XX SEPTEMBER 2025
An Open Letter:
Accountability and Justice @ Pride in London
We need a Pride in London we can be proud of
To the Mayor of London, The Office of the Regulator of Community Interest Companies, Pride in London's stakeholders, and our communities, in particular LGBTQ+ and Black communities in London,
We write seeking transparency, due process, and adherence to agreed legal obligations from Pride in London CIC - an organisation established to benefit our community, that appears to have lost sight of its mission, responsibilities, and even common decency in recent weeks.A Crisis of Governance
A group calling themselves the Pride in London board has taken extraordinary action by suspending CEO, Christopher Joell-DeShields. The pace of their drastic actions - from a standing start in late August, to provoking a confrontation that required a court injunction just days later - looks like careful planning of a campaign for control rather than the moral outrage or reputation-salvaging, emergency response they claim.As a Community Interest Company (CIC), Pride in London has specific legal obligations. CICs exist "primarily for community benefit rather than private profit" and must demonstrate transparency in their operations. The current situation in which the organisation is mired, a result of personal score-settling that has got out of hand or worse, raises serious questions about whether these obligations are being met.Fundamental questions remain unanswered:Who are they? As a CIC, Pride in London must maintain transparent governance, in accordance with its own rules. The community they claim to serve has a right to know who makes decisions in their name, and would reasonably expect that a vocal champion of volunteering would want to engage its volunteers when appointing an entirely new board, and its members in line with its agreed period of notice of meetings. While the name and pictures of the CEO of Pride in London have graced the web pages of national and international news sites, there has not been any identification of the Board members.Are they playing fair? No employer should drag an employee through the media with unproven allegations without conducting a proper investigation. This is especially concerning for a CIC, which has heightened duties of transparency and community accountability. Where is the duty of care to which they are required to give due regard? Is there a truly independent investigation underway, a timescale for its delivery, or any limit to its scope, or has the Board used up all its energy contacting the press to attend an injunction hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice to ensure that any and all allegations are made public regardless of basis in fact?Why the media before the police? The allegations themselves seem perplexing. How serious are the Board about justice being done? If financial impropriety is genuinely suspected, why contact the BBC and Guardian but not the Metropolitan Police - especially given six months between the alleged discovery and suspending the CEO?What about statutory obligations? CICs must file annual reports detailing "how they have consulted stakeholders on their activities." How can stakeholders be consulted when the board remains anonymous, and their appointment process so questionable?Reasonable Demands Based on CIC Requirements
Like the Pride in London board, we want those in positions of responsibility to be held accountable. We still need Pride - as protest and as celebration. We lend our support to Pride in London and our trust that it will operate fairly in our name - we are sure other stakeholders and sponsors feel the same. At the most basic level, we are asking for Pride in London and its regulators to reassure stakeholders that they are meeting all legal obligations as a Community Interest Company:1. Immediate transparency - Publish board members' names and their appointment process. CICs must demonstrate they operate for community benefit, not private interests.2. Financial accountability - Disclose all legal and investigation costs. The CIC's "asset lock" means resources must be used for community benefit. Is this investigation and litigation against their CEO for community benefit? This is public money and hard earned donations expended on what could be frivolous claims3. Stakeholder consultation - As required by CIC regulations, demonstrate how the community was consulted before taking such drastic action.4. Public meeting - Organize a community forum through a neutral third party within 30 days. This aligns with CIC requirements for stakeholder engagement. It is not enough to publish anodyne statements on the Pride in London website claiming that you “embrace diversity”.5. Regulatory review- The CIC Regulator must investigate whether Pride in London is meeting its community interest test and governance obligations or risk undermining the good work undertaken by many CICs nationally.6. Due process - Allow the CEO to respond to specific allegations. Justice and employment rights are not optional extras for organisations claiming to serve community interests.Community Interest Requires Community Voice
Pride in London is not a private company where directors can act with impunity. This is not reality TV. As a CIC, the Pride in London board has statutory obligations to:
- Operate transparently
- Benefit the community it serves
- Consult with stakeholders
- File public reports on its activitiesThe Mayor of London, as the largest single donor, has particular responsibility to ensure public funds support an organization that meets these legal requirements. The CIC Regulator has powers to investigate complaints and must act when governance failures threaten community benefit.This matters because Pride has always navigated tensions between celebration and protest. Trans Pride and UK Black Pride emerged from communities needing spaces that centered their specific struggles. Under Christopher Joell-DeShields' leadership, Pride in London had begun bridging these divides, delivering a successful 2025 event and extending the range and depth of work addressing long-standing criticisms about representation.Patterns That Demand Scrutiny
We note with concern that what appears to be an all-white board, appointed in an extraordinary manner, is seeking to remove one of the few Black CEOs in the UK LGBTQ+ charitable sector. While we make no prejudgment about any allegations, the process itself - public shaming, denial of voice, precipitous legal action - follows all-too-familiar, troubling patterns that typify racial injustice.The CIC structure exists to ensure organizations serve their communities, not narrow interests. When a board acts in ways that appear to contradict these principles, regulatory intervention is appropriate and necessary.The Path Forward
BLKOUT UK commits to monitoring this situation because CICs depend on community vigilance to maintain their purpose. We invite others to commit to taking an active and engaged interest in fairness and justice in Pride in London, and all organisations that claim to act in our name by adding your signature to this letterWe call on:
The CIC Regulator to investigate whether Pride in London is:
- Meeting its community interest test
- Following proper governance procedures
- Fulfilling transparency obligations
- Appropriately using resources for community benefitThe Mayor of London to:
- Enable Pride in London to undertake a meaningful regulatory review
- Demand evidence of inclusive stakeholder consultation
- After review, require transparent governance as a funding conditionThe so-called Pride in London board to:
- Identify themselves
- Publish a full and frank account of their appointment process
- Practice community consultation
- Justify to stakeholders the litigation costs and the costs of this business disruptionPride in London exists within a framework of legal provisions that recognise the importance of community based action. These provisions come with obligations that cannot be ignored when convenient.To the hundreds of thousands who marched or attended Pride in London in July: an organisation that claims to work on your behalf, needs your attention to help it stay focused and ensure its actions are conducted fairly.To the CIC Regulator: your intervention is required when governance structures are misused to pursue agendas that undermine community benefit.To the board: come clean and tell us what is really going on, your anonymity while exposing your staff to potential harm speaks volumes. Act with the transparency your claimed legal status demands.We need a Pride in London that meets its legal obligations, operates with integrity, and genuinely serves the community interest it was established to benefit.In determination and solidarity,Dr Rob Berkeley MBE
BLKOUT UKand
co-signatories---
Community Interest Companies exist to serve communities, not private interests. Join us in demanding Pride in London meets its legal obligations.Contact [email protected] to register your concerns.Submit the form below to add your and/or your organisation's support.
BLKOUTUK.COM