The Guardian has reported (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/apr/17/centrepoint-to-cut-ties-with-sharon-osbourne-after-she-backs-tommy-robinson-rally) that the homelessness charity Centrepoint will cut ties with Mrs Sharon Osbourne after she expressed support for the “Unite the Kingdom” rally being organised by Tommy Robinson (Stephen Yaxley-Lennon). Mrs Osbourne posted on Instagram “See you at the march.” In response, Centrepoint, which had recently engaged Mrs Osbourne as an ambassador for a campaign, said: “This sort of event does not align with our values.”
Many ordinary folk who have never been a member of a political party, an organisation (such as an association, club, church or society) and cannot possibly be described as a “celebrity” – however minor – as they have never been interviewed by a journalist or appeared on TV may consider that they do not face consequences along the lines that Mrs Osbourne is facing following her “social media” post.
Au Contraire, Mon Ami!
Many organisations (public and private, commercial and administrative) are increasingly censorious of those persons who are directly and indirectly associated with them. These include those such as employees and members (directly) and those such as customers and suppliers (indirectly).
Generally, the large and more prominent the organisation, the more likely they are to be censorious.
Why?
It is essentially a defensive measure.
Such organisations are keen on gaining the approval of the “approved establishment” and do not want to incur the disapproval of the “approved establishment”!
To that end many undertake actions that actually work against their commercial/financial interests. These organisations are aware of the cost of such actions but deem the costs worth it for the benefit of gaining the approval of the “approved establishment” and importantly avoiding the disapproval of the “approved establishment”!
Allow me to cite an example: There is a UK charitable organisation that promotes members of the public and it’s own members to visit places of interest for the purposes of leisure. To reduce costs, this charity seeks volunteers to supplement those they employ. The charity produces information and other publicity material both “online” and printed “hard copy”. Such material makes use of photographs of the locations that the charity promotes. Such photographs feature people. This is a very important factor. I know this as I used to be a professional photographer and produced photographs for organisations involved in the UK’s leisure industry.
When I took the photographs for my customers, I saw to it (this with the consent of the customer) to take photographs when the location was open to the general public and as a result, the photographs I took included members of the general public. NB: I gained the consent of those members of the public BEFORE taking the photographs, explaining why I was taking the photograph and in addition, stating that my customer (the owner of the location they were visiting) could reduce their costs by utilising their (the visitor’s) generosity (of their time and trouble) as this would avoid employing professional photographic models via a model agency.
NB: Such costs (use of professionals) were (and are) significant. Again. I know this because I worked with such model agencies and models.
As a result, my customers (the owners of the locations) were keen to act on my suggestion that they “freeload” on the generosity of their paying customers.
From this, you might expect that the aforementioned charitable organisation would follow the same policy of cost cutting – especially since they rely on volunteers to supplement their small number of salaried employees.
But no! The aforementioned charitable organisation uses the services of model agencies to hire professional models in place of members of the general public (their paying visitors).
Why?
Because the overwhelming majority (>96%) majority of their paying customers and members are of the demographic that the Office for National Statistics (ONS) categorise/define as “White British” and the charitable organisation seeks to portray visitors to it’s locations from a broader and more “diverse” visitor base – multiple demographics.
You might still be of the opinion that you are entirely unaffected by this. Not so. You will be a customer of commercial organisations such as banks, electricity, gas and telecommunication suppliers. Were ANY of these suppliers to terminate your custom AND notify other suppliers as to the reason for the termination – thus causing these suppliers to refuse your custom – your life would become very difficult indeed!
Of course, there are solutions; for instance you could instruct (employ) a specialist solicitor as an “Ordinary Attorney”. Appointing a person with Ordinary Power of Attorney (OPA) – is an arrangement suitable if you have mental capacity, but need temporary cover, i.e. if you are on holiday and need something signed, or during a hospital stay which restricts you (https://www.ommlaw.co.uk/lasting-powers-of-attorney/lasting-powers-of-attorney-faqs/).
This would require the setting up of a particular bank account (in the attorney’s name) which would allow them to make transactions with money you transfer into this account on your behalf.
You do not need me to point out that this is NOT a cheap option!
What does this mean?
That in the UK in 2026 you should be very careful of your online and public activity and statements!
Avoid making statements (verbal or written) that you know will be controversial – by “controversial” I mean any statement that such as this person (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leader_of_the_Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales) would disagree with!
Keep your opinions to yourself!
Unless you know a person very well (i.e. a loved one or a close friend) do not make any statement that could be deemed to upset the person mentioned above!