When you’re a disabled ex-offender seeking support, you don’t expect luxury. You don’t expect perfection. But you do expect respect. What you don’t expect – and what should never be acceptable – is the sudden withdrawal of support, being blocked from communication, and the flat-out disregard for basic rights under the Equality Act and UK GDPR. Especially when that harm is being subsidised by public money.

We have also been informed, in writing, by the Chief Executive of the organisation in question that they receive no public funding. However, this statement directly contradicts their own public disclosures, which state they are “grateful for the support of over 70 grants and foundations and commissioners,” including high-profile funders such as the National Lottery Community Fund, Henry Smith Charity, Lloyds Bank Foundation, and City & Guilds. In the charity and commissioning sector, terms like support, grant, and commissioner are standard indicators of financial funding – not just partnerships.

To verify the accuracy of this conflicting claim, we have submitted multiple Freedom of Information requests to relevant public bodies. At stake is more than semantics – it’s about whether vulnerable people are being harmed, misrepresented, and funded in the process.

This isn’t just about one bad experience. It’s about a wider pattern of funding with no follow-through – where money flows freely, but oversight doesn’t.

So, the question is: who’s funding this – and who’s watching?

💷 The Money Trail

According to their own disclosures, this particular organisation receives funding from:

• National Lottery Community Fund
• Henry Smith Charity
• Lloyds Bank Foundation
• Garfield Weston Foundation
• EQ Foundation
• City & Guilds
• Plus over 70 other grants and commissioners

That’s a lot of goodwill. A lot of public trust. And a lot of money that comes with an implied social contract – do no harm.

🧠 So Where’s the Oversight?

When a publicly funded provider:

• Refuses to make reasonable adjustments,
• Withdraws support without warning or justification,
• Blocks lawful communication and ignores data protection requests,

…then something’s gone very wrong.

If any for-profit company behaved this way, funders would pull the plug. But in the charity sector, there’s often a hands-off culture – the assumption that good intentions mean good practice. Spoiler: they don’t.

🔐 Safeguarding Isn’t Just for Posters

Safeguarding isn’t just a policy document on SharePoint. It’s an active duty – especially when working with people who are disabled, justice-involved, or both. When service withdrawal happens in response to someone asserting their legal rights, that’s a safeguarding red flag. When it happens without explanation or process? That’s a pattern.

Funders and commissioners must do better. That means:

• Conducting independent audits into service user complaints
• Making funding contingent on compliance with equality and data protection law
• Creating whistleblower-safe pathways for vulnerable clients to speak out without fear of retaliation

⚠️ You Can’t Preach Redemption and Practice Rejection

It’s easy to print inspirational quotes about second chances. It’s harder to sit with someone whose needs are complex, whose past is messy, whose demands include inconvenient things like autonomy, written communication, or not being treated like a box-ticking exercise.

If an organisation receives public or charitable funds to support people like me, then respect isn’t optional. It’s the bare minimum.

👁 Watch This Space

I’ve formally raised these concerns with funders, regulators, and safeguarding bodies. Not to burn bridges, but to stop this from happening to others. Silence enables harm. Transparency prevents it.

So, to those holding the purse strings: are you funding dignity – or just the illusion of it?