Month: June 2026
Archbishop of Selsey Issues Open Letter to Brighton Council Leader Following Demonstration
Following the events in Brighton on 13 June 2026 and comments made by the Leader of Brighton & Hove City Council prior to the demonstration, Archbishop Jerome Lloyd publishes the following Open Letter and subsequent correspondence.
Open Letter
14 June 2026
Dear Councillor Sankey,
I write as a resident of Brighton & Hove, and as someone who has spent many years working alongside civic authorities, community groups, faith organisations, educational institutions, and law enforcement agencies in the service of community relations, social cohesion, and mutual understanding.
It is therefore with considerable disappointment that I read your public statement issued in advance of yesterday’s demonstration in Brighton.¹
In a democratic society, disagreement is both inevitable and healthy. What concerns me is not that you disagreed with the demonstrators, but that, as Leader of Brighton & Hove City Council, you appeared to prejudge them before they had even assembled.
Before the event had begun, you described prospective attendees as “far right agitators”, characterised their demonstration as an “unpatriotic march”, instructed them not to come to the city, and declared that their message was one of hatred.¹ These remarks were made not by a private citizen expressing a personal opinion, but by the elected leader of a local authority speaking in an official capacity.
The role of civic leadership is not to determine which lawful political opinions are welcome and which are not. It is to uphold the rights of all citizens equally, including those whose views may be unpopular, controversial, or profoundly at odds with our own.²
What I find most troubling is the contradiction at the heart of your statement. You rightly celebrated Brighton & Hove as a diverse city and declared that “difference is famously our strength.”³ Yet diversity worthy of the name must surely include diversity of opinion. Tolerance that extends only to those with whom we agree is not tolerance at all. It is merely preference.
If diversity is our strength, then that principle must apply equally to those whose political concerns differ from those of the city’s leadership. Otherwise, what is presented as inclusion becomes exclusion by another name.
Events later in the day only serve to underline this concern. Local media reported that anti-immigration demonstrators became effectively trapped inside a Brighton public house whilst crowds of counter-protesters gathered outside.⁴ Whatever one’s views of the demonstration itself, such scenes should concern anyone committed to democratic principles. Citizens participating in a lawful assembly should not find themselves effectively besieged because of their political opinions.
If intimidation occurred, it deserves condemnation regardless of who committed it. The principles of free expression and peaceful assembly do not belong exclusively to those whose views command public approval. They belong equally to those with whom we disagree.⁵
It is also difficult to ignore the irony that, had Nigel Farage described a group of political opponents as “agitators”, declared them “unwelcome” in a city, and associated their views with “hatred” before they had even assembled, he would undoubtedly have been accused of “stoking division”.⁶ Should such language be employed by the elected Leader of Brighton & Hove City Council, speaking in an official capacity? If public rhetoric is to be judged by its potential to inflame tensions, then that standard must surely apply equally to everyone.
I do not suggest that you intended intimidation or encouraged unlawful conduct. However, public office carries particular responsibilities. Words spoken by civic leaders possess a weight and authority that private opinions do not. At moments of heightened tension, the duty of leadership is to calm passions, reassure all parties that their rights will be protected, and uphold confidence in the impartiality of public institutions.
I am left to wonder, therefore, whether your remarks were consistent with the standards of objectivity, restraint, and leadership expected of holders of public office.⁷ Public confidence depends not merely upon fairness itself but upon the visible appearance of fairness.
Brighton & Hove deserves civic leadership that treats all residents with equal dignity, equal respect, and equal protection under the law, irrespective of their political opinions. It deserves public representatives who defend the rights of all citizens to participate peacefully in democratic life, especially when those citizens hold views with which they disagree.
I therefore respectfully invite you to reflect upon the implications of your statement and upon the responsibilities that accompany public office in a pluralistic and democratic society. The authority vested in civic leaders is considerable; so too is the obligation to exercise it with fairness, restraint, and impartiality.
Yours sincerely,
✠ Jerome Lloyd OSJV
Titular Archbishop of Selsey
Footnotes
¹ Councillor Bella Sankey, “Statement from the Leader of Brighton & Hove City Council,” Brighton & Hove City Council, 11 June 2026.
² Human Rights Act 1998, Sch. 1, Pt. I, Arts. 10–11; Equality Act 2010, c.15.
³ Councillor Bella Sankey, “Statement from the Leader of Brighton & Hove City Council,” Brighton & Hove City Council, 11 June 2026.
⁴ The Argus, “Anti-immigration protesters are ‘trapped in a pub’ in Brighton as crowds of counter-protesters gather outside,” 13 June 2026; I’m Just Brighton, live protest coverage, 13 June 2026.
⁵ Human Rights Act 1998, Sch. 1, Pt. I, Arts. 10–11; Handyside v United Kingdom (1976) 1 EHRR 737, para. 49.
⁶ The Neo-Nazi and Far-Right Coalition that Converged on Southampton Over Henry Nowak’s Murder, Byline Times, 3 June 2026; Riots and racism: why is the UK burning?, The Guardian, 13 June 2026. Both articles criticised Nigel Farage’s public rhetoric following the Southampton and Belfast disturbances and discussed allegations that such language contributed to social tensions and public disorder.
⁷ Committee on Standards in Public Life, The Seven Principles of Public Life (Nolan Principles); Local Government Association, Model Councillor Code of Conduct.
Councillor Sankey’s response
Sun 14 Jun, 21:36
Dear Archbishop
Thank you for your letter.
I have reflected on my comments ahead of the far right demonstration and I am confident that they were entirely appropriate. I believe I demonstrated the kind of civic leadership that the City expects and deserves.
Brighton and Hove City Council is an antiracist one and so when demonstrators who have racistly abused our former Muslim mayor, started a nationwide campaign of intimidating flag campaigns and signalled their commitment to deporting 1 in 7 people in this country come to town it is important to explain to them in advance the values that underpin our City. I assume you’ll have seen the Nazi salutes that were made on the day and the foul racism on display?
Interestingly, several members of the clergy have told me privately that they were pleased by my comments. There is clearly a diversity of views within the Church!
Kind regards,
Bella
Cllr Bella Sankey
Leader of Brighton & Hove City Council
Labour Councillor for Wish Ward
Archbishop’s reply
Dear Councillor Sankey,
Thank you for your reply.
I am grateful that you took the time to respond and to clarify your position.
I suspect our disagreement lies not in whether racism should be opposed—it should be unequivocally—but in our understanding of the obligations that accompany public office.
Having served as a trustee of Brighton & Hove’s Racial Harassment Forum and as a former Chair of the Brighton & Hove Faith Council, I have spent many years working alongside civic leaders, public bodies, and community organisations to challenge prejudice and strengthen community relations. It is precisely because of that experience that I have learned the importance of public institutions being seen to act with impartiality, particularly when dealing with contentious or unpopular viewpoints.
That principle has informed my interventions on a range of issues across our city. Indeed, I have previously written expressing concern about the impact that intimidatory and, at times, antisemitic behaviour associated with certain pro-Palestinian demonstrations has had upon members of Brighton’s Jewish community. Those concerns were reinforced by events surrounding the Council’s debate on Gaza and Israel in October 2025, after which Jewish representatives and community organisations publicly complained of being censored, marginalised, and unfairly treated during the proceedings.¹ Whether the issue concerns Jews, Muslims, Christians, migrants, political activists, or their opponents, my view remains the same: public authorities must be seen to act impartially and to uphold the rights and dignity of all.
My concern was never whether you approved or disapproved of the demonstrators. It was about whether the elected Leader of Brighton & Hove City Council should be publicly taking sides in that manner at all.
As Leader of the Council, you hold office on behalf of all residents, including those whose political views you may profoundly disagree with. The Nolan Principles, the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, and the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly protected by the Human Rights Act all point towards the importance of objectivity, fairness, and restraint in public office.²
It was for this reason that I found your statement troubling. Before the demonstration had taken place, prospective attendees were described as “far right agitators”, their march characterised as “unpatriotic”, and they were told not to come to the city.
You write that it was important to explain the values that underpin Brighton. I agree. The question, however, is whether those values also include the principle that lawful citizens may hold and express opinions with which the political leadership of the city disagrees.
That was the point of principle I sought to raise and, unless I have misunderstood your reply, I do not think we have yet reached common ground on it.
There is also a second concern on which I had hoped for your reflections. Reports that demonstrators became effectively trapped inside a public house by hostile counter-protesters should concern anyone committed to democratic pluralism, regardless of their views on the demonstration itself.³ If those reports are accurate, they represent a form of political intimidation that ought to be condemned unequivocally. Citizens participating in a lawful protest should not be subjected to intimidation because others dislike their views.
These were the two concerns that prompted my original letter: the impartial exercise of public office and the reported intimidation of lawful demonstrators. They remain the issues upon which I had hoped for your reflections.
Thank you again for taking the time to respond.
Yours sincerely,
✠ Jerome Lloyd OSJV
Titular Archbishop of Selsey
¹ Daniel Ben-David, “Brighton Council cut October 7, Hamas terror references from Jewish community speech,” The Jewish Chronicle, 17 October 2025; Campaign Against Antisemitism, “Brighton and Hove Council appears to try to silence Jewish community,” 24 October 2025; Sarah Booker-Lewis, “On day of peace, Middle East tensions spill over at council meeting in Hove,” Brighton and Hove News, 14 October 2025; Sarah Booker-Lewis, “Jewish campaign group says its censorship complaint is being ignored,” Brighton and Hove News, 10 December 2025.
² Committee on Standards in Public Life, The Seven Principles of Public Life (Nolan Principles), particularly the principles of Objectivity and Leadership; Local Government Association, Model Councillor Code of Conduct (2020); Human Rights Act 1998, incorporating Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights; Handyside v United Kingdom (1976) 1 EHRR 737; Plattform “Ärzte für das Leben” v Austria (1988) 13 EHRR 204.
³ The Argus, “Anti-immigration protesters are ‘trapped in a pub’ in Brighton as crowds of counter-protesters gather outside,” 13 June 2026; I’m Just Brighton, live coverage of demonstrations in Brighton, 13 June 2026.
Councillor Sankey’s response
Dear Archbishop,
As you’ll appreciate I am familiar with the Nolan principles and my obligations under the Human Rights Act. Indeed before taking public office I was a human rights lawyer and so I have a good understanding of our Constitution and my role within it.
You seem to misunderstand the Human Rights Act, how and where it applies and what it requires. The police have a responsibility to facilitate peaceful protest under Article 10 of the ECHR. This is what happened on Saturday with thousands of pounds of public money spent supporting the rights of the protesters to have their voice heard. But just as important is the right of counter demonstration, also protected by Article 10. For this to be meaningful counterdemonstrators need to be able to make their voice heard by those they are opposing. This is what happened.
Unfortunately for the demonstrators they were badly outnumbered which meant they couldn’t muster enough people to meaningfully march, despite the best efforts of the police to facilitate this. We have some excellent pubs in the City and I’m sure they will have been well looked after – having a pint instead of a protest is certainly not a breach of the Human Rights Act and so I wouldn’t be too concerned if I were you. As for intimidation, I saw plenty of that from the far-right demonstrators – some really ugly behaviour. The founder of the Raise the Colours movement was arrested on Queens Road after assaulting a woman (so much for the concern for women’s safety eh!)
You have also mischaracterised my statement. I described the organisers, not attendees, of the demonstration as far right agitators. This is a statement of fact based on their racist comments on the record. My role as Leader of the Council means I am frequently called on to make statements of fact, especially where antiracism is concerned, given the Council’s strong cross-party commitment to it.
I hope this clarifies things for you. I must say I am in turn quite troubled that of all the issues our City faces and that you could raise with me directly, this is the one you have brought to me. As a Catholic, in my personal capacity, it certainly wouldn’t be at the top of my list.
Kindest regards,
Bella
Cllr Bella Sankey
Leader of Brighton & Hove City Council
Labour Councillor for Wish Ward
Archbishop’s reply
Dear Councillor Sankey,
Thank you for your further reply.
I am grateful for your clarification that your remarks were directed towards the organisers rather than every attendee. I am happy to accept that distinction, although I do not believe it was apparent from the wording of the published statement itself.
I also accept that neither of us questions the rights of demonstrators and counter-demonstrators to express their views peacefully, nor the responsibility of Sussex Police to facilitate those rights.
For that reason, I suspect we may still be discussing different questions.
My concern has never been whether the organisers were right or wrong, nor whether their views were objectionable. It has been whether the Leader of Brighton & Hove City Council, speaking in an official capacity, ought to describe a forthcoming lawful demonstration as “unpatriotic”, declare its message unwelcome, and tell its organisers not to come to the city before it has taken place.
You have explained why you believed those remarks were justified. What I remain uncertain about is whether they were appropriate to the office from which they were made.
More broadly, my concern is not with your right to hold political views, but with the increasing tendency for public office to become politicised, such that official authority is used not merely to administer impartially but to pronounce upon which lawful opinions, movements, and associations are socially acceptable and which are not. Democratic societies depend upon robust disagreement. They also depend upon public institutions being seen to serve all citizens equally, including those whose views those institutions may dislike.
The same principle informed my concern regarding those who reportedly took refuge in a public house during the events of the day. Whether one agrees with their views or not, I remain of the opinion that citizens participating in a lawful demonstration should not be subjected to intimidation because others disagree with them. I have taken the same position when concerns have been raised by members of Brighton’s Jewish community regarding antisemitism and intimidation associated with pro-Palestinian activism. The principle is the same in every case.
Those were the concerns that prompted my original letter: the impartial exercise of public office and the equal treatment of lawful citizens regardless of their political views. They remain the issues upon which I had hoped for your reflections.
Nevertheless, I am grateful for your engagement and for the courtesy of your replies.
Yours sincerely,
✠ Jerome Lloyd OSJV
Titular Archbishop of Selsey
