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/

'In a post on X, the SCA posted a screenshot of the rejection email dated Aug 14.

Members of the SCA had visited the charity to drop off hygiene kits for rape survivors, which were initially accepted by staff at the site.

But the email from the GCRC read: “Following your visit, some of our staff raised concerns regarding the political nature and public positions associated with your group.

“While we appreciate the hygiene kits you supplied and the time and effort taken to visit us, we are unable to accept fundraising activities undertaken on our behalf by organisations that campaign on issues relating to immigration or other political matters.

“To protect our independence and ensure that all survivors feel welcome, safe and supported, we do not enter into associations that could be perceived as endorsing particular political viewpoints. We must therefore respectfully decline your offer of fundraising support.”

In an accompanying statement on X, the SCA said: “We are furious. Disgusted. Glasgow Live and Glasgow & Clyde Rape Crisis have twisted the truth and smeared a community group that simply tried to help rape survivors.
“Staff accepted our women’s essential hygiene kits on the day. Hours later they rejected any further fundraising purely because of our positions on immigration and community safety. Politics over survivors.”'

So it looks like it was the SCA who donated kits, the GRCC emailed to say they couldn't accept donations from organisations that campaign on political matters, then SCA took to social media to say how 'furious' and 'disgusted' they were. GRCC then made a statement.

To me, it looks like the SCA are trying to make political capital out of an organisation that supports women.

None of the users of this service would have known who SCA were or the presumably myriad views of their followers if GCRC hadn't refused their donation.

There is no way of knowing if this is correct as it didn’t happen. They may have found themselves being smeared either way.

Good for them. Not only would it lower trust for some service users, the anti-immigration groups don’t genuinely give a shit about women and girls - look at the high levels of DA by their own supporters, the fact that Tommy Robinson nearly derailed a grooming trial, how so many extreme right wingers actually want to remove rights which survivors rely on like the HRA.

They only claim to care about VAWG as a way to pretend they have a legitimate concern and bring women into the fold. Opportunistic nonsense.

Someone should tell SCA that you can donate to charity both privately and anonymously, without trying to get any publicity from it.

It is ridiculous to suggest that the vast majority of small charities would be questioning individuals personal political points of view.

Charities must be careful not to align in any way shape or form with groups and organisations with ANY type of political agenda.

Groups with a more philanthropic, or philosophical points of view, such as a religious group, are fine.

My agency received a substantial amount of Monet three years in a row via a solicitor. I could not get to the bottom of who this donor was.

So i had to check with the Charity Commission.

It was deemed fine because of the arms length nature of the funding.

I was given to understand from someone at a later date, that the donor was a surprisingly high profile individual. Who randomly would fund charities they took an interest in, always small charities and always for three years.

I'd bloody love a substantial amount of Monet. 😁

I know, my typing is terrible and my keyboard is about knackered due to joining this board lol

Firstly, a lot of charity work involves direct public affairs/ policy making. Accepting donations from 'anyone' could muddy the waters from a public perspective and open the charity up to accusations of bribery etc.

A clear and transparent donation policy, alongside proper due diligence often means that donations from 'questionable' sources are avoided before they're even made. But like this donation, sometimes a charity isn't aware until they've receievd the money and there absolutely should be a way to refuse that money if trustees feel it is not in alignment with their core principles.

Too many charities have become platforms for moral laundering. Nice to see some taking a stand on this stuff for once.

Staying neutral is difficult. Every decision is a stance, even if the goal is to avoid politicization.

In a case like this, some of their clients may be from the immigrant groups targeted by the potential donor. I think that makes it an easy decision. Those potential clients comfort receiving services is more important.

It's not really them stating their views though. They would have been if they had made a public announcement they were turning down the funding because they disagreed with the views of the donors. They didn't do that. They privately and politely explained they couldn't accept the donation.
It was the other party who made it into a big political thing with they post on X. I understand maybe they had to tell people who had given money on the expectation that it would go to the charity that it wouldn't. But a neutral statement would have done that. Instead they made it about them being politically discriminated against. The charity has remained as neutral as possible throughout.