The Jewish Chronicle, by Jamie Shapiro, on UK Politics, 5 November 2026

3.0out of 10Minor

Exclusive: after JC reveals plan to spend on

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.3 findings

Salford City Council is expected to reallocate £120,000 that was due to be spent on street art to Jewish community safety initiatives after the JC revealed that it had . The funds were granted to the city council by the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG) as part of Operation Hutton, a recovery scheme put in place to provide support and security to the Jewish community in the wake of the attack last Yom Kippur, which left two Jewish men, Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby, dead.

On receipt of the grant, the council wrote in September: “On Thursday, October 2, 2025, a terrorist attack commenced at the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation Synagogue on Yom Kippur, one of the holiest days in the Jewish calendar. “This led to immediate support and the development of a short, medium and long-term recovery plan.” The council stated specifically that the recovery plans “were developed to support Jewish communities in the aftermath of the attack”, adding they were intended to “rebuild confidence and resilience within their community and to challenge direct and indirect antisemitic and racist rhetoric by supporting cohesion structures, programmes and projects within the city”.

However, council documents seen by the JC last month showed an approved budget decision on September 22 which allocated £120,000 of the fund to a “Centenary Project” which would “celebrate the city’s centenary year”. The project consisted of creating “murals” to mark the anniversary as well as a “city-wide grant for community organisations to apply to put on events in their neighbourhood/city”. The document stated that this allocation was listed as an “internal DDN,” meaning it was being used for council purposes other than those for which it was originally intended.

None of the remaining £480,000 was used on Jewish safety either, , including £15,000 on “Positive Masculinity Workshops”, £20,000 on football games for children at risk of being expelled from school, and £10,000 on a “city-wide music project”. A further £10,000 was also allocated to the “Dootsi Iranian Project” intended to “help Dootsi (community group) focus on the integration of diverse communities from Iran, Afghanistan, Kurdistan to promote community cohesion and promote knowledge, social welfare and wellbeing”.

Following backlash to the decision, including a campaign from Councillor Andrew Walters, who represents Kersal and Broughton Park, council officers have recommended an amended budget plan to be voted on at the next cabinet meeting on November 10, which would see the £120,000 spent specifically on Jewish community initiatives. A further £130,000 also be put into the fund, with £80,000 from the original grant reclaimed from other initiatives and £50,000 taken from a different funding pot, called the Common Ground grant.

In council papers filed ahead of the upcoming cabinet meeting, seen by the JC, it stated: “A revised approach is now proposed for the remaining funding, explicitly to support resilience and trauma-informed support within the Jewish community, and to support work to build cohesion, and combat hate crime and antisemitism. Specifically, it is now proposed that; “Centenary funding is removed. This funding was specifically to support the programme of neighbourhood murals, in each of the city’s eight neighbourhoods.

Each mural is being co-designed with different community groups and will celebrate the unique identity of place... “The £120,000 previously allocated to Centenary funding will be invested directly with and in the Jewish Community... “The £80,000 previously allocated for a community grants fund will be combined with the £120,000 of funding referred to above and used to support charities and voluntary organisations already active within the city’s Jewish communities “The additional £50,000 Common Ground funding is added to this funding and used in accordance with the goals of this grant.

“These three measures create an overall ‘pot’ of £250,000 to directly support cohesion, resilience, and trauma-informed support with and to the Jewish communities in the city, as well as to continue to tackle antisemitism. However, much of the remaining spending plans will go ahead as planned, meaning that around £400,000 given to the council as part of Operation Hutton will still be spent on programmes not directly related to the community.

Despite the planned Centenary Project spend being listed as an internal DDN, a spokesperson from the council told the JC at the time of the original budget decision: “The proposed £120,000 allocation for the Centenary was intended to support communities to share in arts and creative activities across Salford, celebrating the distinct identities of different communities while bringing people from different backgrounds together through their neighbourhoods, which includes opportunities for Salford’s diverse faith and cultural communities to participate in and help shape activity.”

And, in internal communications between a council official and a city councillor, also seen by the JC, the official said: “It was one of a number of grants from government in the aftermath of the Heaton Park Synagogue attack, but was specifically to promote cohesion and tackle antisemitism across the city as a whole, and with all communities in mind. “The funding for the centenary element is specifically to support the work in each of the city's eight neighbourhoods, to create lasting community art (in the form of murals), and for that art to be designed by and with community groups in each area - bringing different people together to help describe and visualise what makes each part of the city unique.

“Our view is that this is entirely consistent with the guidance for use of the funding. The funding is being used to support the engagement work, the design work, and the actual painting - which will also involve those same community groups.” It was confirmed at the time that the budget decision was being “reviewed”. The deputy leader of the opposition group on the council, Reform UK Councillor Lewis Croden, told the JC in response to the original budget decision: “This fund was established to support Jewish communities after the attack at Heaton Park, and that duty remains.”

“We will look carefully at how the money has been allocated and hold the Labour council to account for its proper use.” A MHCLG spokesperson also told the JC at the time: “It is for local authority to choose where this money goes, but we are clear it must be spent on supporting communities impacted by the attack, and we are working closely with council to make sure the money is targeted effectively for local people.” Commenting on the latest developments, Walters has told the JC: “It was baffling that not a penny of Salford’s original £600,000 allocation was earmarked directly for a specifically Jewish community organisation, given why this recovery funding existed.

“These may be worthwhile projects. My objection was that the plans had lost sight of the community whose experience had brought this funding to Salford in the first place. Wider cohesion work matters, but so does direct support for those affected. “I kept pressing for that principle to translate into a practical commitment. I am pleased that this campaign [is now expected to] secure a dedicated £250,000 programme. “I thank the city mayor, Councillor Barbara Bentham and council officers for listening to the concerns I raised and working constructively towards this outcome.”

Applications for Jewish community groups to receive are expected to open in mid-November following the expected Cabinet approval. Jewish community organisations, and other organisations with a proven record of working directly with the community, would be eligible to apply. Bentham, the council’s lead member for neighbourhoods, environment and community safety, said: “We have listened to the feedback from our Jewish communities and partners in the city's voluntary sector.

“Reflecting their concerns, we are proposing to reallocate a large proportion of the funding to projects and initiatives that directly support their communities, strengthen resilience, and tackle antisemitism and hate crime. “This investment reflects our determination to work together with all of our communities and partners to create a city where everyone feels welcome, respected and protected. “We are committed to strengthening our relationships with the community on this important matter.”

Read the original article on thejc.com (opens in a new tab)
What we found (3)

The JC reports that Salford council is expected to move £120,000 of Operation Hutton money from neighbourhood murals to Jewish community projects. The headline puts 'street art' in quotation marks that nobody in the article said, and the JC calls the grant's other projects 'unrelated' in its own voice, although it does report the council's cohesion defence. One figure for the new fund, £25,000, is out by a factor of ten against the £250,000 given elsewhere.

  1. Headline goes beyond the article

    Minor

    “Council to return £120k to Jewish safety”

    Why this matters
    The words 'Council to return' state the move as done, and 'Jewish safety' names its purpose as safety.
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes the council has already decided to hand back £120,000 that was taken from a Jewish safety budget.
    The context
    The body says the council 'is expected to' reallocate the money and that officers have only recommended it, with a cabinet vote still to come on 10 November. The council papers describe resilience, trauma-informed support and cohesion work, not a safety budget.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“is expected to reallocate £120,000”
    • Elsewhere in the article“an amended budget plan to be voted on at the next cabinet meeting on November 10”
    • Elsewhere in the article“resilience and trauma-informed support within the Jewish community”

    Show it in the article

    “‘street art’”

    Why this matters
    The quotation marks around 'street art' present the phrase as words from a source and mark the spending as frivolous.
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes the council or its papers called the plan 'street art'.
    The context
    No source in the article uses the phrase. The council papers describe a programme of neighbourhood murals co-designed with community groups in each of the city's eight neighbourhoods.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“support the programme of neighbourhood murals”
    • Elsewhere in the article“co-designed with different community groups”

    Show it in the article

  2. States one side's claim as fact

    Minor

    “assigned £600,000 of government funding given to it for that purpose to unrelated projects”

    Why this matters
    In its own voice the JC says the whole grant was given 'for that purpose', Jewish community safety, and that the council spent it on 'unrelated projects'.
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes it is settled that the grant was meant only for Jewish safety and that the council diverted it to things with no connection to it.
    The context
    The purpose of the grant is disputed in the article itself. A council official says it was to promote cohesion and tackle antisemitism across the city with all communities in mind and is consistent with the guidance, and the ministry says it is for the council to choose where the money goes.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“specifically to promote cohesion and tackle antisemitism across the city as a whole”
    • Elsewhere in the article“this is entirely consistent with the guidance”
    • Elsewhere in the article“It is for local authority to choose where this money goes”

    Show it in the article

    “with all allocated to unrelated projects”

    Why this matters
    The JC repeats in its own voice that every other project funded, including cohesion and integration work, is 'unrelated'.
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes the remaining £480,000 went on projects that have nothing to do with the attack or with cohesion.
    The context
    The council says the work serves cohesion and countering hate, and even the councillor who led the campaign says the projects 'may be worthwhile' and that wider cohesion work matters. Whether they fit the grant is a dispute the JC reports later, not a fact.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“These may be worthwhile projects.”
    • Elsewhere in the article“Wider cohesion work matters”

    Show it in the article

  3. Uses figures that mislead

    Minor

    “a share of the £25,000”

    Why this matters
    The JC gives the fund Jewish groups can apply to as £25,000.
    The impression it gives
    A reader believes Jewish community groups will share only £25,000.
    The context
    The article's own reporting and quotes put the new pot at £250,000, ten times the figure given here.

    How we know

    • Elsewhere in the article“secure a dedicated £250,000 programme”

    Show it in the article

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from The Jewish Chronicle

  1. 5 NovHatzola, Shomrim, and CST honoured by Barnet Council for exceptional service to borough0.0
  2. 5 NovAntisemitic harassment claims by Jewish BBC staff demand independent inquiry0.0
  3. 4 NovLabour MPs condemn legal challenge to school antisemitism review over IHRA definition3.0
  4. 4 Nov‘Disgusting sectarianism’: Birmingham council slammed for anti-Israel divestment vote8.0
  5. 4 NovUK sanctions on Israel ‘stoking antisemitism’, warns former minister6.0

Everything we scored from The Jewish Chronicle