CHARITY PROBE IN TO ‘RACIST’ POSTER

Fury as it emerges Cabinet Office gave money to body behind controversial advert

EQUALITIES activists behind a ‘ racist’ Brexit poster were facing a Charity Commission investigation last night.

Operation Black Vote sparked outrage yesterday after releasing a poster featuring an aggressive white skinhead apparently lambasting an elderly Asian woman about Europe.

The Charity Commission last night said it was demanding an explanation from the group about why it describes itself as a charity when it is not.

And Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood was facing questions about why his department handed more than £28,000 to what appears to be a private company.

Brexit campaigners said the poster was clearly designed to portray those who support leaving the EU as aggressive racists.

Operation Black Vote ( OBV) denied the suggestion and insisted that the poster, designed by ad firm Saatchi & Saatchi, did not say which way either individual would be voting in the referendum.

But Sadiq Khan, London’s new Labour Mayor, condemned the poster, warning that it ‘reinforces stereotypes’.

As politicians called for the poster to be withdrawn, it emerged that:

THE Advertising Standards Authority received more than 100 complaints about the poster within 24 hours of its launch.

LORD BELL, the advertising guru who worked at Saatchi, lambasted it as ‘rubbish’;

LEFT-WING Joseph rowntree Charitable Trust handed OBV £72,000 in 2014 and another £35,250 last year;

THE Esmee fairbairn foundation, which funds the Media Standards Trust — which spawned Hacked Off — gave £35,000 in the same year.

The poster — which features the slogan ‘a vote is a vote’ and shows an elderly Asian woman and a tattooed white thug facing each other on a see-saw — has provoked a blizzard of criticism.

Tory MP Peter Bone said: ‘ This looks like more government pro-EU propaganda paid through the back door. The Cabinet Office has to ask some questions if this is part of the overall Project fear campaign.’

Politicians have demanded the Charity Commission probe into a potential breach of campaigning rules. Charities must adhere to strict rules on political activity: if an organisation’s purposes ‘are political’ then it cannot be considered ‘charitable’, the rules state.

OBV describes itself as a charity in official submissions to Companies House, but it is not a registered charity. MPs questioned whether this meant OBV was avoiding strict rules on charities and engaging in political campaigning. Senior Tory Bernard Jenkin, a leading voice in the Brexit campaign, said: ‘no charity should campaign or give an impression that it supports one or other side in a referendum.

‘The government is accountable for grants to charities and must ensure the charity is operating in accordance with the law, or ministers will find themselves in front of a committee.’

OBV claim the campaign highlighted the ‘demonisation of foreigners and people of colour’ in the referendum campaign.

Last night its director, Simon woolley, who is in the remain Camp, said the man pointing the finger could be from the remain or Leave camp.

He said: ‘The outrage is caused from the uncomfortable truth we have reflected. The uncomfortable truth is the toxicity of the debate which leaves a minority to say horrible things to people of colour.’

Lee Jasper, one-time equalites adviser to former London Mayor Ken Livingstone, disagreed with Sadiq Khan, saying the poster didn’t ‘ necessarily’ reinforce stereotypes.

He added: ‘Pictures of aggressive black men are published by the media every day. It was not Operation Black Vote that has made the whole EU referendum quite toxic.’

OBV’s annual accounts for 2015 showed the Cabinet Office had given them a grant of £28,333.

They did not publish full accounts for the four years before that but in 2010, OBV received over £380,000 from government departments.

Yesterday the Charity Commission, the statutory body which regulates charities ‘to ensure that the public can support charities with confidence’, confirmed OBV was not registered.

A spokesman said: ‘ we have contacted the organisation to seek clarification on why they have used this term in their financial report, and are awaiting their response.’

However, Mr woolley blamed ‘ a mistake’ and denied his organisation was set up to dodge Charity Commission rules on political activity.

He said: ‘we are not a charity. we work on charitable lines and we are not-for-profit. If there has been a mistake we will change it.’

Demonisation of foreigners