Watchdog: RSPB online post branding Sunak and Gove ‘liars’ was inappropriate
The Charity Commission said the trustees had taken sufficient remedial action so it did not impose any sanctions.
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A social media post by a renowned conservation charity calling the then-prime minister Rishi Sunak and two other ministers “liars” has been deemed “inappropriate” by the regulator.
But the Charity Commission stopped short of imposing any sanctions on the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) after investigating the August 2023 post on X, formerly Twitter.
In it, the RSPB strongly criticised plans to scrap water pollution restrictions for housing developments in England.
The post labelled Mr Sunak, then-housing secretary Michael Gove and then-environment secretary Therese Coffey “liars”, accusing them of having said they would not weaken environmental protections.
Alongside a picture of all three, it said: “And yet that’s just what you are doing. You lie, and you lie, and you lie again.
“And we’ve had enough.”
In a report published on Wednesday, the charities watchdog said: “We found that the tone and nature of RSPB’s post was inappropriate and had not been signed off at the appropriate level within the charity.
“More could have been done to ensure internal policies and procedures were followed.”
Shortly after the post last summer the RSPB issued an apology and said it had fallen below its own standards.
RSPB chief executive Beccy Speight said at the time that she did not approve the post and it did not go through “normal protocols”, as she declared the charity was “not entering politics”.
Then-Conservative MP Mark Jenkinson claimed the RSPB was becoming “a political campaigning organisation”, and called for the commission to strip it of its charity status.
But, having concluded its regulatory compliance case last month into the incident, the watchdog said: “We closed our case noting that the charity’s trustees had taken sufficient remedial action.
“This included the charity issuing an immediate public apology, carrying out an independent investigation and implementing changes to strengthen internal policies with use of commission guidance.”
Kevin Cox, the RSPB’s chair of council, said it was “pleased” the case had been closed and pledged to “continue campaigning for nature, holding those in positions of power to account, bringing species back from the brink of extinction, restoring landscapes, and inspiring millions of people to care about nature and play their part in helping restore it”.
The finding came in a wider report on the behaviour of charities during the General Election period, with the commission noting there had been no reported concerns about the RSPB during that time.
The regulator said it had carried out “enhanced monitoring” of all charities’ campaigning from the moment the election was announced in May until polling day on July 4.
It found a “significant decline” in serious concerns about charities’ campaigning activity compared with previous elections.
One case in the report involved the chairwoman of Age Concern Wolverhampton – part of the Age UK network – endorsing a Labour candidate by using her name and charity role in an online election leaflet.
Many charities have effectively used their voices with confidence while following electoral and charity law – supported by our published advice and guidance
The commission said the Age Concern branch confirmed the trustees had not endorsed this move, the chairwoman had resigned, and the candidate was quickly asked to stop circulating the leaflet.
Commission chairman Orlando Fraser praised the mainly “constructive and lawful way the sector has engaged with debates on the issues they champion” during the election period.
He said: “From the outset, we’ve highlighted the valuable role of charities.
“I have also set out our expectation that they take the lead in encouraging debates that are held with respect, tolerance and consideration of others at a time when, sadly, this is not always the case in public discourse.
“This election has seen some of our lowest case numbers which is true testament to the constructive and lawful way the sector has engaged with debates on the issues they champion.
“Many charities have effectively used their voices with confidence while following electoral and charity law – supported by our published advice and guidance. We will continue to use our voice to explain charities’ right to campaign lawfully.”
Earlier this year, Mr Fraser vowed the charities watchdog will not be “misused or weaponised” in culture wars, as he committed to not allowing the regulator to be used in such a way by “powerful interests” in politics, the media, or from within the sector.