Proceedings to forfeit an OBE
The recent attempt to strip Charlie Mullins of his OBE should concern every fair-minded person in the country. It has been the belief of our client that his honour, given for exceptional service to society, has been threatened not because of a criminal offence or a scandal, but possibly due to his outspoken political views. This case raises serious questions about freedom of speech, the creeping politicisation of what was once a noble and impartial process, and growing concerns about the civil service being used to silence certain political voices.
Who is Charlie Mullins OBE
Charlie Mullins is a British entrepreneur who has dedicated his life to helping others. Born in South London and raised in a council flat, he left school at the age of 15 with no qualifications and began work as a plumbing apprentice. He later used a second-hand bag of tools and a borrowed van to launch his business from scratch. That business, Pimlico Plumbers, grew to become London’s largest independent plumbing company, serving thousands of households and businesses across the capital.
What set Mullins apart was not just the growth of the company, but the way he built it — by prioritising apprenticeships, skills training, and social mobility. His business not only offered essential services but became a source of opportunity for many people from disadvantaged backgrounds. He trained and employed hundreds, if not thousands, of people. He gave them skills, confidence, and the means to support themselves and their families.
Charlie’s journey from poverty to successful entrepreneur made him an inspiration to many. In 2015, Mr Mullins was awarded the OBE for services to plumbing, recognising both his contribution to the trade and his wider impact on the community. This is exactly the type of achievement that the Honours system was designed to recognise.
How does the Award Forfeiture Committee operate
But now that same system has turned against him. The reasons? Vague references to social media posts. No proper comparison with other cases. No explanation of how these posts, which were never criminal or inciting violence, could possibly justify such a harsh penalty. And, crucially, no right of appeal.
The Forfeiture Committee works in secrecy. All its decisions are made behind closed doors and based solely on written submissions. Those involved are not allowed to give evidence in person, to answer questions, or even to be questioned. This means that much of the outcome can depend heavily on the quality of the written submissions prepared by their lawyers.
The Committee does not provide full reasons for its decisions, nor does it offer guidance to help people understand the rules. There is no clear process, and no right to appeal. All this leaves the system wide open to abuse — especially political abuse.
It is important to note, however, that a Government spokesperson has publicly denied any political influence over the Committee’s work, stating: “Claims that the Forfeiture Committee is politically motivated are completely unfounded and inaccurate. The Forfeiture Committee is entirely apolitical and no ministers or political appointees are involved in any of its decision making.”
While this may reflect the official position, the opacity of the process and its inconsistent outcomes have led many to question how such neutrality is maintained in practice.
Why did they try to take away Charlie Mullins’ OBE
We must ask: why now? Why Charlie? A man with known centre-right political views, who has criticised certain high-profile political figures. A man who backed Reform UK. Is this now enough to lose your OBE?
In past cases, forfeiture has usually been reserved for serious wrongdoing — fraud, abuse, serious sexual offences which attracted a lengthy prison sentence. Stripping someone of their honour was a rare and extreme step, meant for extreme situations. To include political speech on social media as grounds for forfeiture changes everything. It sends a chilling message: if you speak out, you may pay a heavy personal price.
There are few things more humiliating than being stripped of a national honour — especially one that you earned through years of hard work and community service. It doesn’t just hurt the person involved; it deters others from speaking their minds. It stifles debate. It tells the public: toe the line, or risk losing everything.
How to defend an attempt to forfeit your OBE
In Charlie’s case, we worked extremely hard to avoid this outcome. The allegations put to him were vague and minimal — a handful of social media posts with no proper context. There was no fairness in how this was handled. It is deeply worrying that a handful of complaints can trigger such a drastic decision. And we must be honest — complaints of this sort can easily be politically motivated.
That is why I am proud of the work we did, and why I urge anyone facing a similar situation to seek help from a specialist. In Charlie’s case, we approached the matter with extreme care and attention to detail. We interviewed Charlie and others close to the matter, obtained documentary evidence, and secured strong character references from respected members of the community who spoke to his decades of service and contributions. We carried out a comprehensive comparison exercise, highlighting individuals who had received honours but who had committed, on the face of it, far more serious wrongdoing — in some cases, serious criminal offences. We also pointed to others who had made highly inappropriate and offensive public statements, but were never approached by the Committee, and whose honours were never at risk.
The bundle we submitted included hundreds of pages of carefully prepared documents: legal submissions, interview transcripts, statements from witnesses, and contextual material. Everything had to be perfect, because you only get one opportunity to make your case. There is no oral hearing, no chance to cross-examine or be cross-examined, no follow-up opportunity to explain or clarify. The process is done on paper alone, which makes precision and completeness absolutely vital. This is not the time to take risks or shortcuts. The consequences are too serious.
What to do if you receive a letter from the Honours Forfeiture Committee with a warning that your OBE is facing forfeiture
If you have received a letter from the Honours Forfeiture Committee warning that your honour may be at risk, the first and most important thing to understand is this: you must not delay. This is a formal process with real consequences, and there are no second chances.
The letter itself will likely be brief, offering only a summary of the concerns raised — often no more than a few lines, sometimes referencing public statements or actions that are said to have brought the honours system into disrepute. According to the Cabinet Office, the Committee considers whether the honour still stands in light of the recipient’s conduct. But the guidance is vague, and the entire process takes place behind closed doors. There is no hearing, no opportunity to be cross-examined or to challenge your accusers in person. The decision is based solely on written submissions. Once a recommendation is passed to the King, it is very unlikely to be overturned.
This makes your written response absolutely critical. It must be carefully constructed, factually accurate, and supported by a strong body of evidence. In Charlie Mullins’ case, we treated the letter as the beginning of a legal case. We conducted interviews, gathered documentary evidence, obtained statements from character witnesses, and presented a full picture of his contribution to society. We placed the allegations in their full context, challenged their substance, and showed how inconsistent the Committee’s approach has been.
We also carried out a comparison exercise, showing how other individuals with criminal convictions — in some cases for fraud or sexual offences — had retained their honours, while others who had made far more inflammatory public comments were never subject to forfeiture proceedings. This evidence formed part of a detailed and structured legal bundle, running to hundreds of pages, which we submitted to the Committee. We knew there would be no second chance — so everything had to be right the first time.
If you receive a letter like this, it is not just about saving your OBE, MBE, or knighthood. It is about protecting your name, your reputation, and your right to speak freely without fear of political or institutional punishment. The process is legally complex and emotionally draining. It’s not something you should face alone.
You need someone who understands the law, the politics, and the public pressures at play. We were proud to act for Charlie Mullins, and we bring the same dedication and care to everyone who finds themselves facing a similar threat.
If this has happened to you, do not take chances. Seek advice immediately. Time matters — and so does the strength of your response.