There’s a small white building in the middle of a Birmingham park that has become the unlikely headquarters for a quiet resistance movement.
A few years ago, a group of locals took over the quaint Sons of Rest building in the middle of Handsworth Park so they could host their own “tea and social” afternoon.
“We all hated the isolation of lockdown during COVIDso we decided to come together in this building a few times a week,” says Surinder Guru, one of the volunteers.
Image: Surinder says the building has formed a community spirit
In the beginning, they’d bring their own teabags. Then one man decided to make some soup. Then they all decided to take turns making soup for everyone.
And that grew into a community kitchen for anyone who wants to come.
“It’s turning into a meeting place for different groups who don’t normally meet,” says Surinder.
“We get Indian people, white British men and women, white European men and women, we’ve got Afro-Caribbean people, children and older people.
More on Birmingham
Related Topics:
“It’s making use of a building that would otherwise have been sold off to God knows who.”
Image: This is where the resistance movement lies
Communities under threat
Advertisement
But this community haven – and thousands like it – is under threat because the council here is in a financial mess.
Birmingham City Council, Europe’s biggest local authority, recently declared itself effectively bankrupt, issuing what is called a Section 114 order.
That means the council does not think it has enough money to maintain essential services next year.
A backlog of equal pay claims and a failed IT system has crippled its finances.
It is a bit like in Monopoly, when a player runs out of money, their only option is to start selling off their assets.
So every asset that the council owns is now under review and could be “disposed of” to help meet a forecasted £760m equal pay bill.
Landmarks that help make the city unique are among the properties under investigation.
Nothing is off the table – historic buildings, libraries, parks, entertainment venues, car parks and community centre are all at risk.
According to Locality, the organisation which represents nearly 2,000 small community groups across the country, about 6,000 public buildings and spaces are sold off by councils every year.
Tony Armstrong, CEO of Locality, said: “We’re calling on all parties to introduce a community right to buy, which would make it much easier for local people to take local buildings into community ownership.
“And we also want them to go further, passing more powers to communities so they can help create local jobs, services and opportunities.
Image: Landmarks that help make the city unique are among the properties under investigation
‘Keep your hands off our communities’
Surinder says she is angry that the city has been put into this situation.
“My message to the council is ‘keep your hands off our communities’.
“And that message is not just to the council but to central government too.
“The council needs to make better decisions but governments also need to fund councils properly.”
Councils have seen a stark reduction in the amount of money handed to them from central government over the last decade.
These grant payments were cut by 40% in real terms between 2009-10 and 2019-20, from £46.5bn to £28bn, according to the Institute for Government.
A spokesperson for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities said they were supporting the city and its concerned communities.
“Birmingham City Council faces a unique financial situation following its failure to get a grip of the significant issues it faces, from its equal pay liability to the implementation of its IT system.
“That is why we are working closely with the Commissioner team, who were appointed at the Council last October, to protect local residents and tackle the serious financial and governance problems.
“Our £150m Community Ownership Fund is also supporting communities to take ownership of assets at risk of closure and we have already secured the future of four community assets in Birmingham with £996,000 of funding.”
But now, overspent councils elsewhere are desperately trying to make the sums add up in order to meet their legal duty to balance their budgets by next April.
That is leading to cuts to things like museums, leisure centres, bus subsidies and grants to local charities.
At the same time there is relentless pressure on statutory services such as social care, and temporary accommodation for homeless families.
Campaigners across Birmingham are now fighting to protect their communities from the selloff in a David and Goliath-type battle.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:13
‘Inquiry into Birmingham City Council’
Fighting to save landmarks
The Save Birmingham Campaign was launched in response to the council’s effective bankruptcy.
Save Birmingham organiser Jeevan Jones said since the launch over 1,000 residents have nominated nearly 200 places on the savebirmingham.org website, ranging from community and leisure centres, parks and open spaces, heritage landmarks and cultural venues.
It is the first scheme of its kind in the country designed to scupper a sell-off of beloved community facilities.
“Our campaign aims to protect community places, to ensure the residents of Birmingham don’t lose out due to problems they didn’t cause. Once community places are lost, they stay lost.
“The last thing we want is for people to lose access to these community places.”
The campaign aims to register under-threat council-owned properties and spaces as “assets of community value” in an attempt to slow down the sale to give locals a chance to see if they can take them over.
“Our hope is the Save Birmingham campaign can act as a blueprint for the dozens of councils facing severe financial problems through positive community-led solutions that avoid damaging fire sales,” said Mr Jones.
Image: ‘The council needs to make better decisions but governments also need to fund councils properly’ says Surinder
‘No council is immune’
The Local Government Association says councils face a funding gap of £4bn over the next year and need more support from central government.
Councillor Shaun Davies, who chairs the LGA, told Sky News: “No council is immune to the growing risk to their financial sustainability and many now face the prospect of being unable to meet their legal duty to set a balanced budget and having Section 114 reports issued.
“It is therefore unthinkable that the government has not provided desperately needed new funding for local services in 2024-25.
Although councils are working hard to reduce costs where possible, this means the local services our communities rely on every day are now exposed to further cuts.
Sir Keir Starmer needs to choose between parents who want stronger action to tackle harmful content on children’s phones, or the “tech bros” who are resisting changes to their platforms, Baroness Harriet Harman has said.
Speaking to Beth Rigby on Sky News’ Electoral Dysfunction podcast, the Labour peer noted that the prime minister met with the creators of hit Netflix drama Adolescence to discuss safety on social media, but she questioned if he is going to take action to “stop the tech companies allowing this sort of stuff” on their platforms where children can access it.
Sir Keir hosted a roundtable on Monday with Adolescence co-writer Jack Thorne and producer Jo Johnson to discuss issues raised in the series, which centres on a 13-year-old boy arrested for the murder of a young girl, and the rise of incel culture.
The aim was to discuss how to prevent young boys being dragged into a “whirlpool of hatred and misogyny”, and the prime minister said the four-part series raises questions about how to keep young people safe from technology.
Sir Keir has backed calls for the four-part drama to be shown in all schools across the country, but Baroness Harman questioned what is going to be achieved by having young people simply watch the show.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:15
Sir Keir Starmer held a roundtable with the creators of the Adolescence TV drama.
“Two questions were raised [for me],” she said. ” Firstly – after they’ve watched it, what is going to be the discussion afterwards?
More on Electoral Dysfunction
Related Topics:
“And secondly, is he going to act to stop the tech companies allowing this sort of stuff to go online into smartphones without protection of children?
“Because if the tech companies wanted to do this, they could actually protect children. They can do everything they want with their tech.”
She acknowledged there are “very big public policy challenges” in this area, but added of the prime minister: “Is he going to side with parents who are terrified and want this content off their children’s phones, or is he going to accept the tech bros’ resistance to having to make changes?”
The Labour peer backed the Conservative Party’s call for a ban on smartphones in schools to be mandated from Westminster, saying it would “enable all schools not to have a discussion with their parents or to battle it out, but just to say, this is the ruling” from central government, which Ofsted would then enforce.
“I’m sensitive to the idea that we shouldn’t constantly be telling schools what to do,” she continued. “And they’ve got a lot of common sense and a lot of professional experience, and they should have as much autonomy as possible.
“But perhaps it’s easier for them if it’s done top down.”
Baroness Harman also questioned the speed with which parliament is actually able to legislate to deal with the very rapid development of new technologies, and posits that it could “change its processes to be able to legislate in real time”.
She suggested that a “powerful select committee” of MPs could be established to do that, because “otherwise we talk about it, and then we’re not able to legislate for 10 years – by which time that problem has really set in, and we’ve got a whole load more problems”.
On the podcast, the trio also discussed the 10% tariffs imposed on the UK by Donald Trump and the government’s efforts to strike a trade deal with the US to mitigate the impact of the levy.
The government has refused to rule out scrapping the Digital Services Tax, a 2% levy on tech giants’ revenues in the UK, as part of the negotiations with the Trump administration – a move Baroness Harman said would be “very heartbreaking”.
A group of investors with cryptocurrency custody and trading firm Bakkt Holdings filed a class-action lawsuit alleging false or misleading statements and a failure to disclose certain information.
Lead plaintiff Guy Serge A. Franklin called for a jury trial as part of a complaint against Bakkt, senior adviser and former CEO Gavin Michael, CEO and president Andrew Main, and interim chief financial officer Karen Alexander, according to an April 2 filing in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The group of investors allege damages as the result of violations of US securites laws and a lack of transparency surrounding its agreement with clients: Webull and Bank of America (BoA).
April 2 complaint against Bakkt and its executives. Source: PACER
The loss of Bank of America and Webull will result “in a 73% loss in top line revenue” due to the two firms making up a significant percentage of its services revenue, the investor group alleges in the lawsuit. The filing stated Webull made up 74% of Bakkt’s crypto services revenue through most of 2023 and 2024, and Bank of America made up 17% of its loyalty services revenue from January to September 2024.
Bakkt disclosed on March 17 that Bank of America and Webull did not intend to renew their agreements with the firm ending in 2025. The announcement likely contributed to the company’s share price falling more than 27% in the following 24 hours. The investors allege Bakkt “misrepresented the stability and/or diversity of its crypto services revenue” and failed to disclose that this revenue was “substantially dependent” on Webull’s contract.
“As a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company’s securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages,” said the suit.
Other law offices said they were investigating Bakkt for securities law violations, suggesting additional class-action lawsuits may be in the works. Cointelegraph contacted Bakkt for a comment on the lawsuit but did not receive a response at the time of publication.
The new trade tariffs announced by US President Donald Trump may place added pressure on the Bitcoin mining ecosystem both domestically and globally, according to one industry executive.
While the US is home to Bitcoin (BTC) mining manufacturing firms such as Auradine, it’s still “not possible to make the whole supply chain, including materials, US-based,” Kristian Csepcsar, chief marketing officer at BTC mining tech provider Braiins, told Cointelegraph.
On April 2, Trump announced sweeping tariffs, imposing a 10% tariff on all countries that export to the US and introducing “reciprocal” levies targeting America’s key trading partners.
Community members have debated the potential effects of the tariffs on Bitcoin, with some saying their impact has been overstated, while others see them as a significant threat.
Tariffs compound existing mining challenges
Csepcsar said the mining industry is already experiencing tough times, pointing to key indicators like the BTC hashprice.
Hashprice — a measure of a miner’s daily revenue per unit of hash power spent to mine BTC blocks — has been on the decline since 2022 and dropped to all-time lows of $50 for the first time in 2024.
According to data from Bitbo, the BTC hashprice was still hovering around all-time low levels of $53 on March 30.
Bitcoin hashprice since late 2013. Source: Bitbo
“Hashprice is the key metric miners follow to understand their bottom line. It is how many dollars one terahash makes a day. A key profitability metric, and it is at all-time lows, ever,” Csepcsar said.
He added that mining equipment tariffs were already increasing under the Biden administration in 2024, and cited comments from Summer Meng, general manager at Chinese crypto mining supplier Bitmars.
“But they keep getting stricter under Trump,” Csepcsar added, referring to companies such as the China-based Bitmain — the world’s largest ASIC manufacturer — which is subject to the new tariffs.
Trump’s latest measures include a 34% additional tariff on top of an existing 20% levy for Chinese mining imports. In response, China reportedly imposed its own retaliatory tariffs on April 4.
BTC mining firms to “lose in the short term”
Csepcsar also noted that cutting-edge chips for crypto mining are currently massively produced in countries like Taiwan and South Korea, which were hit by new 32% and 25% tariffs, respectively.
“It will take a decade for the US to catch up with cutting-edge chip manufacturing. So again, companies, including American ones, lose in the short term,” he said.
Csepcsar also observed that some countries in the Commonwealth of Independent States region, including Russia and Kazakhstan, have been beefing up mining efforts and could potentially overtake the US in hashrate dominance.
“If we continue to see trade war, these regions with low tariffs and more favorable mining conditions can see a major boom,” Csepcsar warned.
As the newly announced tariffs potentially hurt Bitcoin mining both globally and in the US, it may become more difficult for Trump to keep his promise of making the US the global mining leader.
Trump’s stance on crypto has shifted multiple times over the years. As his administration embraces a more pro-crypto agenda, it remains to be seen how the latest economic policies will impact his long-term strategy for digital assets.