Fundraising regulator rules LGB Alliance promoted misleading information

[Cruelladesummer]

This is bad news for their case defending their charity status starting tomorrow.

A CHARITY watchdog has ruled that the LGB Alliance promoted "false and misleading" information as part of a fundraising drive.

www.thenational.scot/news/21164776.watchdog-rules-lgb-alliance-promoted-misleading-information/

www.fundraisingregulator.org.uk/more-from-us/resources/lgb-alliance-september-2022

Which other charities are promoting the interests of same-sex attracted people? Same-sex, not gender. Does this mean the ones that are TQ+ focused are now working to the legal definition of sexuality?

Also is there another charity focused just on LGB people? I am struggling to think of one.

I dont know why they couldnt produce evidence?

I support LGB Alliance but if you state “UK’s only registered charity set up to protect and promote the rights of people with lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) orientation.” you need to have done due diligence by checking the status of all registered charities first.

All it takes is one small registered charity that is LGB focused and it’s not true.

Presumably this opens the floodgates for individuals to complain about charities that run campaigns like promoting socially transitioning children as acceptable? promote puberty blockers as acceptable for children? post misleading information about the law? use misleading statistics about suicide? and so much more.

All it takes is one small registered charity that is LGB focused and it’s not true.

Indeed, but can anyone name any?

The biggest flaw is in the "set up to". Things like Stonewall were set up to do that, but are no longer doing so. I think they could have argued it without the "set up to" - they could have challenged the regulator to find any "LGB" charity currently campaigning for same-sex attraction.

Given that they themselves were founded because Stonewall is no longer doing the thing it was set up to do, and they're taking it back on, they know it's was wrongly worded, so I can see why they didn't want to fight it.

And once you do get rid of the "set up to", the "only" does still leave it a bit too strong to be properly defensible in "advertising standards" terms.

I know what point they're trying to make, correctly - no-one else seems to be doing what they're doing - but it was misphrased and over-egged.

Not sure it's super-relevant to the case being brought against them though. Slightly overblown advertising isn't what GLP/Mermaids/Stonewall are upset about.

@NecessaryScene Indeed, but can anyone name any?

it’s not if we can name any it’s whether one exists - if you have the time this is the register www.gov.uk/find-charity-information

The Fund Raising Regulator “found that the Tweet posted by the charity breached the code because it was misleading, and the charity was unable to provide evidence to prove its claim. We also found the charity breached the code with regards to its complaints handling, because its initial response failed to properly engage with the issues raised.”

It can be difficult to set up a charity but you have to follow the rules and have proper processes for complaints. I have no doubt LGB Alliance will take this on board and adapt their communications and put processes in place.

I agree this is unlikely to impact on the main case but it depends how many small slip ups there have been.

I don't see how this is "bad news" for their case. It seems totally irrelevant. The case is about whether they should be allowed to exist. Plenty of big-name established charities get rapped on the knuckles by the Fundraising Regulator for minor things like this. They fix things and move on. The Fundraising Regulator is completely different to the Charity Commission, which is more about governance.

I agree with notmany

How is it bad news?

This is bad news for their case defending their charity status starting tomorrow.

Doesn't seem particularly relevant to whether they should have charity status, unless you think there should only be one organisation in the country which can advocate for any given issue? They claimed they were the only charity working for LGB people, which was based on the assumption that LGBT ones support gender based policies that may disadvantage homosexual people and centre resources and advocacy to benefit transgender people rather than LGB. This was Twitter rhetoric, and someone complained that it was advertising a false picture as lots of LGBT charities exist. I've seen worse false advertising, frankly. But anyway, it happened, they've agreed to do things differently in future. So I don't really see it's that big a deal. Mermaids have had their knuckles rapped before.

We should report all gender-focussed charities when we see misleading information in their promotions and tweets. That will keep the regulator busy.

It's not bad news. They're a new charity, they made a mistake. I'm glad the regulator is doing its job unlike the charity commission.

If you look back through the pages, there are quite a few other reputable charities who have had their knuckles rapped for the same thing, including Shelter.

It also demonstrates how very badly some people want the LGBA to stop talking.

The charity posted a Tweet which claimed it was the UK’s only registered charity set up to protect and promote the rights and interests of people with LGB orientation. The charity rejected this complaint on the basis that it was inaccurate and suggested the person who made the complaint was ignorant of how it differed from other charities. The charity also said that the complainant had not understood that LGB Alliance was set up because no other charity was supporting same sex attracted people.

The complainant was unhappy with the charity’s response and said that there are many other charities that provide a range of services and support to thousands of lesbian, gay and bisexual people.

Our findings are based solely on the standards imposed on organisations when fundraising, although we recognised the charity made the claim within the context of a wider ideological debate around sex and gender. ...

The charity has acknowledged that its Tweet could have been clearer and will provide more clarity in the future. However, we found that the Tweet posted by the charity breached the code because it was misleading, and the charity was unable to provide evidence to prove its claim. We also found the charity breached the code with regards to its complaints handling, because its initial response failed to properly engage with the issues raised.

It's quite clear this is a difference of opinion about whether 'set up to support same-sex attracted people' is the same as 'services and support to people who are LGBT'. Sainsburys offers services to gay people, it doesn't mean it's set up to support them.

I agree the Tweet could have been clearer if they didn't want to fall foul of this particular regulation. Clear, unambiguous definitions are the way forward, and if people can't clarify what they mean then clearly that's problematic.

Tweets are often intended to be read as part of a thread, I don't know if that's what happened here but context can often be lost if single tweets are treated as standalone comments.

Mermaids tweeted a while ago that "Today is a dark day for rugby, with both The RFL and RFU telling trans people that they are not welcome on the pitch."

I would argue that's not an accurate or truthful sentence. But I'm not going to report them to the Charity Commission about this.

It can be difficult to set up a charity but you have to follow the rules and have proper processes for complaints. I have no doubt LGB Alliance will take this on board and adapt their communications and put processes in place.

This. We know what they meant but you have to be careful to avoid making bombastic claims when you are soliciting charitable donations. Right decision and an important lesson learned for the LGBA.

The charity has acknowledged that its Tweet could have been clearer and will provide more clarity in the future.

Unlike what happens when Mermaids receive valid criticism.

Why not report them to the regulator? It what it is for. Not reporting only lets them get away with pseudo science and spin.

I agree with donquixote Charities need to be professional and considered. Twitter is awful for tempting people into making knee jerk or off the cuff comments (whether revealing or innocently misspoken) but charities need to be maintain their professionalism at all times.

Perhaps there needs to be 2 people who have to agree before sending a tweet, like with the nuclear codes. Twitter shouldn’t be in the hands of anyone below v senior/ director level IMO.

What is the Fundraising Regulator? It doesn't seem to be a government-basked organisation. It's a private limited company — so presumably it trades, otherwise why would it need to be a Ltd Co? Has the Fundraising Regulator been trained by Stonewall?

Which are the other charities that are 100% LGB focussed? I'm a lesbian and I can't think of a registered charity that is purely LGB. Why is there no mention of these other charities in the article? Stonewall is mentioned but is clearly not applicable because it doesn't just represent LGB people.

Who oversees the regulator? I'd be interested to know.

This!

Yes, lots of opportunities there. Thanks, OP, for bringing the Fundraising Regulator?

Thanks OP. I too am very pleased to see that every time Mermaids or Stonewall tweet something untrue or unclear, that I now know that I can complain and it will be investigated.

What a great thread.

Well those regulators better saddle up, they’re going to be very busy at this rate.