A CHARITY watchdog has ruled that the LBG Alliance promoted "false and misleading" information as part of a fundraising drive.
The group claimed that it was the only registered charity in the UK "set up to protect and promote the rights of people with lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) orientation".
However, the claim made on Twitter became the subject of a complaint to the Fundraising Regulator as there are numerous charities, such as Stonewall and others, providing support for same-sex attracted people.
READ MORE: Supreme Court says SNP can intervene in Scottish indyref2 case
Critics argue that the LGB Alliance exists only to differentiate between those attracted to the same sex and transgender people.
When the LGB Alliance was granted charitable status in April 2021, it prompted outrage among LGBT groups across the country, 50 of whom signed an open letter condemning it.
And now, the group has been found to have produced "misleading" fundraising materials on social media by the watchdog.
Setting out the details of the case, the regulator said: "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."
It added that the complainant was unhappy with this response due to the existence of numerous other LGBT charities which were not being taken into account.
In its decision, the regulator said that it recognised the claim was made "within the context of a wider ideological debate around sex and gender".
But, referencing the Code of Fundraising Practice (CFP), the watchdog said it was clear LGB Alliance broke the rules.
READ MORE: Liz Truss is trying to block Scotland's Gender Recognition Act reforms
The decision reads: "The CFP requires that fundraising materials must not mislead anyone, or be likely to mislead anyone, either by leaving out information or by being inaccurate or ambiguous or by exaggerating details.
"The code also requires that before a charity makes a direct or implied claim in its fundraising which is likely to be taken literally, it must make sure that there is evidence to prove the claim.
"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.
READ MORE: OPINION - I won't shed a tear as landlords face rent freeze
"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."
LGB Alliance was given a number of recommendations. First to "carefully consider the wording" used when fundraising and to provide enough information for donors to clearly understand its position.
It was also told to ensure it has evidence to back up any claims it may make, learn from the ruling and consider using a third party to "resolve future complaints of a contentious nature".
The regulator said the LGB Alliance accepted the findings and recommendations and offered to apologise to the complainant.
The LGB Alliance has been contacted for comment.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel