Author: comms

When London’s resilience leaders met in October, one message came through loud and clear: the city is entering a new era of resilience where multiple challenges are likely to happen at the same time, last longer, and place greater demands on services and communities alike.

The London Resilience Forum (LRF) brings together organisations from across London’s emergency services, local authorities, health sector, infrastructure operators, businesses, voluntary organisations and community networks to identify risks, share learning and strengthen the capital’s preparedness for future challenges.

Reflections on the past, considerations for the future

The LRF reflected on the lessons from summer 2026, which saw extreme heat, drought and wildfire activity alongside major events and ongoing service pressures. This pattern is likely to continue and future planning needs to account for multiple risks occurring at the same time and for longer periods.

The meeting looked at the Government’s review of the Civil Contingencies Act, the legislation that underpins the UK’s emergency preparedness arrangements. The LRF highlighted the growing complexity of modern emergencies, the importance of sustainable funding for resilience work, and the need to recognise the contribution made by communities, businesses and voluntary organisations alongside statutory responders.

The LRF also considered the forthcoming national “Be Ready” preparedness campaign. Members welcomed the campaign’s aim of encouraging households to take practical steps to prepare for disruption, but stressed that messages will need to be adapted for London’s diverse communities and delivered through trusted local networks. Partners emphasised the importance of ensuring that resilience communications are inclusive and accessible, particularly for people facing financial or other barriers.

Alongside these strategic discussions, the LRF received updates from the London Resilience Programme Board. Work continues to strengthen governance, improve assurance arrangements and focus effort on the risks and capabilities that matter most to London. Updates were also provided on mass evacuation and shelter planning, cyber resilience, training and exercising programmes, and the development of future risk and capability priorities.

The meeting also highlighted preparations for a number of significant anniversaries in 2027 , including Grenfell, London Bridge, Westminster Bridge and Finsbury Park. Members emphasised that any commemorative activity should be developed alongside affected communities and handled with appropriate care and sensitivity.

A shared endeavour

The overall message from the meeting was clear: resilience is increasingly a shared endeavour. Building a safer and more prepared London depends not only on emergency responders, but also on strong partnerships with communities, voluntary organisations, businesses and residents across the capital.

When disruption happens, faith and community organisations can offer trusted relationships, local knowledge, practical support, and safe places. Resilience planning needs to make it clear how these contributions fit into London’s wider arrangements.

LBFN highlighted this as an important theme at the Partnerships Risk and Capability Workshop on 7 October 2026. Partners considered draft proposals for reviewing London’s resilience capabilities — the plans and arrangements that help organisations prepare for, respond to and recover from emergencies.

For faith and community organisations, one question brings the discussion into focus: Where do we fit, and what do we need to do?

Keeping plans responsive to changing risks

The workshop explored how review schedules could respond to changing risks, new guidance and lessons from exercises and incidents. Partners saw value in this flexibility, while stressing the need for a dependable programme that prevents some capabilities from being repeatedly postponed.

For communities, this matters because plans must remain relevant to the conditions people face. Partners highlighted climate change when discussing how frequently severe weather and natural hazards arrangements should be reviewed.

Clear reasons for prioritising work, and a way to raise concerns when reviews are deferred, would help partners understand and contribute to those decisions.

Making guidance easier to use

Partners also considered whether related guidance could sit beneath broader “umbrella” frameworks. A possible utilities disruption pilot would bring together material on power, fuel, water and telecommunications.

The potential benefit is practical: organisations may find it easier to understand how disruptions connect and locate the guidance they need. However, partners questioned whether restructuring would improve usability or simply move existing content.

For LBFN, the test should be whether someone supporting their community can find, understand and act on the information. Distinct risks still need clear guidance, and established resources should remain usable.

Giving partners clear, manageable roles

A recurring request was for a plain explanation of what is required, from whom and when. Partners asked for clearer responsibilities, realistic workloads and better links between planning, training and exercising.

This is particularly relevant to organisations working with limited staff and volunteer time. Clear expectations can help them identify useful contributions and explain where they need additional support.

The discussion also recognised that assessing risk differs from understanding how prepared the whole partnership is to address it. That wider picture requires evidence and contributions from multiple organisations.

Turning discussion into practical participation

The proposals remain under development. Further work was identified on review schedules, annual work plans, responsibilities and possible umbrella frameworks.

LBFN’s message is that this development should build in community participation. Faith and community partners need opportunities to help shape arrangements, ask questions and understand their role.

Making resilience planning work for communities means connecting London’s wider plans with the people, relationships and resources that can put them into practice.

Written by Joelma, Partnerships Coordiator at LBFN

These reflections bring together what I learned from the six sessions I attended at EP: Live and what it could mean for faith and community organisations. They reflect my observations, not an official account of the speakers’ conclusions.

EP: Live was an in person, all partner event hosted by the Voluntary and Community Sector Emergencies Partnership (VCSEP).

1. EP Youth Council: The Next Generation of Risk

This session prompted me to consider whose understanding of risk shapes our planning. Young people may recognise pressures and emerging challenges that established organisations overlook. They also bring different experiences: we should avoid treating them as one group with the same concerns or opportunities.

My strongest reflection is that listening must lead to influence. Young people will live with the long-term consequences of today’s decisions, so they need opportunities to help shape those decisions and see change because of their involvement.

For faith and community organisations, this raises a practical question: how can our relationships with faith communities, schools, and youth groups create an ongoing role for young people in preparedness? This should include suitable support, clear responsibilities and feedback on how their contributions are used.

2. Bridging Divides

My notes from this session connect exclusion with feeling unheard, misunderstood, isolated or targeted. This reinforced my understanding that belonging and trust are part of emergency preparedness. Relationships built through everyday community life can influence whether people feel confident seeking help, sharing concerns or responding to information during a crisis.

Having a seat at the table does not automatically mean having influence. We need to consider whether people can speak honestly, challenge assumptions and see a response to what they raise.

For faith and community organisations, our connections across faith and community groups provide opportunities to build these relationships before an emergency. My wider reflection is that people from other countries can also bring valuable experience and perspectives. We should recognise their contributions and understand the barriers that may prevent their participation.

3. Warning Fatigue? What Drives People to Act

This session challenged me to think beyond whether information has been circulated. Repeated warnings may lose impact if people don’t see their relevance, don’t trust the source, or aren’t sure what to do. We should also ask whether people have the means to follow the advice. Understanding a warning does not necessarily mean having the money, transport, language support or practical assistance needed to respond.

For faith and community organisations, this suggests reviewing communications from the recipient’s perspective: What does this mean for me? What should I do next? Where can I get help? Trusted community contacts can help us test whether messages are clear and achievable. Their feedback should shape how we prepare and share information.

4. Time to Trust? Harnessing Volunteers in Emergencies

The session’s focus on moving from managing volunteers to integrating them prompted me to reflect on how we recognise community capability. Volunteers bring relationships, local knowledge, languages, and practical experience, along with their time.

Meaningful integration requires preparation. Volunteers need clear roles, appropriate training, safeguarding arrangements, support and an understanding of how their contribution connects with others. Organisations also need to be honest about their capacity and limits.

For faith and community organisations, Community Resilience Training could provide a useful starting point for these conversations. We could help participating organisations identify what their volunteers can reliably offer, what support they need, and whom to contact during an emergency. Trust becomes practical when people understand their responsibilities and know that their knowledge is valued.

5. Inside Local Resilience: Learning from Practice

This session reinforced the importance of examining what happens in practice. My central question is: if we asked faith and voluntary organisations, “Where do you fit within the Emergencies Partnership?”, how many could confidently answer?

My concern is that organisations may already provide valuable support without understanding how their work connects to the wider framework. We should begin with whom they support, what they can offer and where they need assistance, then work out their role together.

For faith and community organisations, this could mean using partner discussions to identify capabilities, gaps and overlapping activities. We should distinguish unnecessary duplication from useful backup capacity, and ask what changed following previous exercises or emergencies. Learning needs to result in agreed actions, named responsibility and review dates.

6. 10 Years On: Voices of Resilience Leadership

The closing session prompted me to reflect on the leadership needed for an increasingly complex emergency environment. One disruption can trigger further problems, while some future challenges will fall outside our current expectations.

Leadership therefore needs foresight, curiosity and humility: the willingness to notice early signals, question familiar assumptions and listen to people whose experience differs from our own. Young people and people with experience of other countries can help broaden that understanding.

My overall impression was of a vibrant sector full of committed people who recognise others’ needs and act. To connect those strengths more effectively, we need a shared purpose expressed in everyday language. For faith and community organisations, a useful next step is to test whether partners can explain the partnership’s purpose, identify their contribution, and describe how they would connect with others during an emergency.

Written by Deesha Chadha, Co-chair of the London Resilience Faith & Belief Sector Panel

Attending the London Resilience Summit 2026 provided a powerful, clear-eyed look at how cities, communities, and institutions must adapt to an increasingly complex world. From plenary speeches in The Chamber to breakout sessions on community infrastructure and leadership, the recurring theme of the day was clear: resilience is fundamentally about people, relationships, and whole-of-society collaboration.

Lord Sadiq Khan joined us for the early part of the proceedings, delivering a powerful, honest address on the importance of a resilient London and the role we must all play in making this happen.

London Resilience Sessions

The summit kicked off with an opening plenary on Resilience and Preparedness for a Rapidly Changing World. Speakers like Kim Wright set the foundation, emphasising that digital infrastructure and technical systems mean nothing without community infrastructure.

• Person-Centred & Local Focus: Emergency plans and risk assessments are evolving. Local risks – ranging from frequent flash flooding and heatwaves to extreme weather driven by El Niño require a move away from top-down government models toward person-centred, local prevention.
• Connecting Boroughs and Communities: Emergency plans across London boroughs are becoming more joined-up. However, the real first responders aren’t just official agencies – they are neighbours.
• The Missing Link: While formal networks are critical, key connections often lie in grass-roots community ties that others overlook. Mapping these networks and breaking down barriers (such as through apps or robust administrative processes) is vital to healing and long-term community recovery.

During the parallel sessions which focused on learning, overcoming challenges, and creating solutions, several key themes emerged:

• Baroness Twycross (Cabinet Minister) highlighted cabinet-led resilience and government initiatives aimed at building broad, accessible reach through partnerships.
• Toby Harris (National Preparedness Commission) underscored that involvement of people is key. Everyone, from individuals to local businesses, has a part to play in national readiness.
• Climate Realities: Discussions around climate shocks (such as heatwaves, heavy rainfall, and the 2026 wildfire risks in the UK/Europe) stressed that we must not underestimate what these events demand from local infrastructure.

A breakout session on community infrastructure, expertly orchestrated by Emily Coatham, Partnership Manager of the London Communities Emergencies Partnership (LCEP) and Cliff Flemming, Communities Resilience Manager at London Resilience, allowed individuals to connect and discuss. Essentially, conversations were focused on identifying issues and best practices. What actions are we currently in a position to take to mitigate problems? Where do gaps still lie? What can we learn from one another? It is amazing how sophisticated these conversations have become.

Deanne Criswell (Administrator of the USA Federal Emergency Management Agency from 2021-25) delivered a phenomenal keynote address, in conversation with our very own Katherine Richardson (Chief Resilience Officer, London Resilience). They reflected on their many years of experience and built expertise in the field. They touched on such themes as:

• Rethinking Risk: Community perception of risk is changing. Modelling and leadership are no longer just hierarchical; modern leadership requires flexibility, rapid decision-making on the spot, and proactive structure rather than rigid procedures.
• Human-Centred Leadership: Emergency management must remain a human-centred space rather than devolving into a purely political arena. Encouraging trusted local voices to participate in planning and preparation is essential.
• Risk and Equity: True resilience cannot exist without equity. Equity is fundamental to ensuring a broad, systems thinking approach to resilience.

• Co-Design and Mapping: The immediate next steps for resilience practitioners involve mapping exercises, co-designing emergency responses with local groups, and grounding policies in real human stories rather than abstract statistics.
• Embracing Uncertainty: Effective leadership requires comfort with ambiguity, diverse partnerships, and the courage to act outside traditional policy constraints when human safety demands it.

Ahead of the closing remarks – excellently delivered by David Bellamy (Chair of the London Resilience Forum), I attended a session entitled ‘Designing a Future Resilient London’. It was delivered by young people, who represented the Mayor’s Fund for London. The focus was on partnerships, resources, voice etc. and the vital part young people can and ought to play determining what our next steps look like. We cannot go forward without their meaningful contributions.

Final Thoughts

The London Resilience Summit 2026 proved that shaping a resilient future isn’t just about build quality or technical readiness – it’s about people, trust, and shared responsibility.

As a takeaway, I would summarise by stating that as cities face compound risks, the path forward relies on:

• Building strong community infrastructure alongside physical assets.
• Empowering local neighbours as vital first responders.
• Prioritising equity, lived experience, and co-creation in every stage of planning.

We have come such a long way. There is still much to do. I came away with questions, but more than anything – I came away hopeful.

Join us for four FREE in-person evenings of training designed to equip faith communities and local community groups with the skills and knowledge needed to build strength and resilience during times of crisis.

The training will:

• Empower faith communities with the tools and knowledge to build resilience.
• Foster collaboration among faith groups, local authorities, and community organisations.
• Enhance understanding of risk factors and effective response strategies.
• Provide practical training and resources for community resilience.

This training is completely free and is taught in four sessions across four weeks. Note that it is only available in selected boroughs. Click the buttons below for further information.

There are two courses on offer:

North Central London
Hackney, Camden, Islington
Thursday 12 November – 3 December (6 PM-9 PM)

South West London
Kingston, Richmond, Wandsworth
Tuesday 3 November – 24 November (6 PM-9 PM)

Please only sign up once – this covers all four sessions.

Thank you, we look forward to seeing you there!

Faith leaders from across London recently came together to discuss what the changing political landscape means for local democracy, community cohesion and the role of faith communities in public life. The meeting was between Borough Faith Forums and the London Resilience Faith & Belief Sector Panel Executive Team.

One question framed our conversation:

What helps our communities to thrive, and what threatens that flourishing?

Our keynote speaker, Yolande Burgess of London Councils, outlined the significant political changes following the recent local elections. She also spoke about the Government’s commitment to devolving more powers to local areas through its “Rewiring the State” agenda.

While political change has brought uncertainty in some areas, Yolande noted that local government remains focused on the everyday issues that shape people’s lives: housing, health, education and wellbeing. She offered a clear test for any reform:

“What’s the difference it’s going to make to somebody’s life?”

Participants reflected on the growing expectation that faith communities contribute to civic life, while recognising the pressures faith organisations face. Several speakers spoke about the challenge of maintaining a strong community voice while engaging with politicians and remaining non-partisan.

Hope was a strong theme throughout the discussion. Contributors highlighted how faith communities can promote dignity, respect and mutual responsibility, especially when public debate feels polarised.

Participants also shared concerns about how political developments affect community relations. In particular, Jewish organisations and residents expressed anxieties about whether they would be treated equally in boroughs controlled by the Green Party, following resolutions discussed at the party’s conference. Speakers stressed the importance of continued dialogue, inclusion and reassurance from local leaders.

Looking back, the meeting recalled the collaboration between faith groups, councils and public agencies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many felt that the shared purpose shown during that period offers valuable lessons for the challenges London faces today.

The discussion recognised that London’s communities face real pressures, alongside important opportunities. Political landscapes may change, but strong relationships, local engagement and a commitment to hope remain essential to building communities where people can thrive.

Key issues raised

Local government and devolution

• Political change: The May elections resulted in a more pluralistic London, with a reduced Labour majority and gains for the Green Party and Reform UK.
• Governance: London’s structure is distinctive. The Mayor’s office is not required by statute to work with the boroughs, although successful collaboration does take place.
• Devolution: The Government’s “Rewiring the State” agenda aims to make devolution the default, bringing resources and decision-making closer to communities.
• Resources: London boroughs face a projected £5 billion shortfall by 2030, with non-statutory funding among the areas under pressure.

Risks and community concerns

• Political polarisation: Faith leaders discussed the challenge of engaging with politicians while protecting their organisations’ non-partisan role.
• Jewish community concerns: Participants raised anxieties about Green Party conference resolutions and whether Jewish organisations would be treated equally in Green-controlled boroughs.
• Civic calendar: Participants were concerned that important dates, including Holocaust Memorial Day, could lose recognition because of political change or limited funding.
• Hostile environments: Participants described a threatening atmosphere affecting different communities in schools, universities and workplaces.

If you have questions or would like to follow up on any of the issues raised, please contact a member of the LBFN team:

• Steve Miller, Chief Executive: ceo@lbfn.org.uk
• Joelma Aguiar, Partnerships Coordinator: partnerships@lbfn.org.uk
• Henry Farman, Communications Coordinator: comms@lbfn.org.uk

We recently held our September 2026 quarterly meeting alongside the London Communities Emergencies Partnership. This time, we had members of the Met Police join us to talk about counter-terrorism and the valuable role of faith and community groups in combatting terrorism in London.

The meeting started with presentations from Counter Terrorism Policing, with Chief Superintendent Kris Wright providing a strategic overview of the current threat environment and Sam Milsom (presenting as part of the Counter Terrorism Protect team) translating that overview into practical guidance for organisations and communities.

Kris Wright: The Evolving Threat Landscape and the Importance of Community Partnerships

Kris Wright opened by emphasising that protecting London from terrorism and wider national security threats is fundamentally a partnership effort. While Counter Terrorism Policing has responsibility for preparedness, security, border controls and specialist response functions, he stressed that trusted community organisations are essential because they have relationships and credibility within communities that law enforcement alone cannot achieve.

Wright described the current environment as the most complex he had experienced in his counter-terrorism career. He explained that policing is managing hundreds of national counter-terrorism investigations alongside a growing number of national security cases involving hostile state activity, espionage and overseas actors operating within the UK.

A key message was the recent increase in the national threat level from “substantial” to “severe,” meaning that an attack is now considered “very likely” rather than merely “likely.” He explained that this decision was not triggered by any single event but reflected the cumulative effect of a broad and increasingly complex threat picture.

Wright highlighted several factors driving concern:

• International conflicts and geopolitical tensions increasingly have direct consequences for communities in London.
• Faith communities continue to face heightened risks, particularly through rising antisemitism and Islamophobia.
• Social cohesion is under pressure from polarisation and hateful online content.
• The distinction between hate crime, extremism and terrorism has become increasingly blurred.
• A growing number of individuals are motivated not by ideology but by money, status or influence, creating new forms of “crime-for-hire” that can support hostile actors and national security threats.

Throughout his presentation, Wright repeatedly returned to the theme of community resilience. He argued that information shared by communities provides an essential layer of intelligence and understanding that helps authorities assess risks and respond effectively while avoiding unintended harm to the communities they serve.

He urged participants to:

• Trust their instincts and report concerns early.
• Challenge hatred and divisive behaviour.
• Act as trusted voices within their communities.
• Strengthen preparedness and resilience planning.

Wright also spent significant time discussing organisational preparedness. He encouraged groups to think systematically about:

• Their likely threats and vulnerabilities.
• Measures that can reduce risk.
• Plans for maintaining critical functions during an incident.
• Clear role allocation during emergencies.
• Regular exercising and testing of plans.
• Dependencies on technology and communications systems.

Drawing on lessons from COVID-19, he noted that organisations should not rely exclusively on digital infrastructure and should consider simple, resilient alternatives if technology fails.

He concluded by warning that the threat picture remains serious and continues to evolve, encompassing terrorism, extremism, hostile state activity, online harms and technology-enabled criminality. Despite these challenges, he argued that London’s greatest strength remains the resilience of its communities and the partnerships built between public agencies, voluntary organisations and faith groups.

Sam Milsom: Practical Security Awareness and Protective Measures

Following Wright’s strategic overview, Sam Milsom provided a more operational and practical presentation aimed at helping organisations recognise risks and improve security awareness.

Milsom began by explaining the different sources of terrorist threat that inform national threat assessments, including Islamist terrorism, extreme right-wing terrorism, Northern Ireland-related terrorism and extreme left-wing or single-issue extremism.

He then outlined the broad range of attack methods that organisations should be aware of, including:

• Bladed weapons and marauding attackers.
• Vehicle attacks.
• Fire and incendiary devices.
• Improvised explosive devices.
• Chemical, biological or radiological threats.
• Cyber attacks.
• Emerging drone-related risks.

A major focus of his presentation was hostile reconnaissance, the process by which offenders gather information before conducting an attack. Milsom explained that most reconnaissance begins online, where publicly available information can reveal valuable details about a site’s operations, security arrangements, staffing levels and peak occupancy periods.

He demonstrated how attackers can exploit:

• Mapping and satellite imagery.
• Street View and virtual site inspections.
• Publicly available business information.
• Social media activity.
• Popularity and occupancy data available online.

Milsom also highlighted the risk posed by insider threats, whether through deliberate infiltration or through employees unintentionally disclosing sensitive information.

He encouraged organisations to pay close attention to seemingly minor security weaknesses, including:

• Poorly maintained CCTV systems.
• Tailgating through secure entrances.
• Visible security codes.
• Staff displaying identification cards in public.
• Casual sharing of operational details.

Throughout the presentation he emphasised vigilance, reminding participants that attackers often look for opportunities created by complacency rather than sophisticated technical weaknesses.

Milsom also provided practical reporting routes for suspicious activity, including:

• Emergency reporting through 999.
• SMS Relay UK registration for situations where speaking may not be safe.
• Non-emergency reporting through 101.
• Online reporting routes.
• The Anti-Terrorism Hotline.
• Resources available through ACT and ProtectUK.

His presentation concluded with a short demonstration highlighting the risks associated with oversharing personal information online and the ease with which individuals can piece together information from public sources.

Sign up to our newsletter below to find out about our next quarterly meeting.

Below you can find some words from a few of our partners on the devastating impact that the floods in Nepal and Tibet has had on local communities. In a diverse, multicultural city like London, the impacts of such things are closer than they may seem.

Charanjit Ajitsingh, Hounslow

May I share with you our concern for our local Nepalese community who have lost relatives, friends and their family properties in the devastation caused by floods in Nepal, a  Himayalan Tsunami . With the help of the former Mayor of Hounslow Cllr Bishnu Gurung, a retired Napalese soldier, a prayer service and  candle light vigil  was organised by the Nepalese community  at Luxmi Narayan Temple on 31^st August.

We heard from  many who are affected. One person talked about the total destruction of his village with the loss of nine of his relatives.  On Saturday 5th September at the Buddhist Vihara, under the leadership of Venerable Seelawimala, the head monk, Buddhist prayers from different Buddhist traditions and countries were said by their venerable leaders. The Nepalese and Tibetan losses were mentioned. One man talked about losing ten relatives  and many are unaccounted for. There were many British pilgrims trying to cross the border between Nepal and Tibet to pay their respects at Mount Kailash who may have succumbed to the Glacier burst as there is little information about them.     

People in the congregation observed a two minute silence , candles were lit and solidarity and deep condolences were shared  with the Nepalese Ambassador and by the Buddhist Venerables and faith leaders.

On 6^th September as a part of their 150^th anniversary service at St Stephen’s Church, the Mayor Cllr Ranjit Gill, Deputy Lieutenant Rosie Prescott, the local MP Ruth Cadbury, Nepalese community concerns were shared and funds raised.

Charanjit, on behalf of Hounslow Friends of faith, spoke at all the three events and wanted  us to  recognise and understand the enormous impact of the disaster here in our communities in London, too. She said, ‘Let us all be there for them.’

Penny Smith-Orr, Croydon

In Croydon we are very devastated by the flooding in Nepal. One of our Hindu Priests, Nabhi Nandan Das, a long-time friend, was leading a pilgrimage with 16 people and 4 guides up into Tibet. They were at the crossing into Tibet when the flooding hit and have not been heard from since. This has affected us all deeply. The families of the pilgrims have no news of their loved ones including young people whose parents have disappeared. 

Nabhi was a very wise and kind person. He was a member of Croydon SACRE and of Faiths Together in Croydon and worked tirelessly in schools in Croydon and other boroughs teaching about all aspects of the Hindu faith. He also invited many school groups to the Temple in Coulsdon in Croydon, which he was instrumental in opening. Not only the Hindu community but many, many people in Croydon will miss him greatly. 

News story

Thank you to our partners for sharing. Our hearts go out to all those impacted by the floods.

We at the London Boroughs Faiths Network (LBFN) recently hosted a brilliant conversation with sixteen individuals from the faith and community sectors. This was our London-specific contribution to The National Conversation, a UK-wide listening initiative, inviting people right across the country to share what they value about community life, and the communities they want to build. 

Our conversation was broad, honest, and deeply insightful. Read on to find out some of the key points we talked about. We will be producing a fuller summary of the discussion soon so this is just to give you a flavour of the conversation. No doubt many of these topics are things you think about when considering how to create stronger communities.

Participants underscored an increasing trend toward “tribalism,” with individuals rejecting ‘others’ or retreating into familiar community bubbles out of fear or self-preservation. A representative from the Jewish community highlighted an awful reality: many individuals feel compelled to actively conceal their identity across schools, workplaces, and public spaces to avoid prejudice. 

This caution across communities is made worse by the rise in far-right populism and overt racism, which several attendees flagged as the most critical current threat to our communities. Additionally, participants stressed that systemic wealth inequality and poverty act as root drivers of division, causing struggling communities to “punch down” rather than address underlying structural strains.

Another central takeaway was the urgent need to rebuild physical and interpersonal “connective tissue.” Our attendees pointed out that the steady loss of free, accessible community spaces—such as libraries and green areas—severely restricts organic, cross-cultural interaction. Diverse, multicultural communities like London require spaces where agreement is not the goal. Communities will never agree on everything, but we can still work towards mutual understanding and respect in these vital community spaces. 

One participant put it beautifully: Like a tapestry, a community relies on every unique thread. When we fail to respect and value each individual, holes appear in the fabric.  

Overall, one central theme seems to stand out: We want to build a community where  we respect others, and celebrate our differences as well as our similarities. Instead of resorting to hatred or closing off from others, we should open our hearts to all.

We were very happy to host this conversation for our diverse community of attendees, and we remain committed to keeping this momentum alive across London even after the National Conversation comes to an end. We invite you to take the national survey, join the conversation, and help us strengthen the social fabric of our local communities together.