to cause a far-Right nutjob to believe that Taylor is the Goat of Mendes (Baphomet, The Horned God, The Devil himself) crossed with Rosa Luxemburg, it is perhaps a good idea to remind ourselves via quotation of how politically timid this City reformer is:
Until 1997, it was Labour party policy to abolish the City of London Corporation. New Labour made its ill-fated accommodation with the City and then it turned out that those eggs were toxic after all and the goose was fouling its nest.
Should the corporation now be abolished and the golden coach consigned to the Museum of London? Many on the left would say it should. But I don’t think so. I say that not only because next month I am standing for office as the City’s first Labour alderman, but because I think the corporation needs to be transformed, not abolished. This will not be easy, quick or painless.
First, it needs to wean itself off its love of Caribbean tax holidays and begin to put its capital to work in Stoke and Doncaster and in the “Brexit heartlands”. It needs to challenge the corrosive levels of pay in the City and the gross inefficiency of a financial system where so much of our money goes on fees – a self-service industry rather than a service industry.
The corporation needs to challenge a culture where bankers buy off poor communities with day trips to see that goose wandering around the poultry farm. Trick or treating may be the modern City’s way, but it is not the traditional way.
Actually, from its roots in the Saxon folkmoot, the City has pioneered deliberative democracy. In its resistance to the arbitrary dominion of King John, the barons established accountability at Runnymede. In the medieval livery companies, there is a movement to guarantee the quality of the product. In its ward clubs, guild churches and ancient precincts, there is a pattern of civic association. My ward even has its own liveried militia: the original small platoon.
Capitalism can only be transformed by these relationships of reciprocity and solidarity. The City of London Corporation needs to remember its history and allow it to serve the common good.
The City of London Corporation can help others, not just bankers: Change from within can transform it into a force for good by Father William Taylor, Guardian, 12 November 2017.
One of internet entrepreneur David Barker’s attempts at getting elected prior to his Centrist Party being officially registered, and so when he genuinely was an independent. He clearly doesn’t want to be an independent and effectively wasn’t when he stood for Portsoken alderman, as his Centrist Party was registered by then.
The other two candidates in Thursday’s Portsoken elections were also-rans. David Barker got 20 votes. Although Barker stood as an independent he used the website of the Centrist Party (which he recently set up with his wife Sophia Barker) to promote himself in Portsoken. Anthony Samuels, who City Matters described in their results coverage as ‘largely silent in the lead-up to the election despite fierce campaigning from the other three candidates’, got 2 votes. Samuels is an elected Tory councillor and vice-chair at Surrey County Council but stood as an independent in Portsoken. We assume he went in as an establishment candidate who hoped that Taylor and Goyal would split the residential vote, enabling him to clean up with the business votes. If he did then he overlooked a crucial rule when it comes to City elections, while the electorate is tiny and effectively the whole process is a farce, establishment electors expect their candidates to put on a show for the world and play act as if the whole thing were a normal council election anywhere else in the UK (but with ‘independents’ rather than parties). Samuels didn’t play ball and received no support.
‘Independent’ Tory Tony Samuels gave also-rans a bad name in Portsoken. Presumably he’s not a man who believes in getting on his bike.
Goyal not being the establishment choice is probably evident from the fact that it was the outgoing alderman himself, Michael Bear, who early in the campaign reported him for misuse of funds:
A common Councillor has been forced to apologise after using public funds to print off election leaflets promoting his candidacy.
Bishopsgate Ward representative Prem Goyal said he “sincerely regrets” not undertaking training on members’ code of conduct prior to using the Corporation’s printing facilities ahead of his joining the race to become the next Alderman of Portsoken.
Mr Goyal’s case was dragged in front of the standards sub-committee on Monday after a complaint was lodged by Sir Michael Bear, the outgoing Portsoken Alderman – a post that will be contested in December.
In an email exchange seen by City Matters, Mr Goyal admits to printing an estimated 1,000 leaflets as he “did not have a fast printer” adding that he “didn’t think it would be an issue”.
He went on to explain that he did not plan to use the local authority’s equipment during the election expense-regulated campaign period that began on 14 November, and said that if he was found to have breached regulations then he would “happily” reimburse the City for costs incurred.
Councillor in hot water over misuse of public funds by Tom Oxtoby, City Matters, 15th November 2017.
While there are ongoing attempts to interfere in elections around the globe, in places like the City of London where elections sometimes go uncontested and at others are won on a handful of votes, they are particularly easy to manipulate. There was an awful lot of smoke and mirrors connected to not just this recent one, but also the 2014 common council election in Portsoken, as evidenced by the YouTube video of a wardmote described above. Both demonstrate why the city requires much more than the very mild ‘feel good’ reforms that William Taylor shouts out for in his recent Guardian piece above. And of course there are innumerable other reasons for reforming the City – such as giving local people the same democratic voice nearly everyone else in the UK already enjoys – but this piece is already too long, so we won’t address that now!
While Portsoken isn’t in EC1, it is of direct relevance to us both as a neighbour and because of how it reflects the need for political change throughout the City including, of course, those parts of Cripplegate in EC1.
Loophole for City developers should not be tolerated by Prem Goyal: http://globalmarketsconsultants.com/loophole-for-city-developers-should-not-be-tolerated/
William Campbell-Taylor target of “defamatory” direct mail by Jo Davy: http://www.citymatters.london/william-campbell-taylor-defamatory-direct-mail/
Councilmen calls for sanctions amidst racism row by Jo Davy: http://www.citymatters.london/common-council-calls-for-sanctions-amidst-racism-row/
You’d never guess who lives in the super-rich Square Mile by William Taylor: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/01/square-mile-city-london-first-labour-councillor-poor
The City of London Corporation can help others, not just bankers: Change from within can transform it into a force for good by Father William Taylor: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/12/the-city-of-london-corporation-can-help-others-not-just-bankers
Councillor in hot water over misuse of public funds by Tom Oxtoby: http://www.citymatters.london/councillor-hot-water-misuse-public-funds/
We don’t link to right-wing sites. Some of those mentioned above have already gone to a lot of trouble to cross-link to each other to up their search engine rankings as regards posts about William Taylor. Anyone who wants to see what I refer to above can currently find it very easily. I don’t wish to bolster their SEO. There is also much we haven’t mentioned in the above, for example, another Virtue Online piece that veers off into an attack on Taylor is The Dog Collar or the Cross? The Church of England’s Vendetta Against the Barnabas Fund Dr. Sookhdeo target of pro-gay-pro-Muslim-multicultural agenda of St. Paul’s Dean by Alan Jacobs, posted June 30, 2016.