There are literally millions of pounds being raised every year by amusements, gaming and gambling businesses to support community charities that help the deprived, disabled and disenfranchised up and down the country. In this edition of Coinslot alone, there’s a dozen or so stories of funds raised for local charities and sports groups – and there are dozens more that we haven’t included from our news trawls just this week. That is all under threat as activist anti-gambling charities are, allegedly, on the hunt to close these partnerships down.

Reports are reaching Coinslot that centrally funded third sector charities are contacting  non-gambling community charities to stop them from taking donations from gambling businesses.

It is already well known within the third sector that gambling-related charities are being strong-armed not to take donations from the industry, under the veiled threat that they could jeopardise their Gamble-Aware funding. 

But, activist anti-gambling charities within the GambleAware remit are now spreading their message to social care, welfare and other local and community charities pressurising them not to take money from the amusements, gaming and gambling industry.

The names? 

Coinslot has been requested by some of the charities being ‘bullied’ that they would rather not declare publicly – we assume for fear of reprisal and also endangering their long standing relationships with the industry.

And those charities that are allegedly applying the pressure? Well everyone knows who they are, but those in the industry currently remain tight-lipped on naming and shaming. 

What a conundrum: the bullies seem to be getting better protection than the bullied.

Although that is a slightly unfair swipe: this is a febrile environment with much at stake – most people Coinslot has spoken to suggest that it will just take one charity to make an official report, and then the gates will open.

The gift that charity status gives an organisation is a sense of protection – it’s just not seen as decent to criticise a charity. 

At the same time, though, charities must abide by a Code of Conduct. Trying to stop other charities from taking fundraising donations from the industry is definitely skirting very close to being a breach of that code – ya think?

However, it is happening, and according to some third parties in the know – in quite a forceful way.

So, what to do? A starting point would be a conversation with either the Gambling Commission and Charity Commission for advice; contact your fundraisers and ask them to speak to their trade associations for guidance; you can even touch base with Coinslot and we can make contact with these bodies and protect your identity.

Or just go full pelt and send a legal letter to the anti-gambling charity that contacted you and instruct them to cease and desist their actions.

After all, the anti-gambling charities making those calls don’t actually give a damn about the people or communities these charitable organisations support. 

But the amusements, gaming and gambling businesses that provide the millions of pounds from fundraising do. It’s their executives, their staff, their suppliers and their customers that are giving up their own personal time to do absurd things like run a marathon, hike up mountains, jump out of airplanes and push themselves to the physical and emotional limit for all these causes.

And now these charities are being told not to take money from them – worse, that this kindness, is tainted.

That’s tens of thousands of people from the industry, with help from thousands of their friends and their families every year engaging in fundraising activities to help the deprived, disabled and the disenfranchised.

These people are tainted; the money they raise is tainted; the work these charities do is tainted? Really?

What kind of charity would want to stop another charity from engaging in this crucial community activity and raise millions every year for people desperately in need.

Why don’t the gambling-related charities making these calls own up – then we can have a real discussion on whose funding should be cut?