Unclear on why the other comment was flagged, I'll pull just the facts through to this one.
> It's office space that's situated conveniently close to Parliament, and isn't just used by conservative think tanks. For example, Feeding Britain (https://feedingbritain.org), a charity dedicated towards solving hunger in the UK, and headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, is also based at this address.
This is an extremely selective statement, there are 9 businesses stationed at 55 Tufton street and every other bar Feeding Britain is controversial. Some have links to far right populist ventures, even the other charities like the Taxpayer's Alliance actually "[exploit] the taxpayer rather than protecting their interests as they claim to do"[1]
Rather than going to the LGB alliance's site to read who they say they are, I'd rather believe in their actions over their words.
* They have argued it is not homophobic to oppose same sex marriage
* They have argued against a ban on conversion therapy for trans people
* They have suggested the "+" on "LGBTQ+" promotes beastiality
* They specifically excluded the names of trans victims from their condolences list after the Colorado Springs night club shooting
Fifty LGBT organisations pushed back against the LGB alliance being given charitable status. Plenty more have branded them a hate group. I think these longer lasting perspectives are far more telling than the autobiography from a group who came into existence in 2019.
> It's office space that's situated conveniently close to Parliament, and isn't just used by conservative think tanks. For example, Feeding Britain (https://feedingbritain.org), a charity dedicated towards solving hunger in the UK, and headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, is also based at this address.
This is an extremely selective statement, there are 9 businesses stationed at 55 Tufton street and every other bar Feeding Britain is controversial. Some have links to far right populist ventures, even the other charities like the Taxpayer's Alliance actually "[exploit] the taxpayer rather than protecting their interests as they claim to do"[1]
> As for the rest of your comment, please read: https://lgballiance.org.uk/lgb-alliance-who-what-why-when/
Rather than going to the LGB alliance's site to read who they say they are, I'd rather believe in their actions over their words.
* They have argued it is not homophobic to oppose same sex marriage
* They have argued against a ban on conversion therapy for trans people
* They have suggested the "+" on "LGBTQ+" promotes beastiality
* They specifically excluded the names of trans victims from their condolences list after the Colorado Springs night club shooting
Fifty LGBT organisations pushed back against the LGB alliance being given charitable status. Plenty more have branded them a hate group. I think these longer lasting perspectives are far more telling than the autobiography from a group who came into existence in 2019.
1: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2009/dec/29/taxpayers-alli...