Sharon Osbourne has had a rough few years in the public eye, but this week things got considerably worse. Centrepoint, the homelessness charity for young people, has announced it’s cutting all ties with the TV personality after she publicly expressed support for a rally organised by Tommy Robinson, the far-right activist whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon.
Osbourne, 71, reportedly backed the demonstration on social media, a move that left Centrepoint with little choice but to act. The charity, which has been supporting homeless young people across the UK since 1969 and currently helps around 10,000 young people each year, said the association was no longer tenable given its core values of inclusion and dignity.
In a statement, Centrepoint made its position clear: the charity exists to serve some of the most vulnerable young people in Britain, many of whom come from exactly the communities Robinson has spent years targeting. Standing by and saying nothing simply wasn’t an option.
Osbourne has had a long-standing connection with the charity, having served as a patron for a number of years. It’s a role that, until now, had given the organisation a degree of celebrity visibility. Losing that association is one thing; the reputational risk of keeping it, quite another.
The decision comes at a sensitive moment. Robinson is currently on bail following a recall to prison last year, and the rally in question drew significant controversy, with counter-protests and heavy police presence reported in the capital. Critics argued the demonstration was less about free speech and more about stoking division.
“Our work is rooted in compassion and respect for every young person, regardless of where they come from,” Centrepoint said in its public statement. “We cannot align ourselves with anyone who promotes views that are contrary to those values.”
Osbourne hasn’t publicly walked back her comments. Her representatives have not issued any detailed response as of publication.
It raises a question that charities across the country are increasingly having to wrestle with: in a more polarised Britain, how long can organisations afford to keep quiet about what their patrons say and do outside the charity’s walls?
