Rape charity turns down funding from anti-immigrant donors

[IwantToRetire]

Glasgow and Clyde centre says it cannot accept £380 ‘in good conscience’ from group whose supporters link sexual violence to nationality

The centre said it needed to “maintain the trust of everyone who turns to us” and that it could not accept the funding, understood to be £380, “in good conscience”.

Full article https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/08/18/glasgow-rape-charity-refuse-funding-anti-immigrant-donors/

And at https://archive.is/zuDlW

Glasgow and Clyde Rape Crisis is one of the groups that stopped working with Rape Crisis Scotland and formed an alliance with other RCC providing single sex services.
https://www.glasgowclyderapecrisis.org.uk/news/alliance-to-combat-rise-in-sexual-violence-against-women-and-girls/

From their X account:

In light of recent coverage of our decision to reject a public fundraising effort, we wanted to share this on behalf of everyone at GCRC to maintain the trust of those we serve.

We’re really sad to have been dragged into this. Our role is to support women and girls living with the trauma of rape and sexual violence. That is where our energy belongs, every single day. Turning down funding is never easy, and this was not a decision we took lightly. But in good conscience, we could not accept money from a group that has supporters who link sexual violence to someone’s immigration status. It is painful to see a charity doing vital work put in this position. We will keep our focus where it belongs: supporting women and girls who need us, with the limited funds we have.

From https://x.com/RCCGlasgow/status/2089701310450762125 where there is a link to how to make a donation.

Not able to see X posts. However based on your information, I think they are right. As the leader of a sex based refuge service and Chair of trustees of a rape crisis service for women only.

As a charity we have to avoid any kind of political alignments whatsoever, and any controversy.

Equally commercial branding can become problematic. We had support from a local car industry leader, whose women's marketing group, took an interest, and did some fine fundraising, but they came to believe they could dictate how we were run.

My agency many moons ago turned down something called the a “strong man’s”competitive events, which i see has grown.

There was nothing wrong with what they do per say, but the connotations for a domestic abuse agency was clear so we had to turn down the offer.

Charities do need to be mindful of who they accept money from.

on the other hand we got money for several years from a huge brand, and products such as towels bedding, toiletries and actionable collectibles. No public acknowledgement was wanted or required.

For charities to maintain independence and avoid mission creep they also need to fight shy of too much public funding. That is how women only services have got in to the pickle they are in.

I agree @Hedgehogforshort , good for them for taking a stand and sticking to their principles.

They have done the right thing , I think.

That's a good decision.

Agree, good decision.

Good for them.

Agree.

GCRC are a good organisation.

Not least because GCRC may also be providing support to immigrant women/girls.

I also think it important that the governance (trustees) should reflect a broad base of political points of view. So i always sought to recruit talent from the private and public sector.

but also individuals such as ex service user, and women from complementary services.

I did have to write in to our code of conduct that political points of view must not be partisan, and that the aims and objectives of the agency must be paramount.

it provided for lively debate which was very healthy.

I might add i was left myself but felt that the charity itself must not be led from my personal politics, which i think is what is going on.

For women and by women was the mantra i maintained and embedded. With my staff and volunteers.

thirteen years gone from the agencies i was involved with and they remained immune to trans infractions.

i hope i helped keep the second wave tradition to this day.

I did wonder about posting, not that I question their decision, but would hate for them to become part of some sort of pile on from those with no interest in women survivors of male violence (and single sex provision).

But then it was in a main stream paper.

I hope they see from this thread the support they are getting for their decision.

@IwantToRetire I appreciate your thread from a personal point of view.

It may not gain much traction.

But also i appreciate your contributions to his board whether i agree with you or not.

Correct decision. They cannot be allied to any political agenda.

Some things:

1 Does this mean charities should not accept donations from any political (or non-political for that matter) groups (or individuals), or only those that someone thinks have views that are "unacceptable"?

2 Does the Charities Commission allow charities to refuse donations on "political" grounds if the charity is non-political itself?

3 (a) I have no idea (I don't do Faceache /Twitter/X etc social media bollocks) what the aims or views of the Scottish Citizens Army are beyond what the Telegraph article says - ie they are "a proud supporter of strong immigration laws, community safety, and putting local people first"

I'm in favour of all those myself.

Why wouldn't GRCS also be in favour of those? (GRCS can still carry out its primary aim of supporting female rape victims whether they are local scottish women or immigrants - legal or illegal)

(b) I wonder if there might be a significant number of Mumsnet members who sincerely believe that uncontrolled immigration into the UK of young males (ie immigrants) from countries and cultures where women are more likely to be disrespected and to be subject to routine domestic abuse and sexual violence (including rape) than they are in the UK might be something that needs some thought given to?

What about this: Article on the threat to UK women from Afghan immigrants | Mumsnet

My own view is that charities should accept whatever donations they are given.

But if donors want to make a point out of the fact that a particular charity has accepted their donation, then the charity should be free to say that they only accepted the donation in good faith and that they do not endorse the views of the donor.

Why is this so difficult?

Charities need what they can get to fulfill their charitable aims

They don't need people virtue signalling that they don't like this donation because we think its "racist"

The explanation for their refusal is in the article. did you read it. And it fact if the comment on X which I bothered to copy so that it could be read by those not on twitter.

Quote: "But in good conscience, we could not accept money from a group that has supporters who link sexual violence to someone’s immigration status."

Not able to see X posts. However based on your information, I think they are right.

There is only the one post on X, and in fact just echos the article. The article gives quotes them furhter.

(And I partly added to those who might take the hint that the sum returned could be made up by anyone who chose by going to their web site to find out how to make a donation! https://www.glasgowclyderapecrisis.org.uk )

I have read the Telegraph article.

If you think i'm missing something - perhaps I am - what is it?

[edit - I understand the charity's explanation for refusing the donation - what I'm querying is whether their explanation is valid or just a "we don't like this donor's political position". I think charitiies should accept donations. Who would think they were adopting the views of their donors? I wouldn't]

The quote is from their own X message.

I just quoted the sentence that explains why they returned the money.

Sorry - we've cross posted and I've edited my last post.

Nothing you've said changes my view

Too late at night to go into this, but I think if you look at various press statements from women's support services over the last year or so they are all saying they do not support the issue of men's violence against women to be linked to totally other campaigns.

Their focus and purpose is to support women who have been victims of or survivors of male violence.

Given their explanation I think this is the right choice.

They need to maintain trust of all users.

I think the rest of their explanation is a bit ambiguous but doesn’t override the above.

If a donor believed publicly that British women invite rape but nonetheless wanted to support them, I’d say the charity should turn that down too for the same reason.

I wonder if there is an easy search to find a donation page for them?

Yep, they’d weaponise it. Essentially the charity would be providing them with cover and they’d mention they support the centre at every opportunity. It’s a stunt. I don’t see what else they could have done.

https://www.glasgowclyderapecrisis.org.uk/get-involved/