Do you donate to any well-known charities? Or are you perhaps a paying member of things like The National Trust? Then more fool you I say.
Probably in the past I didn’t think too deeply about giving to well-known charities, either on flag days or in little envelopes through the letterbox (but still boycotting those whose ethos or beneficiaries I definitely disapproved of, I won’t name names here). Going down memory lane, there were those caliper-wearing child-sized figure boxes, coin operated lifeboats that sped down a slope, and some definitely un-PC ‘native’ collection boxes, especially at Sunday School – I wonder which museums now keep these artefacts out of the sight of the easily-triggered public? I can’t remember seeing an OAP, as inevitably it usually was, selling charity flags or delivering/collecting little envelopes now for donkey’s years, can you?
In London in the 80s and 90s, with a long commute to work involving several Tube changes, I got thoroughly sick of the early morning rattling buckets at the top and bottom of escalators, that commuters automatically dropped not inconsiderable amounts of loose change into – probably without knowing if they were donating to striking miners, the P.D.S.A., the I.R.A., or indeed possibly to a charity scam. My solution was to sign up for a monthly donation to sponsor a child in Nicaragua. I then felt blissfully virtuous in refusing to give to absolutely anything else for years. Eventually I was informed that the charity was withdrawing from my child’s location, as the region was much improved. I admit I was relieved, and immediately informed the charity that I’d done my bit and definitely didn’t want to ‘adopt’ another child. I’d by then anyway become largely convinced that not only was my Nicaraguan ‘adoptee’ either possibly entirely fictitious, or if not then he also was probably being sponsored by numerous others as well. Incidentally, I was always uncomfortable with other aspects of this charity.
Now we all daily run the gauntlet of over-friendly young ‘chuggers’ ①, who would love to take a few minutes of our time to explain the challenges met by, and in part supposedly alleviated by, monthly donations to various worthy causes. Resisting the temptation to enquire why the earnest ‘chugger’ isn’t instead devoting their youthfully vigorous time to hands-on assistance to the disadvantaged humans or animals concerned, I always claim to be in a hurry and so can’t stop. This of course isn’t true, I don’t want to waste their (or my) time hearing about any charity when I know a) they only want me to donate a fixed monthly amount, and b) I’m just not prepared to do this.
It’s really not hard-heartedness or meanness, it’s resentment and even frankly disgust that the Chief Executive and senior staff of every well-known charity will be earning substantially more than I have to survive on, and significantly more than I ever earned whilst I was working. It’s also my suspicion that the charity will be 100% on board with everything woke, and of course ‘the latest thing’ (that they inevitably now tenuously claim is linked to their cause; transsexual Ukrainian polar bears suffering from excess CO2, and another Trump Presidency). Much as I always plan to ask the ‘chugger’ how much their CEO earns, I never actually do because I know they won’t have the answer, and still more likely won’t even understand why anyone might even ask. Do I want to contribute to the generous salary and perks packages of high earning charity executives? You bet I don’t (and won’t).
Frankly, I’d prefer valid causes to be addressed through current taxation and for all genuine charities (apart from those without remunerated staff and which are therefore probably already well-focused enough) to receive state money to perform agreed tasks, and to be prohibited from further bothering the general public with their sob stories or straying into anything other than focused do-gooding, and especially banning all extraneous virtue signaling. Surely the British Red Cross has now surpassed virtue signaling overload by breaking links with Harrods, because the former owner, over a decade ago and now deceased, has been accused of sexual shenanigans? I bet though they’ll still happily take the monthly donations of all sorts of convicted and unconvicted felons – do charities even care if their not high-profile financial supporters are, almost certainly in their eyes, undesirables? There probably isn’t going to be enough money to go around, given the sheer volume of charities registered by the Charity Commission ②, so perhaps periodically there ought to be an opportunity to vote for which ones get support, and which ones must sadly close down. Charity sector salaries should be capped at £52,000 per annum tops, as surely it ought to be a vocation rather than a lucrative career choice?
Don’t let’s even think about the role of the National Lottery in financially assisting do-gooding, or the many well paid administrative jobs that the Heritage Lottery Fund has spawned while refusing to fund urgent restoration projects, unless they can demonstrate many other dubious ‘community engagement benefits’. Does anyone ever actually buy a lottery ticket except in the understandably selfish and personal hope of winning big? I think not.
Like any other sane person, I’d like to see the International Development Budget abolished immediately; its money devoted instead to UK problems, and perhaps a few £million set aside each year to help with genuine international disasters (and never simply doled out in ways that invite corruption).
Finally, what happened to that sense of pride that made people, especially OAPs, say with such vehemence ‘I won’t accept charity’, even when it was something they were entitled to?
① chugger, slang term for ‘a charity mugger’, someone paid to secure funds for a charity normally
outdoors
② There are over 400,000 registered charities in the UK, the Charity Commission however only
deals with England and Wales where the majority of these charities are
Martin Rispin has had a career in many different sectors, most lately in the fields of English Tourism and Heritage based Urban Regeneration. He now lives, retired, in Kingston upon Hull.
If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee or sharing this piece with your friends – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!
I’ve always also thought that a charity CEO on a six figure salary (got to attract the very best business people, ha, ha) is frankly obscene and immediately brings into question the sincerity of the operation. Read Paul Theroux’s book about travelling from Cairo to Cape Town and likewise you’ll never give to third world charities again.
Exactly my journey over the years re charitable giving. Sadly I have just stopped giving to The Royal British Legion as they seem to believe funding a DEI executive and other woke BS is more important than helping those who put their lives on the line to protect our country. I think in the end only small local charities will be those to whom we can give with any modicum of confidence.
This is a most perceptive, revealing and timely article. The whole UK charity sector is in a considerable credibility crisis and in recent years has, unsurprisingly, earned itself a poor reputation.
I never now give money or sign up to giving (including not giving out personal financial details) on demand, to strangers and in public – only indirectly, after much checking and then only with written safeguards. There are some good, honest, efficient charities ‘out there’, but they are increasingly rare, and you need to do your research thoroughly before giving.
Before any giving, I always insist on knowing what percentage of donations go directly into a charity’s front line operations – its ‘efficiency ratio’. Public publishing of this data, on websites, etc, should, along with details of past and current projects ,be a fundamental requirement for registration and should be policed. It is surprising how many quite well-known large charity names fail quite badly on analysis of their efficiency ratio.
There are now far too many charities claiming to do much the same thing, some of them with questionable identities and/or operations. These should be much more strictly regulated and made to combine their work and resources wherever possible or fail to be approved. The CM list needs to be cut to a manageable and realistic size.
Part of the problem stems from inadequate supervision by The Charity Commission which seems overwhelmed with the sheer numbers and, like so many contemporary companies and institutions, seems itself to have been hollowed out and weakened by progressive political ideology.
Apart for the CM website – a massive and complex site that needs careful interpretation -there is a website called Charity Checker [www.charitychecker.net] that claims to measure efficiency ratio graphically. However, whilst a potentially useful tool, the actual site is not particularly intuitive, seems to have a very limited charity database and is itself somewhat mysterious, not entirely disclosing who is behind it, whilst enquiries are seldom answered.
And, no, charity CEO’s should not be taking home large salaries (or bonuses) – that is obscene in context. £50-60K pa, at most, should suffice. If they want to receive a big salary, then they should go into competitive commerce and earn their keep there whilst responsibly taking the risks inherent in such demanding management. The argument that big money is needed to attract talent is utterly bogus – all it does is attract those who want to receive big money.
HOPE not hate ‘Charitable Trust’ exists to ”challenge all kinds of extremism and build local communities. Our work focuses on the organised far-right”, the communities who are susceptible to them and the issues and policies which give rise to them.
”OUR WORK FOCUSES ON THE ORGANISED FAR RIGHT”
Because HNH are the ‘Far Left’
This is political interference … Are not charities supposed to be ‘apolitical?’ The head of Hate Not Hope, one Nick Lowles (Sick Lowlife) should be behind bars. He is a reptile of the first water.
Any capable, but modest earning, individual in any employment sector company/organisation would perform just as well as a highly paid CEO but for £1K max a week – but wouldn’t get the chance to prove this because only those already earning higher salaries are considered when recruiting or promoting. These types simply move around and bluff their way into roles they have no relevant aptitude or experience for – the mystery is how they first get up to this level. Formerly it was by being public school/Oxbridge, yes men or women, sucking up to senior management or string pulling – now it’s also likely to be ‘the right kind of person’ to show how progressive the outfit is. Local Government is a prime example, with swathes of six figure salary ‘Directors’.
Absolutely agreed. There is a curious ‘success breeds success’ (or in some cases, abject failure breeds success!) culture of revolving doors evident in many big companies. Selection and appointment criteria are often publicly opaque (“commercially confidential”!). How many times have we heard about some incompetent dumbbell, who, appointed to a responsible prestige post for no obvious good reason and been showered with a massive salary, bonuses and share options, etc , then lashes it up, but instead of being sacked, is shepherded into an undeserved refuge in another comfortable post elsewhere in corporate-land?! As for local government: another executive largesse disaster area, with taxpayers, as ever, picking up the bill.
Royal British Legion Director of Fundraising Salaries
1 Salaries submitted Updated 26 Feb 2024
Base pay £96K – £105K/yr
Perks: Cash Bonus, Stock Bonus, Profit Sharing, Commission Sharing.
Why I and many others cancelled our memberships this year.
On top of which there was the ad. for a ‘DEI Officer’ … Salary £70 – 80k + ‘London weighting’ + perks.
I no longer buy a Poppy … I am an ex-serviceman 11 yrs RN.
Youtube blogger Paz49 is scathing in his condemnation of the RBL. After his service finished he badly needed help but was refused point blank. If he’d been an ex officer asking for company start-up funding he’d have had no problem at all. The RBL has millions upon millions in assets, roughly £1/3 billion … and we have ex-services personnel living on the streets, many of whom suffer from PTSD and mental health problems.
https://fundraising.co.uk/2024/07/05/charity-commission-disqualifies-capt-tom-moores-daughter-son-in-law-from-being-trustees/
Kids Company CEO lived high on the hog Ms Batmanghelidjh was reportedly paying herself a £90,000 salary at the time it went under.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12922323/scandal-camila-batmanghelidjh-death-charity-kids-company-founder.html
Just 2 of many benefitting from public and even government munificence.
EVERY ‘charity’ needs investigating and an overhaul of the system that is supposed to oversee them.
The only way to get this cleaned up is for the public to simply stop supporting these ‘businesses’ but alas they won’t for exactly the same reason they keep voting for current political parties. We can only hope some scandal or expose jolts charity supporters out of their warm fuzzy cocoon.
Donations to charities are simply secondary taxation for the gullible.
Wholeheartedly agree, rather like those types who buy huge numbers of lottery entries and scratch cards (although they at least hope they will win, and if not they can too pretend it’s helping charities).
A few years ago I read that a number of so called “chuggers” don’t work directly for the charity they are attempting to sign you up for, but are instead employed by private companies. In the town near to where I live they were a very common sight and it was often difficult to go shopping or even just walk to your destination without being approached by one. For some reason their numbers now appear somewhat diminished.
Makes sense, there must be a location rota because they seem to appear (for various different charities) for a few weeks and then disappear and just when you think it’s safe to go about your business in peace – they turn up again.