How my reporting on City of Sanctuary was conflated with the Far Right

By a well-funded publication called "The Bureau of Investigative Journalism"

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.

“Help us expose the hate economy”, reads a pop-up on TBIJ

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.

Children send Valentine's cards to asylum seekers under "Schools of Sanctuary" scheme

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”.

Was the Charity Commission ever going to adequately review City of Sanctuary UK?

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.