Imagine a charity, City of Sanctuary UK, working tirelessly to welcome and support refugees and asylum seekers in the United Kingdom. Their mission is clear: to educate people about the challenges faced by these vulnerable individuals and to champion equality and diversity within communities. They believe that everyone deserves a safe haven, a place to rebuild their lives, and they work to foster understanding and compassion. Part of their heartwarming initiative is the “Schools of Sanctuary” program, where schools learn about and welcome those seeking sanctuary, creating a compassionate environment for all.
However, in August 2025, a dark cloud appeared on the horizon. The Charity Commission, the independent body that oversees charities in England and Wales, received a complaint. The accusation was serious: inappropriate political activity, specifically targeting the Schools of Sanctuary program. Whispers and rumors, amplified by the pervasive online world, began to circulate. The most sensational claim, one that spread like wildfire, was that young schoolchildren were being encouraged to write Valentine’s Day cards to adult asylum seekers. This allegation wasn’t just a fleeting online rumor; it garnered media attention, painting a potentially damaging picture of the charity’s intentions and activities.
The Charity Commission, upholding its duty to ensure charities operate within the law, launched a detailed investigation. They meticulously reviewed City of Sanctuary UK’s educational resources, scrutinized their use of language, and delved deep into their activities, with the Valentine’s Day card allegation taking center stage. After a thorough examination and a productive meeting with the charity’s dedicated trustees, a clear picture emerged. The truth was far less sinister than the online rumors suggested. The “heart-shaped messages” were, in fact, general messages of welcome displayed in schools, with some sent to another charity that supports refugees, intended for display in their premises. Crucially, the trustees unequivocally confirmed that at no point were children asked to write cards to individual adult asylum seekers or refugees. This distinction was vital – it wasn’t about personal connections, but about a universal message of warmth and inclusion.
Beyond the Valentine’s Day card claim, the Commission investigated the broader allegations of inappropriate political activity. Charities, by their nature, often work in areas that intersect with social policy, and sometimes, this involves voicing concerns about government decisions. The Commission concluded that City of Sanctuary UK’s criticism of certain aspects of government policy was entirely permissible under charity law. Their purpose is to support refugees and asylum seekers, and advocating for policies that align with this purpose is not only acceptable but often a necessary part of their work. The Commission found no evidence that the charity crossed the line into partisan politics. In fact, the trustees highlighted that their work garners support from politicians across different parties, and local authorities with diverse political makeups actively help deliver their programs. This demonstrated a commitment to their mission, rather than a partisan agenda.
Moreover, the Commission affirmed the charity’s general approach to educational activities. They recognized that educational materials don’t need to be entirely “value-free” and can, appropriately, reflect the charity’s core belief that people seeking sanctuary deserve to be welcomed and supported. This viewpoint is not only understandable but central to their very existence. However, what truly troubled the Charity Commission was the environment in which City of Sanctuary UK found itself. They expressed deep concern that the charity had become the target of a dedicated misinformation campaign, which tragically escalated to threats against its trustees and staff. This hostile climate, fueled by false allegations, is a worrying trend that impacts the ability of charities to carry out their vital work without fear.
Helen Earner, the Director of Regulatory Services at the Charity Commission, eloquently articulated the Commission’s stance. She emphasized that while the Commission holds charities accountable for their legal responsibilities, it also champions their right to pursue their charitable purposes within the confines of the law, even if their views might be met with strong disagreement from some quarters. Earner acknowledged the long history of charities operating in “contested areas of social policy,” recognizing that they must accept that not everyone will agree with their positions or support their causes. However, she drew a crucial distinction in this particular case: the concerns about City of Sanctuary UK’s work were significantly amplified and distorted by online misinformation. This growing problem, she noted, is a significant concern for regulators. While the Commission cannot fact-check every single allegation against every charity, the high-profile nature of these specific claims made it essential to “set the record straight” when the allegations proved to be unsubstantiated. Ultimately, after a thorough review of all available evidence, the Commission unequivocally stated that the claims were misleading. They confirmed that the Schools of Sanctuary program aligns perfectly with the charity’s purposes and adheres to all regulations regarding campaigning and political activity. The trustees, they were satisfied, fully understood their regulatory obligations, allowing the charity to continue its important work with integrity.