Tuesday, 8 June 2010

The Fake Charities Rule

Here's a simple rule for the Treasury that should be promulgated at once to every Department of State, issued as Statutory Guidance to every Health Authority and Local Authority and instructed to every Quango;
No grants shall be made to, and no contracts entered into, whether as a Service Level Agreement or otherwise, with any registered charity the aggregate value of which would equal or exceed the value of public donations received by the charity over the same period. Public donations means donations (including subscriptions and covenants) received from individuals or firms other than registered charities, any government or public sector organisation, the European Union, the National Lottery, any non-departmental public body and any entity with a majority of public ownership.
This would kill overnight Labour's profligate spend with the Fake Charities whilst allowing discretionary funding to real charities for the time being.


JohnofEnfield said...

Spot on.

lilith said...

I hope you are forwarding these tips to George. Not sure he can work all this stuff out.

Gareth said...

The multitude of fake charities are nothing more than tax efficient consultants. Why the Revenue allow such evasion I don't know.

Anonymous said...

Well it would close all the Citizens Advice Bureaus for instance , is that an outcome you would support?

Savonarola said...

"Why the Revenue allow such evasion I don't know"

Because the Revenue dance to the tune of their political masters who have used big Charidee as a branch of Quango/Govt to achieve placement of policies, friends(Leather et al) and undertake social engineering projects.

Most charities exist for the benefit of their executives.

Raedwald said...

Anon -

CABs started as radical social rights bodies (pill, abortion, drugs possession) then matured into quasi Trading Standards bodies and most recently have become immigration and housing rights advocates.

These days we have libraries that offer the same leaflets and free internet access to boot - so CABs have become somewhat redundant.

And the idea that we pay tax for the council to turn someone down for a 5 bed council house, then more tax for a CAB to take up their case, and even more tax for barristers and solicitors to grow rich arguing the case in the High Court has always seemed risible; at the end of a process costing several hundreds of thousands in tax, there's still only one 5 bed council house available. Qui bono?

Young Mr. Brown said...

Good, but I would propose an amendment to your suggested rule. I would end it with the words "with any registered charity," and delete everything else (i.e. from the words "the aggregate value ....")

I respect the fact that your concluding words ("for the time being") mean that you are basically in agreement with me - but why should the government be making grants to any charities at this time?

(I work for a charity, by the way.)

David Blackie said...

As far as I am aware the only voluntary donations made to the British Council, a registered charity, are by a company called BC Trading International Ltd. It happens that this company, which raises money from sponsorship by international companies, is wholly owned by the British Council, and pays no tax because it donates all its profits to that great charity - voluntarily no doubt, even if it has no choice. The other donations to this charity, equal to about half a million pounds per day (not including pension contributions etc), are made by the taxpayer, and so cannot be said to be voluntary by any formula. This generous priming by the taxpayer provides the charity with an international network (frequently housed in diplomatic premises) which it can then, wearing the hat of a business, sell to organisations such as taxpayer-funded universities to help them recruit students. It's the perfect quango; it is a complete parasite which by virtue of massive subvention and diplomatic and other privilege can masquerade as a business and as a charity while nevertheless existing to act at the behest of the Foreign Office.
It gives business, government and charity a bad name.

English Pensioner said...

I would go further. The Charities Commission should remove the registration of a charity if, after a few years existence, cannot show that it is being supported by a cross section of the public contributing more than, say, 50% of its income.

Gordon the Fence Post Tortoise said...

Halleujah brother!

Having worked a while (volunteer unpaid) in Charidee World™ there's not much that would please me more than to witness a torrent of piss on their chips.

RSPB £20m in taxpayers money? FFS the warmist assholes pay chuggers (charidee muggers) £150 a punter for a Direct Debit signup - CASH.

Large dose of schadenfreude please - lashings of it ....