Children In Need’s former chief executive has alleged that she was unfairly blamed over a dispute regarding LGBT charity grants. Rosie Millard, who resigned from her position in November, claimed she was treated like a “whistleblower” when she raised concerns about funding for LGBT Youth Scotland. Millard insisted that she faced a lack of support from the board of Children in Need after urging the organisation to cease funding the charity due to her belief that it was causing harm to children.
During her interview with Times Radio, Millard expressed her worries about the reputation risk posed to Children in Need by the charity’s alleged problems. She highlighted past issues, including the conviction of a former chief executive of LGBT Youth Scotland in 2009 for involvement in a paedophile network, as well as a contributor to a guide published by the charity being convicted of crimes against children in 2024. However, LGBT Youth Scotland has denied any wrongdoing and affirmed its commitment to safeguarding children and young people.
Millard explained that she felt compelled to resign because of the lack of unanimous board support for her stance on the issue. She raised concerns about the charity promoting gender fluidity in primary schools and questioned its approach to puberty blockers and chest binders. The former chief executive emphasised that her primary concern was the well-being of children and ensuring that charitable funds were used to support, not harm them.
In response to the controversy, BBC Children in Need decided to halt funding for LGBT Youth Scotland. Despite this decision, Millard felt that her position had become untenable due to internal conflicts within the organisation. She expressed disappointment in the board’s failure to fully endorse her actions and beliefs, citing the pressure to appear inclusive as a possible factor in the decision-making process.
Reflecting on her experience, Millard acknowledged the challenges of being a whistleblower and expressed feeling isolated and unsupported in her role. She stood by her decision to address what she perceived as potential harm to children, even if it meant facing criticism or being “thrown under the bus” for her actions. Despite the outcome, Millard remains steadfast in her commitment to safeguarding children’s well-being and upholding the values of Children in Need.
In conclusion, the controversy surrounding LGBT charity grants highlights the complex dynamics of philanthropic organisations and the importance of prioritising child welfare in charitable endeavours. The case underscores the challenges that whistleblowers may face in speaking out against perceived injustices within their organisations. Ultimately, the duty to protect and support children should remain paramount in charitable initiatives to ensure that vulnerable individuals are safeguarded and supported effectively.