As my readers will know, over the past few years I have been writing a lot about open-border charities (not least because there’s so much to find!)

By this I mean charities whose cumulative effect is to create de facto open borders in the UK. Their typical activities will be things such as providing legal advice, housing support and/ or language services to asylum seekers in the UK. Given the huge amount of taxpayer funding many of these outfits receive - I have calculated over £240 million going towards 22 asylum and migration charities alone - their impact on the UK has become profound indeed.

But they’re not even the whole story when it comes to open-borders; they are part of a very large system that’s hurting the UK. Today I wanted to try and map out what that actually looks like. To my mind, these are a series of units working in lockstep - many with overlapping funders - to end the nation state (if it even exists any more). Similar to my long-read on the Red-Green alliance, I will now explain what I believe this system roughly looks like.

Read more

The other day I spotted this rather hostile sign outside my local Lush. “Racism is a threat to our community, not migrants”, it reads.

Furthermore, the shop window was covered in messages such as “Landlords raise your rent”, “Politicians underfund the NHS” and “Billionaires make you poorer”. The usual socialist tropes.

Interestingly on the top right of the store window it reads “Migrants’ Rights Network”, which is a “UK charity that stands in solidarity with all migrants in their fights for rights and justice.”

Very interestingly, it is based at Pelican House, which is where Britain’s Far Left organises:

From March 16 to 30, Migrants’ Rights Network is “partnering with Lush for a nationwide public awareness and fundraising charity campaign calling out the growing use of racist narratives to divide our communities and distract from the real issues people face across the UK.”

Just what you want when you’re buying a bar of soap…

As part of the campaign, rolled out in all 101 Lush stores in the UK, Lush customers are offered a “Words Matter booklet… examining harmful migration narratives in the UK.”

The 36-page document delves into Islamophobia…

… smuggling gangs…

… and colonialism:

You can find the whole thing here.

Lush customers can support Migrants' Rights Network by buying its “Hand of Friendship” bath bomb for £6.50.

Lush says “This limited-edition bath bomb is helping to create a world where everyone is free to move and no one is forced to move.”

I had a sense of deja vu reading this, as it sounds very similar to the quote used by the Paul Hamlyn Foundation (PHF) for its “Migration Fund”:

Recipients of the PHF’s Migration Fund include City of Sanctuary UK, Black Lives Matter UK, Asylum Justice, Common Knowledge (based at Pelican House), Right to Remain, Asylum Support Appeals Project, The Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy (RAMP) Project (which donates to Liberal Democrat Tim Farron and Labour’s Olivia Blake), Social Workers Without Borders, Positive Action for Refugees and Asylum Seekers, Bail for Immigration Detainees, The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and Hope Not Hate Charitable Trust. You get the picture!

Unsurprisingly, the PHF also funds Migrants’ Rights Network:

This is a fact made worse by the fact the PHF received £1.4 million from taxpayers between 2020-23:

PHF is not the only big funder of Migrants’ Rights Network. The full list, published on the charity’s website, is:

• AB Charitable Trust

• City Bridge Foundation

• Disrupt Foundation

• Esmee Fairbairn Foundation

• Garden Court Chambers

• Paul Hamlyn Foundation

• City St George’s

• Baring Foundation

• Ben & Jerry’s Fund

• Migrant Futures Institute

Most of these come up whenever I am researching open-border charities and their funders, particularly the AB Charitable Trust, City Bridge Foundation, Esmee Fairburn Foundation and Baring Foundation (and, of course, PHF - which is by far the worst open-border funder, in my view).

There’s also the uber ghastly Ben & Jerry’s Fund.

To add, it’s not only the Paul Hamlyn Foundation that has received taxpayer funding. City Bridge Foundation received £63,000 between 2020-21.

While it isn’t the case that taxpayer funds are directly going towards Lush/ its joint campaign with Migrants’ Rights Network, it is shocking that part-taxpayer-funded institutions are part of this ghastly open-border system.

Last week Hope Not Hate Limited (the private company) released its State of Hate report for 2026.

When I had a nose into the latest activities of the organisation, I was surprised to discover that it had changed the name of its charitable arm from Hope Not Hate Charitable Trust to HOPE Unlimited Charitable Trust. It’s not particularly obvious to me why this was necessary - and having delved further, I think this move raises more questions than it answers, especially about the useless Charity Commission for England and Wales.

Read more

Yesterday an organisation titled Micro Rainbow celebrated the fact that “Hassan, a gay man from Somalia” had been granted refugee status in the UK.

It wrote that Hassan was “rebuilding his life, supported by our Moving On team”.

The only issue is that Hassan doesn’t exist. An account titled “Xamse Y.” was first to point out that the image of him is actually of “a Black man advertising hair”, and even edited by AI (take the fact “Hassan” is now wearing a black t-shirt, whereas his chest is bare in the original image).

I did a reverse search on Google and saw the same man on different sites, all about hair…

… including one from an article written in 2023.

I wonder if this man knows his image is being used by Micro Rainbow - to show a man who has just narrowly escaped from Sharia Law.

Micro Rainbow, a private limited company (whose “international work is undertaken by the Micro Rainbow International Foundation”), says it provides “safe housing, employability, and and social inclusion support for LGBTQI refugees and people seeking asylum.”

According to 360 Giving Data, it has £653,354 in funding from Comic Relief and The National Lottery Community Fund:

A few years ago it was endorsed by The Mayor of London and London Assembly in a page titled “imagining a perfect community”:

The webpage talked about how Micro Rainbow had run a “theatre workshop with 18 LGBTQI asylum seekers and refugees, focused on the theme of community.”

(Fortunately there were some real people at the event.)

Micro Rainbow regularly posts images of people it’s helped on its social media output:

You just have to wonder if they are all actually refugees…

Today Hope Not Hate released its State of Hate 2026 report, which runs to 152 pages.

Read more

Paid subscribers can get access to my countdown of 20 of Scott’s worst grants:

Last week Forbes published a glowing piece about the philanthropy of MacKenzie Scott (the ex-wife of Jeff Bezos), who “gave away more than anyone else on Earth in 2025” and is “the third-biggest philanthropist of all-time.”

Sounds good, right? That’s until you see what she has actually funded, which is the grant-equivalent of HELL ON EARTH.

Like many other philanthropists, Scott is signed up to the utterly ghastly “Giving Pledge” - founded in 2010 by Bill Gates, Melinda French Gates, and Warren Buffett - “a promise by the world’s wealthiest philanthropists to give the majority of their wealth to charitable causes in their lifetime or wills.”

Like I say, it all sounds like a good thing, all these billionaires pouring their wealth into “philanthropy”. That’s until you start examining what this looks like in practice. Scott’s is about as woke as it gets, as you can see from the areas she funded in 2020 through her organisation Yield:

Let’s just say, if I started a US charity called The Indigenous Leprechaun Centre for Queer Climate Justice, I could probably get funding from MacKenzie Scott - and make that a few million dollars.

Without further ado, here are 20 grants Scott has funded, with their descriptions (taken from the Yield website):

Read more

“Giving 16-year-olds the vote is a big step toward rebuilding trust and bringing more people into the process”, posted the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) today.

Its Executive Director, Harry Quilter-Pinner, was on GB News arguing in favour of lowering the voting age. You can watch the full clip below or by clicking this link:

Taxpayers will be delighted to know they were charged £285,500 (2020-24) for the IPPR, which describes itself as “the UK’s leading progressive think tank”:

You can find out my reasons for objecting to its taxpayer funding in this piece…

… including the fact it:

• Supports reparations

• Believes “in the next seven years, the U.K. must install triple the amount of offshore wind compared to the past 14 years”.

• Calls for a “reimagined approach to asylum housing” to “improve standards”, with “services like English lessons, skills training, and community engagement”

• Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, contributed to its Commission on Health and Prosperity

• Staff members use ideologically-loaded terms such as “austerity” and “hostile environment” on their profiles

In general it’s quite shocking to see how many left-wing think tanks taxpayers are charged for.

Many taxpayers don’t want votes at 16. We should not be charged for a think tank lobbying for this change.

You can see a full list of IPPR’s funders here. 2024 sources of income include:

• £450,001 - £500,000* from the Open Society Foundations

• £75,001 - £100,000 from Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors

• £100,001 - £125,000 from Unbound Philanthropy, which also funds City of Sanctuary UK and Hope Not Hate Charitable Trust.

*denotes multi-year funding

Yesterday I published a list of 20 taxpayer-funded charities in the asylum and migration space. Paid subscribers can access the full list:

The worst example of this (in terms of expense) is a charity titled Migrant Help. It received £153,592,000 in taxpayer funding between 2020-24.

Much of this was under the past Conservative government; the same one that said it wanted to “stop the boats”. YEAH RIGHT!

If so, why was it giving tens of millions to a charity offering the following services (in different languages)?

I’ve pasted the text below too:

“We can advise you in your language on issues such as:

• How to claim asylum

• Navigating the asylum process

• Applying for asylum support including accommodation

• Notifying the Home Office if your circumstances change

• Finding legal representation

• Accessing healthcare

• Support during the post-decision period - read about the support available after positive decision here, and negative decision here

• Other asylum and post-asylum claim related matters

“We can signpost you to other helpful services in your area by telephone or in person, just talk to your adviser for more information.”

In addition to its main services, Migrant Help has a “Schools Programme”:

Migrant Help says that children and young adults “have not yet fully formed their opinions around issues of displaced people”. Therefore it has “developed a School Programme to support you in challenging the mindset of young people in the UK and promoting positive discussion around these issues.” The programme aims to “dispel myths and encourage thought and discussion around how to be more welcoming to people from outside of the UK.”

Here’s a video about the programme:

In it, Jonathan Scanlon, the charity’s Schools Programme Lead, emphasises that the overriding theme of “assemblies and workshops” is “how can we make a school a more welcoming place for migrants in the UK?”

Below I’ve pasted some presentation slides Migrant Help created in October 2023:

Notice how the slide below talks about encouraging “independent thinking” in youngsters - even though this programme is clearly to tell them there is only one, correct way to think!

When Migrant Help isn’t brainwashing children, the charity has celebrated International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia & Biphobia…

LGBTQI+ History Month…

… and Transgender Awareness Week:

I don’t know about you, but I’m soooooo glad taxpayers were charged £153,592,000 for this.

More:

Last year (HAPPY NEW YEAR! by the way) you may have seen Sadiq Khan visit the Regent Street pop-up store of a charity titled, Choose Love - which I have covered a bit before:

Khan is not the only one to do so. As well as an onslaught of celebrities visiting its premise in December, yours truly popped in earlier that month.

Read more

This week it was announced that the Government is to launch misogyny training for boys at schools.

One organisation very-much involved in this scheme is Tender, the charity behind the Netflix show Adolescence.

This post is free to read. Support my independent research by taking out a subscription or making a donation on Buy Me a Coffee. Thank you to everyone who has funded my work.

In March this year it was announced that Tender would “produce guides and resources for teachers, parents and carers to navigate conversations around the series.”

It has been given large sums of government funding to do this; £1,130,810, in fact, for the year 2025 (when you add income from government contracts and income from government grants together):

Between 2021 to 2025 it has been awarded £3,909,260 in taxpayer funding.

Starmer and Jess Phillips recently visited a Tender workship to launch the new government strategy to prevent violence against women and girls (VAWG):

A press release from Tender explained that the Prime Minister had had a “front row seat to a Tender workshop which harnessed the charity’s drama-based approach to explore healthy relationships, including key concepts like consent and early signs of abuse.”

Drama is central to Tender’s approach, hence why Olivia Colman (and her husband - helpfully pictured next to their pronouns) are patrons of the charity…

Colman was pictured with Starmer yesterday at a “modern retelling of Red Riding Hood”:

Unfortunately I don’t think we will see any dramas about the biggest threat to women and girls right now: open borders.

This post is free to read. Support my independent research by taking out a subscription or making a donation on Buy Me a Coffee. Thank you to everyone who has funded my work.

Last week there were some appalling news stories about Afghan boys and men raping teenage girls. Jan Jahanzeb and Israr Niazal, both 17-year-old asylum seekers, were charged with abducting and raping a 15-year-old girl in Leamington Spa. Statements from the victim and her mother, respectively, said “The day I was raped changed me as a person” and “We have watched our vibrant happy and confident [daughter] shrink down and suffer with anxiety so bad that she’s often physically sick”.

Read more

More for paid subscribers:

With near-weekly (if not more) examples of terrible migrant crimes, it’s never been more pressing that we secure British borders.

But, as my readers will all know, far too many organisations and entities, namely charities, are making it far easier for everyone and anyone to move to the UK, as well as vilifying those who (understandably) reject or criticise the situation.

Read more

Yesterday Tim Farron tweeted: “People seeking asylum in this country should be able to work here. This would help them to integrate into our society, financially support themselves, and also reduce the cost to the taxpayer.”

It’s far from his first post about immigration and asylum. Farron has a lot to say on the subject, especially as Vice Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Migration:

Read more

Today I can reveal that the UK Government (under the Conservative party) worked with two charities behind recent anti-Vance and anti-Musk protests. These are Rainbow Migration and HOPE not hate Charitable Trust.

Rainbow Migration’s involvement was discovered thanks to Lewis Brackpool, who submitted an FOI in July asking for “A list of NGOs or charities that have been formally engaged by the Home Office in relation to asylum accommodation policy between 2020 and 2024.” The Conservatives were in power during this period to July 2024.

Rainbow Migration is part of a collective titled “People vs Elon”…

… which HOPE not hate is also part of:

To add, HOPE not hate is divided into two wings - private and charity. Its defence will be that its “private wing” was part of People vs Elon movement, which is perfectly legitimate. But HOPE not hate and HOPE not hate Charitable Trust are basically one and the same. Indeed “HOPE not hate receives grants from HOPE not hate Charitable Trust, which are used to undertake work falling within HOPE not hate Charitable Trust’s charitable objects.” This is basically HOPE not hate’s attempt to make sure it doesn’t get ticked off by the Charity Commission, and it stinks.

Anyway… between 2019-21 HOPE not hate Charitable Trust advised the Home Office Counter Extremism Unit (example from 2021)…

… and received £141,380 in taxpayer funding from 2019-20.

The collective People vs Elon is responsible for numerous aggressive outdoor campaigns against Elon Musk:

“People vs Elon” also goes by the name “Everyone Hates Elon”.

As you can see from its Instagram page, it was behind the recent JD Vance protests in the UK:

So to summarise, the UK government has worked with two charities (Rainbow Migration and HOPE not hate) which are involved in these extreme campaigns against Musk and Vance.

And this was under The Conservative Party!!!

Read more about Rainbow Migration below:

Many thanks to Lewis for his FOI; check out his coverage here:

These days, whenever I hear Keir Starmer promise he’ll “smash the gangs”, I find myself wishing he’d “smash the charities”. That is, the industrial complex of trusts and foundations that are effectively fuelling open borders.

Read more

On Friday Full Fact - a self-described “team of independent fact checkers and campaigners who find, expose and counter the harm [bad information] does” - fact-checked Richard Tice, posting on X:

“Reform UK deputy leader @TiceRichard claimed ‘this Labour government has allowed the biggest influx of migrants in British history’.

“He’s not explained what that claim’s based on, but neither we nor the Migration Observatory can find data to support it.”

Whether Tice is right or wrong isn’t really the point of this article.

The point is: who cares what Full Fact thinks?

Full Fact, like BBC Verify, wants us to think they’re the Batman of “Information”, saving citizens lives from baddies trying to fry their brains with Andrew Tate videos.

Quite what qualifies Full Fact to arbitrate on “truth” is anyone’s guess.

Take a look at one of the profiles of its “fact checkers”, Hannah Smith, whose qualifications include writing for UNILAD:

Let’s just take a quick look at UNILAD to see what sort of expertise Hannah Smith might have acquired there…

Then there’s Full Fact’s CEO Chris Morris, who “was the BBC’s first dedicated fact checker on air and online, pioneering fact checking on mainstream outlets through his development and leadership of BBC Reality Check”.

Nowadays, in addition to arbitrating the truth, he sits on the “Commission into Countering Online Conspiracies in Schools”:

Another of the Full Fact team “worked freelance as a feature writer for the Guardian, Prospect, the New Scientist and others, making maps of immigration, explaining citizens’ assemblies and debunking superfoods.”

Can you imagine having to make conversation with these people at, say, a BBQ?

“What do I do for a living? Well, I make maps of immigration, explain citizens’ assemblies and debunk superfoods”.

“Yah, so I think education on conspiracy belief, misinformation and disinformation should begin in primary school”.

GOD HELP US ALL!

The most interesting thing about Full Fact, though, is its funders.

Full Fact explains that “funders have no input into our editorial content or decision making”, but you have to wonder what’s in it for these organisations?

What’s in it for The Tides Foundation, which (incidentally) gets enormous amounts in funding from George Soros’s Open Society Foundations?

And why is Meta (formerly Facebook) paying for for disinformation services, as well as The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust (another Quaker foundation)?

To add, Full Fact doesn’t receive taxpayer funding…

… but it sure is an expensive business telling Reform MPs off!

More:

This article is about one of HOPE not hate Charitable Trust’s main funders, “Unbound Philanthropy” - which awarded it £870,000 from 2012-2018 for “general support to work with communities to counter racism and bigotry”:

Unbound Philanthropy is one of a number of trusts that regularly comes up when I am researching Far Left funding in the UK.

Saying that, Unbound Philanthropy is actually incorporated in the United States, subject to the governing law of the State Of Hawaii and has an office in New York (in addition to its London one).

It funds US and UK projects…

... such as Migrants Organised Ltd.

This brings me onto the fact that Unbound Philanthropy is obsessed with migration, and promoting liberal attitudes to it is its raison d’être.

Read more

This week, HOPE not hate has been busy hounding Reform ahead of the local elections. On X it posted:

Replies were very conveniently turned off (have you noticed how many left-wing politicians now resort to this, incidentally? Ahem Sadiq Khan).

In this piece I’m not going to get into the nitty gritty of HOPE not hate’s profile of Reform candidates, who may, for all I know, have unsavoury views. I don’t want to fall into that trap (“OH SO YOU’RE DEFENDING THEM, ARE YOU?!”) which groups like HOPE not hate use to point the finger at others, and keep criticism away from their own activities.

Rather, I want to explore why HOPE not hate is able to campaign against Reform at all…

… as well as the Conservatives:

After all, HOPE not hate is registered as a charity (one that received £141,380 from the Government under Boris Johnson)…

… and the Charity Commission makes clear that:

Charities are required to be independent and cannot have political purposes, and this is important for public trust in charities. As such, charities must never stray into party politics – they must never promote, or be seen to promote, a political party or candidate.

Obviously HOPE not hate doesn’t adhere to these rules. How does it get away with it?

Well, it’s very simple. HOPE not hate has a charity wing, and a private wing (“HOPE not hate Limited”), and the private wing receives grants from HOPE not hate Charitable Trust.

I personally think this is a very cheeky set up. It means that HOPE not hate isn’t breaking any charity rules, even though it’s using charity money to “stray into party politics”.

Unfortunately HOPE not hate is far from the first organisation using this technique (charitable funds poured into an arm that’s used for Far Left lobbying). I shall highlight more examples as and when.

More: