Craig Murray’s brilliant essay covering the Kinnock family and charities in general intrigued me so much I did a little research on the subject. First of all, I observed how charities worked when my parents were alive. Once a donation had been given, the resulting communication from them was nothing short of harassment. The repeated requests for donations and more so monthly payments was intense and unrelenting. Primarily, the people who give in to these demands are the more passive in society and from what I can remember, my parents became more indignant as time went by. My opinion is that for the few people that give in to the constant requests, they must be overwhelmingly outnumbered by people that become irritated with the aggressive tactics.
It seems to me that even though the practice has been given widespread negative publicity, it must be successful because if it weren’t very profitable, the system would very quickly be discarded. The unethical marketing of charities is one thing, the huge wages of the CEO’s in charge of them is another.
The London Clinic pays its CEO more than any other charity and yet the charitable status it enjoys is questionable, to put it mildly. There is no legislation that requires them to define what benefit to the public their charity provides. Clearly, the massive remuneration to the CEO is of no public benefit but it would seem once they have the charity status there are no controls in place. Governing laws are woefully inadequate. All the facts and figures are quite easy to find.
So, next time you think about giving to a charity, bear two things in mind. Don’t under any circumstances give them your address and consider that you are probably contributing to a swimming pool for some sickeningly wealthy future Lord.