RSPB fiasco highlights the risks of campaigning

No charity is immune from a crisis, as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) found out earlier this year.

On August 30th, the conservation charity launched a scathing attack on X (formerly Twitter), aimed at PM Rishi Sunak, Housing Secretary Michael Gove, and Environment Secretary Therese Coffey.

The post, which has been viewed over 10 million times, raged, "you said you wouldn't weaken environmental protections... And yet that's just what you are doing. You lie, and you lie, and you lie again. And we’ve had enough.”

The attack related to government plans to scrap pollution rules to build new homes near sensitive UK areas like rivers and waterways.

The RSPB then proceeded to cite Tory manifesto lines and quotes from the three ministers about ‘supporting environmental protections’, which it claimed were false.

Response

The charity was praised by clean rivers advocate Feargal Sharkey, who congratulated the charity for “taking a stand”. But it also faced harsh criticism.  Conservative MP Mark Jenkinson accused the RSPB of becoming “a political campaigning organisation” and called on the Charity Commission to strip it of its charitable status.

The post also infuriated RSPB trustee, Ben Caldecott. In a tweet, he said, "whatever one thinks of the government's policy proposals and their record on nature, these tweets are not an appropriate contribution. We can strongly disagree and make our case without calling people 'LIARS!'."

Apology

Hours later, the charity issued an apology on X, saying, "we are in a nature and climate emergency and that demands urgent action. The RSPB is deeply frustrated by the government's reneging on its environmental promises. But that frustration led us to attack the people not the policy. This falls below the standard we set ourselves and for that we apologise. We will continue to campaign vigorously on behalf of nature, but we will always do so in a polite and considered manner."

The following day, RSPB’s chief executive, Beccy Speight, appeared on Radio 4’s Today programme to explain the outburst.

She said: "The reason that has made us so frustrated and led to that original tweet is that it [the nutrient neutrality change] completely goes against the commitments that the government has made many times in the past, not to weaken environmental protections, most recently when the retained EU law bill was going through in the summer.”

When asked why the charity issued an apology, she said “we believe that the nature of public discourse does matter and that we have a role to play in that, and that we campaign on policy, not on people. The framing of that tweet, where we called out individual people, we felt was incorrect and inappropriate, and we apologise for that."

Fine line               

There’s a fine line between promoting conservation and political campaigning. The RSPB has walked it for years. But have they overstepped the mark this time?

Charity sector lawyers gave their view in a Civil Society article.

Suhan Rajkumar, senior associate at Bates Wells, said: “ahead of an election – there’s a risk that policy-based commentary which focuses on individual politicians might be misinterpreted as having a party-political aim. The Charity Commission focuses heavily on these kinds of reputational risks.”

Pippa Garland, partner at Russell-Cooke, said the post was “driven by RSPB’s concerns about the weakening of environmental protections, which I would say falls within their charitable remit. While the tweet may have been against RSPB’s own policy on campaigning, if a charity felt that this framing was the most effective way of furthering their purpose, it should be permitted to do so – subject to the usual legal restrictions, including the laws of defamation.”

She added, “the Commission’s guidance states that charities ‘can campaign using emotive or controversial material, where it is lawful and justifiable in the context’.”

Tom Murdoch, partner at Stone King, said that defamation could be a potential issue. “You can say something harmful to a person’s reputation if it is factually correct. However, here it is arguable; I expect the three named ministers would hotly deny that this is factually correct.”

The Charity Commission’s response

Mixed views. But what does the Charity Commission say?

A spokesperson said “it is encouraging that the RSPB acknowledged the post was inappropriate and took swift corrective action to issue an apology. However, as this was a serious mistake, we are keen to be assured of the trustees’ work to investigate how the incident happened, and what action they are taking to ensure such mistakes do not occur in future.”

Final Word

It remains to be seen how RSPB will emerge from this scandal, but it makes one thing clear: if you’re engaging in any sort of campaigning, be sure to stay the right side of the law. The rules are clearly laid out in this government guidance.

In the meantime, if you’re looking for a policy-savvy fundraiser, give us a call on 0203 750 3111 or email info@bamboofundraising.co.uk.