With inflation ever increasing, it’s no wonder that some charities need a pay rise… Right?! Righttttt?

Take Asylum Aid, which received £1,150,070 from taxpayers between 2021-25, an increase of £313,070 since my last audit (£837,000 between 2020-24).

It’s not even a big figure when compared to other asylum and migration charities (and the charity sector as a whole). Consider the fact that Migrant Help received £194,462,000 from taxpayers between 2021-25, an increase of £40,870,000 since its total of £153,592,000 between 2020-24.

You can see all the figures below. NB. I need to add some updates to the latest one, including Asylum Aid.

Asylum Aid says it delivers “high quality legal representation to some of the most vulnerable people seeking asylum in the UK”.

You have to wonder if that will include men abandoning toddlers.

Interestingly, in 2020 Asylum Aid partnered with the Helen Bamber Foundation, whose president is Dame Emma Thompson.

This outfit received £1,194,270 from taxpayers between 2021-25:

That’s a lot of taxpayer funding together. Meanwhile, the UK’s national debt stands at over £2 trillion.

Oh well!

The HBF describes itself as a “human rights charity”, which gives “survivors of trafficking and torture the strength to move on.”

However, its Instagram looks like that of any other asylum and migration charity…

… with posts about male clients…

… and women only too happy to lobby on behalf of asylum seekers (aka thousands of fighting-age males entering the UK).

For that reason, the Helen Bamber Foundation will be going onto my next update of asylum and migration charities, which currently stands at £312 MILLION:

At least it’s Friday and you can now justify a stiff drink after reading this article.

To see the latest bill for 44 (and counting) taxpayer-funded asylum and migration charities, click here:

To see the latest bill for every charity I’ve covered, click here:

New entries include:

Lewisham Refugee and Migrant Network (£1,967,580, 2021-25)
LRMN “exists to empower refugees and other migrants and to bring about systemic change to remove the challenges they face”. In August it signed an open letter to the Prime Minister for “a fairer and more humane approach to asylum accommodation and housing” and bemoaned the “hostile environment faced by migrants, refugees and people seeking asylum”.

Lewisham, incidentally, is the UK’s first recognised “Borough of Sanctuary” (“a welcoming place to all sanctuary seekers – refugees, people seeking asylum and migrants”). In May the Green Party took over Lewisham Council,

Read more

Although there are many things I find interesting to research, I believe tackling asylum and refugee charities is something of a national emergency. They have given us de facto open borders! Thus I am spending more and more time focussing on this area (which I also find very interesting).

So far I have calculated £304,873,379 spent on 34 asylum and migration charities (across five last available tax years), but the final figure could get much higher considering that there are over 170,000 charities on the Charity Commission for England and Wales alone. It’s an insane number.

Today I thought I’d give you an insight into what researching this area looks like. Normally I discover new charities when I am researching a charity and it lists partner organisations/ promotes another charity on social media. They are often very symbiotic in nature. Take the charity “Migrant Action” in Leeds, which has created this sprawling map of its partners and collaborators:

However, you can also simply go to the Charity Commission for England and Wales and search for charities. If I search for “refugee”, it yields 1,764 matches:

At a glance, you can’t tell which charities have had taxpayer funding, so there’s a bit of trial and error involved. I tend to click on charities whose income is anything from hundreds of thousands to millions of pounds, as big figures sometimes indicate a charity has had taxpayer funding:

For instance, today I tried Refugee Support Group (below),

Read more

ASSIST Sheffield (£433,390, 2021-25)
ASSIST Sheffield helps “some of the most marginalised people living in Sheffield”, which it defines as including “people who have been unsuccessful in their applications for asylum” (one wonders why). ASSIST Sheffield is one of many charities that refers to asylum seekers as “people seeking sanctuary” (the new trendy term), writing “Our vision is for all people seeking sanctuary in Sheffield to live life with dignity and hope for the future.”

On its website it has published an “anti-racism statement” and writes “No human being is illegal”. It also links to other support networks, such as The Asylum Journey (which provides information on legal advice, financial support and housing and accommodation, among other things) and Right to Remain, which offers a toolkit covering “different stages of the asylum and immigration process”:

Asylum Link Merseyside (£95,550, 2021-25)
“We offer practical help, trusted advice, and a welcoming community to people seeking asylum, while helping build understanding and connection across Merseyside”, says Asylum Link Merseyside on its website. The charity offers free advice on “asylum processes, housing support, help with accessing essential services, social activities, and advocacy.” In July its staff marched at Pride Liverpool where they held a sign reading “NO BORDERS BETWEEN US”…

… as well as posting the trans/ asexuality flag:

Borderlands (South West) Ltd (£225,290, 2021-25)
Bristol-based Borderlands is a charity “that exists to work with refugees, asylum seekers and other vulnerable migrants to help them from exclusion to belonging.” Its website caters to many different languages:

The charity boasts that in 2024-25, “509 referrals were supported through our English classes” and “150 gathered at Borderlands each week for a hot, nutritious meal”. Last year the charity took part in a protest “to call on the Government to focus on compassion not cruelty.”

Refugee Support (Devon) Ltd (£488,850, 2021-25)

“NO HUMAN IS ILLEGAL”, reads a post on the website of Refugee Support Devon, whose “mission is to better support the evolving needs of our clients by strengthening our organisational resilience.” It is “proud to be part of the South West Immigration Alliance” (funded by the Justice Together Initiative), which “aims to develop a more coordinated, collaborative, and sustainable legal advice ecosystem that better supports people needing immigration & asylum advice” and is “funded through to 2029.”

In March it was in Westminster for what it called “the Mass Lobby for Migrant Rights”:

Task Force Trust (£144,390, 2025)
Task Force is the charity behind “the Action Asylum project; a national initiative connecting asylum seekers with local communities, volunteering together to improve their neighbourhood and the environment.”

Action Asylum says it connects “people seeking asylum with local communities – through environmental volunteering”:

Earlier this month charity staff attended “Rooted Resistance, Collective Power, a two-day movement-building summit for groups working at the intersection of climate, migrant and racial justice.” Action Asylum also held a Parliamentary launch in June, “bringing together volunteers, Ambassadors, Project Leads, refugee and environmental sector partners, MPs and peers to mark the project’s expansion to ten cities.”

It also receives funding from the National Lottery Community Fund.

Total taxpayer funding going towards these five charities over the last five available tax years =

£1,387,470

For full audits, click here:

Another day, another asylum charity being subsidised by the taxpayer.

Today’s example is “Refugees Rock”, “a free climbing club” that “welcomes anyone seeking sanctuary” (the new trendy way to describe illegal immigrants/ asylum seekers).

Refugees Rock registered as a charity last year, which it described as “a major achievement” - as though it had won a prize. “Getting registered means we can apply for funding, benefit from charitable status and operate as an independent organisation”, wrote staff member Megan Murray at the time.

According to a post by partner charity Migrant Help (which received £194,462,000 from taxpayers between 2021–25), it and Refugees Rock’s “Boulders Beyond Borders initiative” is funded by (debt-ridden) Birmingham City Council.

Refugees Rock was founded in Liverpool in 2021 and has established groups in 10 locations (“and counting!”):

It has a large number of partners, from “founding partners” to “climbing walls” to “charities”.

Founding partners include The British Red Cross (which received £417,960,000 from taxpayers between 2020-24) and Action Asylum (which a project by “The Task Force Trust”, a registered charity that received £144.39k from taxpayers between 2021-25).

Other charity partners of Refugees Rock include Migrant Help and a few others whose funding I now need to nose into, as well as the ghastly Care 4 Calais.

I have already spotted that at least two - Heart4Refugees and Action Asylum - have had funding from the National Lottery Community Fund. Yet more reason not to buy a Lottery ticket.

Last week I added up taxpayer funding for 66 charities and it stood at £2.6 billion (across the last five tax years)…

… with the bill for asylum and migration charities is £261,897,909 and counting.

Reminder: the UK's public sector net debt stands at approximately £3 trillion.

More:

With a record 230 people (mostly men) crossing the Channel in one small boat earlier this month; water supplies running short; and housing ever-more scarce, you’d think politicians might want to halt new arrivals in the UK and reduce pressure on our infrastructure (never mind preserve our civilisation).

If anything, the opposite is happening, particularly in boroughs taken over by Greens, which are only too happy to encourage the world to move here. Case in point, the newly Green-led Hackney Council has announced its first ever Migrant Champion to “ensure migrant needs are represented.”

Read more

At the beginning of this month, I learnt I was to be mentioned in an article by “The Bureau of Investigative Journalism” (TBIJ), a publication funded by Ecotricity, the Gates Foundation, George Soros’s Open Society Foundations and Quaker foundations (Joseph Rowntree), among others.

The piece, which was published on July 6, describes “a torrent of rightwing hate and misinformation” directed at City of Sanctuary UK, a charity TBIJ says “promotes compassion for asylum seekers and refugees.”

Ahead of publication I was offered the opportunity to respond (which I didn’t take up) to points that would be raised in the piece, spelt out in an email whose subject was: “Right of reply: Misinformation and abuse targeting City of Sanctuary”. Full email below:

Dear Ms Gill,

I am a reporter for the Bureau of Investigative Journalism and I am investigating the threats and misinformation that has been directed towards the charity City of Sanctuary.

We believe these matters to be firmly in the public interest in light of the sustained and often false coverage targeting the charity, the way these allegations have been spread by members of the far right and the subsequent threats and harassment the charity has received.

We want to give you the opportunity to respond to the following which we intend to publish:

1. You have published more than 20 posts about City of Sanctuary or its activities on your Substack.

2. In August 2025 you published a series of articles and videos about the Schools of Sanctuary programme, saying it was encouraging children to write Valentine’s letters to asylum seekers.

3. City of Sanctuary has said you have never contacted the charity to check your facts or to get their side of the story, as is standard journalistic practice.

4. Following an investigation the Charity Commission has found that the allegations against the charity were part of a “misinformation campaign” and at no point had any child written to an individual asylum seeker. You have dismissed the findings of the Charity Commission investigation and said the regulator is “not fit for purpose”.

5. Your coverage was then picked up by outlets including the Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mail and GB News. It then spread online among several far right accounts with large followings.

6. Following this coverage the charity was inundated with threatening and abusive calls and emails.

7. You also shared the names of schools involved in Schools of Sanctuary online and some of these schools were subsequently harassed online or by far right groups.

If you wish to contest any of the above points please specify which you are contesting and provide supporting documentation.

In the interests of fairness, accuracy and balance, we would like to offer you the opportunity to respond to these findings by 4pm on 1 July.

Kind regards,

Emiliano Mellino

The gist of the article is that “a rightwing blogger” (yours truly) sparked a “media storm” over City of Sanctuary’s “Schools of Sanctuary” scheme, and that the charity sector is being subjected to the Far Right and misinformation.

To recap, last year I wrote about the fact that City of Sanctuary, via its Schools of Sanctuary programme, was encouraging children to make Valentine’s cards for asylum seekers.

Following my reporting, there was understandably a public outcry and some people complained to the Charity Commission. However, in April this year the Commission decided that City of Sanctuary UK had faced a “misinformation campaign” and that the cards were merely “heart-shaped general messages of welcome for refugees”.

Ever since the Commission concluded its case, City of Sanctuary UK has been complaining about how hard things have been for it. Its CEO told TBIJ that staff at City of Sanctuary “were experiencing panic attacks [and] had to have therapy”, because of the far-right media storm, and how she had ended up with “high blood pressure”:

Obviously I condemn anyone who is abusive or threatening to charities or otherwise. At the same time I’m concerned that fair reporting and criticism of City of Sanctuary are being increasingly lumped together with “the Far Right” in a way that threatens free speech.

For instance, TBIJ’s piece explains how Richard Donaldson (“a conspiracy theorist”) and I “were among those who posted lists of the schools that were part of the Schools of Sanctuary programme.”

Although the article’s author, Emiliano Mellino, adds that “Neither called for their followers to send abuse to any of the schools, but some on the list ended up being targeted”, the subtext is that we shared information that put schools at risk.

In reality, City of Sanctuary was “proud” to post a “List of Schools of Sanctuary” on its website (in a now deleted page that I archived), linking to some schools’ own websites “or an article showing some of their work towards the award”.

The charity, and schools associated with the scheme, were clearly happy to share that information publicly. That’s until it didn’t lead to the reaction they wanted.

City of Sanctuary - which has been enormously successful at turning the UK into a series of “Sanctuary” administrations, meaning they go out of their way to welcome refugees/ asylum seekers - is not alone in acting like a victim in response to legitimate scrutiny of its activities.

Recently I received a newsletter update from “Tim” at Refugee Action, a charity that received £16,765,000 from taxpayers between 2021-25 and gets millions in funding each year:

The subject of the email was “A difficult update from me” (Tim) and it described how Refugee Action was “facing financial challenges”, adding: “The growing demonisation of refugees in the politics and the media, alongside wider pressures on the charity sector, has made fundraising harder. At the same time, the government has reduced funding for some of our services.”

The message is clear: we are all supposed to feel sorry for these poor little charities.

Actually, they are extremely successful at lobbying and very well funded, hence why it’s never been more important for journalists like me to continue reporting on them.

Yesterday The Telegraph broke the news that school children are “being fed pro-migrant messaging through schoolbooks” via the Schools of Sanctuary network, a scheme run by the open-border charity City of Sanctuary UK.

City of Sanctuary was quick to whinge on Instagram about how The Telegraph was “attacking schools”, and used the piece as an opportunity to ask for more donations.

It’s typical of this charity, which always acts the victim when it receives scrutiny from the press.

As readers will know, I regularly write about City of Sanctuary - so I know this from experience.

Recently, for instance, it moaned about a “misinformation campaign” apparently instigated by journalists such as myself, which was no such thing.

Read more

Earlier this month, Helen Earner, Director of Regulatory Services at the Charity Commission, accused journalists like me of spreading “online misinformation” by accurately reporting on the activities of the charity City of Sanctuary UK.

To recap, in late 2025 I covered the fact that the charity had been encouraging children to make Valentine’s cards for asylum seekers.

After it received multiple complaints from MPs and others worried about the scheme, the Charity Commission launched a compliance case into City of Sanctuary’s activities – ultimately concluding that there was nothing to see here.

As a statement by the regulator put it, these Valentine’s Day cards were merely “heart-shaped general messages of welcome to refugees” (as if that’s any better) to be displayed in schools and at a “separate charity supporting refugees for display in its premises”.

Read more

Yesterday, Stella Creasy, the Silent Disco Queen and Labour & Co-op MP for Walthamstow, was thrilled to welcome Sir Sadiq Khan to her borough:

And not just any borough; Walthamstow is “a borough of sanctuary”, don’t you know…

Unfortunately this means it is working with the ghastly open-border charity City of Sanctuary UK.

Read more

“Regulator finds no evidence that refugee charity engaged in inappropriate activity”, read a press release by the Charity Commission for England and Wales yesterday, after it closed its compliance case into City of Sanctuary UK.

The Commission looked into “concerns… over the charity’s activities in schools, including the claim that school children were being encouraged to send Valentine’s Day cards to adult asylum seekers. This allegation had been circulating online and was also reported in the media.”

“Following a detailed review and a meeting with the charity’s trustees”, the Charity Commission said it “did not find evidence to support these allegations”, adding that City of Sanctuary UK had faced “a misinformation campaign, including threats to charity trustees and staff, in relation to the Valentine’s Day card allegations.”

I don’t know anything about these “threats”. But I dispute the idea that the charity “faced a misinformation campaign” - certainly not from me. I was first to write up the story, and my coverage was packed with screenshots and literature to evidence City of Sanctuary UK’s activities:

In my article above, for instance, I showed a screenshot of a Schools Activity Pack put together by City of Sanctuary UK (its Schools of Sanctuary Team and Together with Refugees). Here it is:

The screenshot makes clear that the charity:

• encouraged schools to “Show your heart for refugees on Valentine’s Day”

• described these as “cards” (“You can then display these cards at your school”; and

• laid out a method that meant cards could be sent to “people seeking sanctuary” (by which the charity means asylum seekers/ refugees): “You can then display these cards at your school or send them to your local refugee organisation to share with people seeking sanctuary.”

However, the Charity Commission gives a rather abridged interpretation of events, claiming the cards were merely “heart-shaped general messages” that may go up for display in a charity’s premises:

“Heart-shaped general messages of welcome to refugees were displayed in schools, with some sent to a separate charity supporting refugees for display in its premises. The trustees explained that at no point did children write cards to individual adult asylum seekers or refugees.”

Despite the Charity Commission’s abridged account, Helen Earner, Director of Regulatory Services at the Charity Commission, said:

“concerns about the charity’s work were fuelled by online misinformation, something charities are increasingly subject to and a concern for us as regulator. While we can’t fact check every concern about every charity, sometimes the high profile of allegations means it is right for us to set the record straight where allegations cannot be substantiated.”

But where is this online misinformation?

It is certainly not in my coverage.

What’s worse is that the Charity Commission concludes there’s no issue with children making “Heart-shaped general messages of welcome to refugees”, which “did not amount to a breach of charities’ obligation to remain independent of party-political bias.” Will parents around the UK agree? That’s if they even know about the extent of City of Sanctuary UK’s Valentine efforts, including children making Valentine’s cards for their MP.

The Commission’s futile review helps to explain why the charity sector is in such a mess.

Last week, the charity City of Sanctuary announced recipients of its “Sanctuary Awards programme”, which “recognises and celebrates the organisations and institutions who go above and beyond to foster welcome, understanding and opportunity”. One of these was the University of Cambridge, now an accredited “University of Sanctuary” – something that the institution has been keen to show off on its website.

On the surface, the accreditation makes Cambridge (and any others receiving a “Sanctuary Award”) look kind and compassionate. The university’s webpage about its award has a photograph of a handful of refugees, making the City of Sanctuary programme look as if it helps a manageable number of people, not (in reality) being designed to turn the UK into an open-border state.

Read more

More:

Yesterday City of Sanctuary UK, the charity that once encouraged school children to make Valentine’s cards for asylum seekers, released a very helpful guide “to informed, compassion conversations about asylum”.

The charity is so compassionate that it doesn’t even use the term “asylum seekers”, incidentally, preferring to use the term “people seeking sanctuary”.

In an email about its new “Facts About Sanctuary resource”, it writes:

Hi Charlotte

The Facts about Sanctuary provides clear, accessible information about people seeking sanctuary in the UK. But facts alone don’t change hearts and minds. This guide encourages you to bring your own thoughts, experiences, and humanity into the conversation – because connection is what truly transforms understanding.

Click here to download your guide to informed, compassionate conversations about asylum. [NB I have not attached this as I had to sign up to receive the link]

There is also a version formatted for printing on two sides of A4 available here.

Use it as a standalone resource to feel informed and prepared, or pair it with our Courageous Conversations guide for the complete toolkit: the facts to ground you, and the skills to engage meaningfully.

The vast majority of us want a fair and kind system for people seeking sanctuary, but our voices are not being heard. Can you share the guide and get even more people speaking up?

Kind regards,
Hannah

P.S. Here at City of Sanctuary UK we work with thousands of community groups, schools, universities, libraries, councils and more to ensure that people seeking sanctuary are met with welcome, support and empowering opportunities. Can you chip in and help us grow this movement of welcome?

Naturally I have since read the guide, and I am ready to have “informed” conversations, armed with facts such as:

• “Nearly all people who cross the Channel claim asylum, showing these journeys are about survival, not opportunity.”

• “Everyone arriving is screened for safety”

Clearly the screening process is going incredibly well:

Elsewhere the charity says “There’s no evidence that people seeking sanctuary commit more crime than British citizens”

Oh really?

And “Have you noticed how often we’re told to look down, not up, when things feel unfair?”

Frankly, many of us are just looking around to try and stay safe.

The guide ends with the question: “What kind of community do you want to live in- fearful or fair?”

Fair is, of course, my answer.

Sadly we are all very fearful when events like this are happening so regularly:

Funders of City of Sanctuary UK listed below:

AB Charitable Trust (also funds Hope Not Hate Charitable Trust)
The Tudor Trust
Paul Hamlyn Foundation (also funds Hope Not Hate Charitable Trust)
City Bridge Trust
Gale Charitable Trust
Postcode Community Trust
Esmee Fairbairn Foundation
Lloyds Bank Foundation (England & Wales)
Unbound Philanthropy (also funds Hope Not Hate Charitable Trust)

More:

Remember the ghastly “Schools of Sanctuary” scheme run by the open-border charity City of Sanctuary UK? Some context below:

Conservative MP Nick Timothy recently asked Labour’s Secretary of State for Education “on which dates officials from her Department met with Schools of Sanctuary since July 2024; and what was discussed at each meeting.”

Yesterday Labour replied: “Three meetings have taken place between officials and Schools of Sanctuary during the 2024/25 academic year. One meeting was to discuss school admissions policy and processes, and two were to hear about the work of the organisation.”

So there you have it.

Labour have met three times with this ghastly open-border organisation, which shares at least two of the same funders as HOPE not hate Charitable Trust:

Although it sparked outrage when I revealed in August that City of Sanctuary UK had been encouraging children to write Valentine’s cards to asylum seekers - via its “Schools of Sanctuary scheme” - it hasn’t deterred the charity from its mission:

Let’s hope we can find out even more information about Labour’s discussions with it.

More:

In today’s article I wanted to show readers how taxpayers’ money is being spent on “Sanctuary Cities”.

To recap, the UK has inherited this concept from the US Democrats.

President Trump is currently in the process of tearing out “Sanctuary Cities”. Meanwhile, the number of “Schools/ Boroughs/ Universities and Groups of Sanctuary” has been quietly growing over here - with most voters having absolutely no idea.

Read more

While researching “Schools of Sanctuary”, one of the most troubling findings has been the number of children making Valentine’s cards for “refugee recipients”, as one school put it.

Read more

Readers of my X page will know that I am no stranger to being blocked.

I have been blocked by everyone/thing from The Green Party to Chris Bryant (the Labour MP) to Islington Council.

It mostly starts when I nose around people’s activities.

Case in point: recently I was blocked by City of Sanctuary UK after I started highlighting its work.

The charity lobbies for schools, councils and universities, among other places, to accommodate refugees (or rather “sanctuary seekers”, as is the new trendy term). Its website reads:

“City of Sanctuary UK coordinates, supports and grows these networks of welcome. From community groups to schools and universities, local councils to libraries and theatres, we work with individuals, groups and organisations in every area and in every sector to encourage inclusivity, solidarity and compassion for people from a forced displacement background.”

City of Sanctuary has not liked me drawing attention to its scheme, nor have participants in the scheme liked having their work highlighted.

For instance, Islington Council blocked me when I showed it giving out £500,000 in grants, as well as housing to asylum seekers, in its capacity as a “Borough of Sanctuary” (as councils enrolled in City of Sanctuary’s scheme mostly call themselves):

Then I started trawling through “Schools of Sanctuary”, and found even more “sanctuary” accounts, such as “Birmingham Schools of Sanctuary”.

When I highlighted the tweet below - showing kids giving a Valentine’s card to “refugee recipients” (more likely to be male economic migrants living in hotels), Birmingham Schools of Sanctuary deleted it and have since put their account onto protected mode:

“Sanctuary schemes” - which are imported from the US (where I understand them to have been a disaster) - have been rolled out all over the UK, sometimes at extreme expense. DOGE Wales has pointed out that £55 million has been spent on making Wales a “Nation of Sanctuary”.

With taxpayers’ money being spent on “City of Sanctuary” schemes, you’d expect councils/ otherwise to be able to justify their actions and to be proud of their work.

But they too often hide and delete content at the slightest bit of criticism.

What have they got to hide?

Read more about Sanctuary Cities here…

Support my 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 June, you may remember I wrote about “Sanctuary Cities”:

In short, unbeknown to most voters, councils around the UK have been welcoming “sanctuary seekers” (the new fashionable term for “refugees”), sometimes at a great cost to taxpayers. For instance, Islington Council has made £500,000 in grants available as part of its “Borough of Sanctuary Grants Programme”.

Today I wanted to introduce readers to the organisation spearheading “Sanctuary Cities”, appropriately titled “City of Sanctuary UK” (which I will refer to as CoS for short).

Read more

Did you know that it was “Refugee Week” from the 16th to 22nd of June?

Councils across the UK celebrated the event, including Cambridge City, Dorset, Warwickshire County, Southampton and Richmond.

Universities, schools and theatres were also crowned places of “Sanctuary”.

Read more