Page 37 | Limiting MH support to certain cultural areas?

Mindcultural · 2026-02-17T18:48:55+00:00

I have today received this message below from a mental health support service for young people. AIBU to think it’s completely wrong to offer support based on cultural diversity and would like to know how they decide who fits this criteria? Hi, I’m getting touch as you have recently made a referral to our Youth In Mind services on behalf of a child or young person. Unfortunately, we are having to reduce the size of the team for funding reasons, so we now only have funding to support young people from culturally diverse communities, if this is relevant for the individual you referred to us, please can I ask that you complete this form https://forms.office.com and we will be back in touch accordingly. If we are now no longer able to offer support to the individual you have made a referral for, please accept our apologies for this. Please feel free to keep an eye on our website for updated information regarding available services as we are always looking for new funding opportunities to allow us to reach more children and young people.

GreenCaterpillarOnALeaf · 18/02/2026 16:13

Honestly probably morally wrong and I expect to get flamed but if I needed the help for my child I would apply again with different details and lie. Might not be possible depending on what info the want and what proof you need, but maybe put their name as (shortened first name, your maiden name as last name). Obviously if you’re white don’t tick black Caribbean, but there’s other kinds of white that would work.

Skybunnee · 18/02/2026 16:17

Racist against white people

JustSomeWaferThinHam · 18/02/2026 16:19

MrsBennetsPoorNervesAreBack · 18/02/2026 08:19

Yes, that would indeed tackle this specific issue. But it wouldn't actually do anything to tackle the wider issue of white children being unable to access the support that they need.

Because turning down one funding stream doesn't magically produce a another better funding stream instead.

But I get it. You would rather that nobody had services and that the charity potentially close down, rather than having services that are targeted at a particular disadvantaged group because that's all they can get funding for, while perhaps continuing to fundraise to be able to open up services to a wider audience.

I don't really understand this position personally, because I don't see how denying BAME children support is actually going to help white children in any way. But I understand that the perception of unfairness for you is obviously more important than any of the children actually getting help.

Show quote history

Through this thread, you seem to have invented a mystery benefactor who for some unknown reason has decided to exclude children in need of m/h treatment because of the colour of their skin.

Further, this mystery benefactor, instead of approaching a charity that fits their totally racist agenda, chooses MIND and demands they cut out a large chunk of their core beneficiaries under threat of withdrawing said funding. Not only that but in excluding a certain group in conflict with their stated charitable aims (and the basis in rich many other donors contribute including the government), they run the risk of legal action under the Equality Act as it is unlikely exclusion of white people is a proportionate means to any legitimate aim they can think of in mental health and loss of their charitable status.

Then you seek to try and accuse PP of wanting to deny services to PoC as if that’s a bad thing when you are arguing vehemently in support of exactly that - denying services to white people with zero self awareness.

I think this is definitely the most bonkers thread I’ve seen.

Cucumberino · 18/02/2026 16:26

I think the issue with this thread are that the people who work in charities think that it is fine to discriminate based on ‘cultural diversity’ as long as the losers are white. And others who can think in a more open minded manner think that discriminating against anyone based on anything other than clinical need to abhorrent.

And the charities people don’t like being told that they are the bad guys. When they are.

JustSomeWaferThinHam · 18/02/2026 16:27

Ivelostmyglasses · 18/02/2026 08:33

It is exactly the same. It is called equity. Most people on this thread are confused by their obsession with white people missing out. This kind of funding is used to give additional support to people who do not typically access services to stop their needs escalating and overwhelming services and people here want it banned without understanding what else they will be stopping it you follow their argument through.

Edited

Show quote history

It amazes me how these simple concepts get so twisted from their original premise by people unable to step back and understand what they are saying.

‘Equity’ in this case would be offering help to certain groups to get to appointments, or putting extra publicity leaflets in community centres frequented by the target group it is NOT excluding children in need of their mental health services in an arbitrary and irrelevant measure if their ‘ethnic diversity’.

Calculateddecisions · 18/02/2026 16:30

Cucumberino · 18/02/2026 16:26

I think the issue with this thread are that the people who work in charities think that it is fine to discriminate based on ‘cultural diversity’ as long as the losers are white. And others who can think in a more open minded manner think that discriminating against anyone based on anything other than clinical need to abhorrent.

And the charities people don’t like being told that they are the bad guys. When they are.

Charities are low payers and plenty of white people work in charities. Quite frankly it is bizarre they want to disadvantage themselves

thebrollachan · 18/02/2026 16:30

Allisnotlost1 · 18/02/2026 15:51

The charity is Leeds Mind, which is affiliated but separate to Mind.

No, your conclusion is wrong. Charities are permitted to direct services are groups with specified protected characteristics if that group experiences a disadvantage. So for example, if I run a charity that takes children to the beach, I can choose to only take visually impaired children on the June trip to the beach because those children face additional barriers in life.

Show quote history

It's a form of positive action. The EA2010 permits charities (subject to their charters, and as an exemption from the general rule against discrimination) to target groups with a shared characteristic (and therefore shared need).

(Skin colour is an exception to this exemption.)

The exemption works on a group by group basis. The charity might be seeking more information from OP to see whether her child falls into one of the groups that they target. But the way they express the enquiry implies that they will simply exclude all applicants whose protected characteristics of ethnicity and/or belief place them in a majority, which is negative, rather than positive action (and likely to lead to de facto exclusion based on skin colour).

They need to word it better eg say they are working with specific target groups and solicit information that might situate an applicant within one of those groups. Wording it as exclusionary is just asking for trouble from the press.

JustSomeWaferThinHam · 18/02/2026 16:35

5128gap · 18/02/2026 08:38

I find it equally unfathomable that you claim to be a trustee and yet have so little understanding of how a charities finances work. Perhaps you've been on the board of small charities who's income is raised directly from donations or rely on one generic funding pot?
Other charities income can be made up of a variety of funding. Some (if they are very fortunate) may be unrestricted which means that provided they use it to further their charitable aim, they can help who they please.
Other funds will be restricted which means the funding body has specific requirements as to how and upon who their money is to be spent by the charity. If this is to deliver the service to people of a specific ethnicity, then the charity must use THAT POT of money on that group. It doesn't mean they use ALL their money on that group, including that donated by people who want them to help others on that group.
If a charity had reached the point of only working for one group it is because no one else is funding them for a generic service.
There is no difference under law between my charity excluding men and another charity targeting only Jewish people, for example. Provided we are able to demonstrate its necessary and proportionate to achieve the aim of the service its perfectly legal on both counts.
There is training available for trustees in funding, financial management and equalities law. I'd highly recommend it. Because a trustee ignorant of these things, however well meaning risks steering their charity on a wrong course. If you're unable to understand the difference between what you think should be so and what actually is, you're in danger of being more hindrance than help.

Edited

Show quote history

You appear to have missed the rather fundamental point that a charity has to stick to its stated charitable objectives.

You also seem very fixated on this mysterious benefactor with a racist agenda that bizarrely is trying to force a charity to risk de-registration by acting against its charitable objectives by excluding a core part of its beneficiaries.

The bit that is so stunning is that if the positions were reversed and a black kid was excluded from essential services for *reasons, this thread would not be full of people arguing in favour of it.

I think you might benefit from a quick look at the CC website. I am perfectly clear on my responsibilities thank you.

JustSomeWaferThinHam · 18/02/2026 16:38

thebrollachan · 18/02/2026 16:30

It's a form of positive action. The EA2010 permits charities (subject to their charters, and as an exemption from the general rule against discrimination) to target groups with a shared characteristic (and therefore shared need).

(Skin colour is an exception to this exemption.)

The exemption works on a group by group basis. The charity might be seeking more information from OP to see whether her child falls into one of the groups that they target. But the way they express the enquiry implies that they will simply exclude all applicants whose protected characteristics of ethnicity and/or belief place them in a majority, which is negative, rather than positive action (and likely to lead to de facto exclusion based on skin colour).

They need to word it better eg say they are working with specific target groups and solicit information that might situate an applicant within one of those groups. Wording it as exclusionary is just asking for trouble from the press.

Show quote history

I think the point here would be that PPs disabled kids trip to the beach would be in addition to services provided to others. Not that a mental health charity can provide m/h support for one group of kids and not others when their charitable objectives say ALL.

JustSomeWaferThinHam · 18/02/2026 16:46

DallasMinor · 18/02/2026 09:21

32 pages in and people are still arguing about something that isn’t even real. This is madness.

Unfortunately the anti white racism is very real. It is all over this thread.

5128gap · 18/02/2026 16:48

JustSomeWaferThinHam · 18/02/2026 16:35

You appear to have missed the rather fundamental point that a charity has to stick to its stated charitable objectives.

You also seem very fixated on this mysterious benefactor with a racist agenda that bizarrely is trying to force a charity to risk de-registration by acting against its charitable objectives by excluding a core part of its beneficiaries.

The bit that is so stunning is that if the positions were reversed and a black kid was excluded from essential services for *reasons, this thread would not be full of people arguing in favour of it.

I think you might benefit from a quick look at the CC website. I am perfectly clear on my responsibilities thank you.

Show quote history

I assume by your second paragraph you're referring to me pointing out that there are grant making trusts that only wish to fund services to certain people? If it helps you understand to use simple language like 'mysterious benefactors' then I can work with that. Though strictly speaking they're not mysterious. They are in the public domain and openly state who they wish to fund services for.
Anyhow. The Mysterious benefactors don't tell charities to exclude people. Only who they must provide a service to with THEIR pot of money. Which you would understand if you paid attention at trustee board meetings.

5MinuteArgument · 18/02/2026 16:49

Cucumberino · 18/02/2026 16:26

I think the issue with this thread are that the people who work in charities think that it is fine to discriminate based on ‘cultural diversity’ as long as the losers are white. And others who can think in a more open minded manner think that discriminating against anyone based on anything other than clinical need to abhorrent.

And the charities people don’t like being told that they are the bad guys. When they are.

Yes, well explained. Having worked in the public and voluntary sector, I'm familiar with this mindset, people who think BAME people are automatically disadvantaged and white people are automatically privileged. It's based on ideology, not reality.

JustSomeWaferThinHam · 18/02/2026 16:55

5128gap · 18/02/2026 09:43

So, those who feel strongly that charities should not have targeted services, particularly those of you who claim to be trustees, perhaps you could offer your opinion on this.
If I want to continue to provide my service to vulnerable women I need to source funding. I come across a funding pot. It's a grant making trust set up in memory of a Bangladeshi woman to support Bangladeshi women. If I apply to this trust I know that they will expect my charity to use their money to deliver its service to Bangladeshi women.
It will not expect me to use its money to deliver our services to white women.
The money would be very helpful. Because not only does it enable us to provide a service to vulnerable women, the grant makes a contribution through FCR to core costs, our building, security, IT provision etc, which are also used to provide the generic services to all women. Every funding stream a charity can access gives it a more robust and stronger foundation on which to grow. The more it grows the more women it can help.
Would the 'trustees' amongst you who feel services should not be targeted on the grounds of ethnicity instruct me not to apply for this money? Would you rather see my charity dwindle and potentially close to all women than than allow us to access a funding stream to deliver a service to women of a certain ethnicity?

If you were receiving public donations, government money and referrals from the NHS in the basis that you offered services to ALL, then were refusing to offering suitable services to ALL then I wouldn’t expect you to be operating a charity as you are not using the money for which it was intended.

You could always change your charitable objectives to be a Bangladeshi women’s charity to make use of the money offered with ties. That would be fine as potential donors would be clear on where their money is going and could whether it not to donate.

JustSomeWaferThinHam · 18/02/2026 17:06

5128gap · 18/02/2026 16:48

I assume by your second paragraph you're referring to me pointing out that there are grant making trusts that only wish to fund services to certain people? If it helps you understand to use simple language like 'mysterious benefactors' then I can work with that. Though strictly speaking they're not mysterious. They are in the public domain and openly state who they wish to fund services for.
Anyhow. The Mysterious benefactors don't tell charities to exclude people. Only who they must provide a service to with THEIR pot of money. Which you would understand if you paid attention at trustee board meetings.

Show quote history

So it wouldn’t be appropriate for a charity with charitable objectives to provide support for ALL to then accept a donation that demands they do otherwise m.

This ‘grant making trust’ would approach a charity that wouldn’t have to risk loss of charitable status in order to fulfill their rather exclusionary agenda.

Still stunned that you’re arguing in favour of this.

As PP says, if Tommy Robinson set up the white kids fund and demanded that MIND exclude all poc, we’d hear the howls of racism from space.

The governing document for MIND. This says nothing about refusing services for white kids.

register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/en/charity-search/-/charity-details/1007625/governing-document

5128gap · 18/02/2026 17:15

JustSomeWaferThinHam · 18/02/2026 17:06

So it wouldn’t be appropriate for a charity with charitable objectives to provide support for ALL to then accept a donation that demands they do otherwise m.

This ‘grant making trust’ would approach a charity that wouldn’t have to risk loss of charitable status in order to fulfill their rather exclusionary agenda.

Still stunned that you’re arguing in favour of this.

As PP says, if Tommy Robinson set up the white kids fund and demanded that MIND exclude all poc, we’d hear the howls of racism from space.

The governing document for MIND. This says nothing about refusing services for white kids.

register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/en/charity-search/-/charity-details/1007625/governing-document

Show quote history

I'm still stunned you thought I'd believe you were a trustee.

JustSomeWaferThinHam · 18/02/2026 17:18

5128gap · 18/02/2026 17:15

I'm still stunned you thought I'd believe you were a trustee.

Show quote history

As you clearly have no idea what you are talking about that’s no great surprise.

AmaryllisNightAndDay · 18/02/2026 17:19

thebrollachan · 18/02/2026 16:30

It's a form of positive action. The EA2010 permits charities (subject to their charters, and as an exemption from the general rule against discrimination) to target groups with a shared characteristic (and therefore shared need).

(Skin colour is an exception to this exemption.)

The exemption works on a group by group basis. The charity might be seeking more information from OP to see whether her child falls into one of the groups that they target. But the way they express the enquiry implies that they will simply exclude all applicants whose protected characteristics of ethnicity and/or belief place them in a majority, which is negative, rather than positive action (and likely to lead to de facto exclusion based on skin colour).

They need to word it better eg say they are working with specific target groups and solicit information that might situate an applicant within one of those groups. Wording it as exclusionary is just asking for trouble from the press.

Show quote history

I might have misununderstood but ... surely there is still a problem? You may be allowed to do positive action (proportionate means to a legitimate aim) but only for one protected characteristic or set of characteristics at a time. "Culture" is not (AFAIK) a protected characteristic under the EqAct2010. It is more like a proxy or a mix'n'match of other protected characteristics and that is risky.

MIND would be a bit stuffed if they are relying on exemptions because you can't mix'n'match diffferent characteristics to make a group. You can use different characteristics to create smaller groups, so you can offer a service to LGB people from ethnic minorities, but you can't combine them into bigger groups e.g. to offer a service that includes LGB people of all ethnicities plus kids of all sexual orientations from ethnic minorities, even if both are under-represented.

This was discussed in detail during the recent FWS Supreme Court case and it's why Women's Instiitute no longer accepts transwomen. WI can't include women (protected characteristic is sex) and transwomen (protected characterstic is gender reassignment, legally still the other sex) unless they change their charitable objectives to include all men.

attichoarder · 18/02/2026 17:23

I accept that some charities target different groups as some charities for example target young people, some children etc etc . For me it is the lack of transparency, this charity is not being honest and people have a right to know they are targeting different groups

5128gap · 18/02/2026 17:37

JustSomeWaferThinHam · 18/02/2026 17:18

As you clearly have no idea what you are talking about that’s no great surprise.

Show quote history

You don't know the difference between restricted and unrestricted funding.
You don't understand that a charity can undertake project work to a specific group within its charitable aims.
You dont know what a grant making trust is and think its a 'mysterious benefactor'.
You can't grasp the difference between a trust funding work for a group and a trust insisting on another being excluded.
You accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about without giving me a single example where information I've provided on this thread is factually incorrect.
If you're a trustee I'm Rupert Lowe.

thebrollachan · 18/02/2026 17:48

AmaryllisNightAndDay · 18/02/2026 17:19

I might have misununderstood but ... surely there is still a problem? You may be allowed to do positive action (proportionate means to a legitimate aim) but only for one protected characteristic or set of characteristics at a time. "Culture" is not (AFAIK) a protected characteristic under the EqAct2010. It is more like a proxy or a mix'n'match of other protected characteristics and that is risky.

MIND would be a bit stuffed if they are relying on exemptions because you can't mix'n'match diffferent characteristics to make a group. You can use different characteristics to create smaller groups, so you can offer a service to LGB people from ethnic minorities, but you can't combine them into bigger groups e.g. to offer a service that includes LGB people of all ethnicities plus kids of all sexual orientations from ethnic minorities, even if both are under-represented.

This was discussed in detail during the recent FWS Supreme Court case and it's why Women's Instiitute no longer accepts transwomen. WI can't include women (protected characteristic is sex) and transwomen (protected characterstic is gender reassignment, legally still the other sex) unless they change their charitable objectives to include all men.

Show quote history

You may be allowed to do positive action (proportionate means to a legitimate aim) but only for one protected characteristic or set of characteristics at a time.

This is what I was attempting to get across, broadly rather than for this particular scenario.

I understand there's no problem with a charity having a range of projects, which might even vary over time, depending on emergent needs, in which each individual project fits your description. The problem is with having an ill-defined ragbag of projects, which are targeted obliquely by cutting out all 'majority' applicants in advance and then deciding what the projects will be, depending on what you're left with. This isn't positive action, which is supposed to be based on identifying groups that need help upfront and doing something about it.

Bagsintheboot · 18/02/2026 17:53

5128gap · 18/02/2026 17:37

You don't know the difference between restricted and unrestricted funding.
You don't understand that a charity can undertake project work to a specific group within its charitable aims.
You dont know what a grant making trust is and think its a 'mysterious benefactor'.
You can't grasp the difference between a trust funding work for a group and a trust insisting on another being excluded.
You accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about without giving me a single example where information I've provided on this thread is factually incorrect.
If you're a trustee I'm Rupert Lowe.

Show quote history

I'd just ignore them. Anyone who has any experience with charitable trusts can tell at the briefest of glance they haven't a clue.

C152 · 18/02/2026 18:06

The page you've linked to says they're not currently taking referrals.

If you click on 'who can get support' it takes you to a page that says they provide support for people (no restrictions stated on this form) from year 6 up to age 25; and provides a list of alternative support providers.

The only reference to supporting people form culturally diverse communities is under their 'Youth In Mind Projects' section, which doesn't say help is ONLY available to people from racially, culturally or ethnically diverse backgrounds; just that it IS available to people who meet that criteria, and is delivered by people who have similar lived experience. (It's my understanding this is part of their separate service, 'Culturally Diverse Minds'.)

They actually explain their strategy regarding 'priority communities' very well in their annual Impact Report (p6). Serving these communities is an attempt to address known health inequalities, and supports their agreed strategic aims/work, including being part of Synergi Leeds, which is a citywide approach to tackling ethnic inequalities in mental health.

In short, yes, you are being wrong to think that charities should not have target groups. This specific charity explains their aims very well, and highlights the difficult financial situation they are in, meaning they can't help everyone they would like to. Unfortunately, this means they are no longer able to meet the needs of whomever you referred.

It is, however, horrific that children's mental healthcare services are so inadequate nationally, and that we expect charities to fill the gapingly large holes in the NHS. We all deserve better.

https://www.leedsmind.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Leeds-Mind-Impact-Report-24-25-DIGITAL-SPREADS-compressed.pdf

pocketpairs · 18/02/2026 18:14

Mindcultural · 17/02/2026 18:56

So why not white British children?

Show quote history

True personality comes out eventually..

wrongthinker · 18/02/2026 18:25

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

wrongthinker · 18/02/2026 18:29

Cucumberino · 18/02/2026 16:26

I think the issue with this thread are that the people who work in charities think that it is fine to discriminate based on ‘cultural diversity’ as long as the losers are white. And others who can think in a more open minded manner think that discriminating against anyone based on anything other than clinical need to abhorrent.

And the charities people don’t like being told that they are the bad guys. When they are.

Yes, I think you've nailed it. Racial discrimination is fine as long as it's directed against white children.