Why is it that charity CEO’s expect volunteer workers to contribute their own time and energy for free, yet demand premium salaries?
A cursory look at the kind of figures the CEO is likely to receive at a high profile charity is mind boggling, yet they expect people to give up their spare time or limited income to fund them. I commend these people but also feel they are being took for mugs. Many volunteers won’t be living comfortably yet still think of others, which is more than can be said for higher management. Bad publicity over remunerations has resulted in charities not publicising the top earners salaries and that position is supported by the Charity Commission. Over half of the high earner charities simply don’t reveal this aspect anymore.
For many years the charity industry has been exempt from criticism, primarily because charities have historically provided essential support for those in desperate need. More recently, questions have surfaced about these organisations because of whistleblowers brave enough to expose rampant abuse by some senior staff, who instead of helping to alleviate the misery caused by earthquakes, flooding or similar catastrophes, were using their position to extract sexual favours from desperate victims. The scandal has quietly subsided, with the usual platitudes of ‘lessons learnt’.
The UK Charity Commission has very strict rules regarding the aims of the charities it approves. Here is a section from the 31 pages covering restrictions on political activity:
Legal requirement: however, political campaigning, or political activity, as defined in this guidance, must be undertaken by a charity only in the context of supporting the delivery of its charitable purposes. Unlike other forms of campaigning, it must not be the continuing and sole activity of the charity.
At first glance Hand in Hand for Syria appeared to be a perfectly legitimate organisation concerned with the well being of Syrians during the devastating conflict that has continued for over seven years. This was the original logo.
There are three red stars on this motif, and it’s no coincidence that the opposition forces changed the sovereign Syrian flag from two stars to a three star design. A senior organiser in the charity is Rola Hallam, who just happens to be the daughter of harsh critic of President Assad. There is an abundance of of interviews where she blames government forces for every attack on a hospital but never mentions that al Nusra and other terrorist groups use them to organise their battle plans. However the Charity Commission have cleared them of any wrongdoing. The evidence suggests otherwise and I won’t go into who they help in Syria and who they don’t help, as its been well documented. The group have now changed their name to Hand in Hand for Aid and Development (HIHFAD).
Campaign Against Antisemitism.
Another charity that doesn’t appear too charitable is the Campaign Against Antisemitism. They boast of successful litigation and encouraging police prosecutions. Gilad Atzmon is a high profile victim, having been left thousands of pounds in debt after agreeing an out of court settlement. Atzmon’s real crime was being an astute observer and critic of Israel.
These two charities aren’t the defenders of Syrians and Jews. Their priority is the Syrian opposition (which includes the extreme terrorist elements) and the criminal entity known as Israel. Both causes are clearly political, yet the Charity Commission allow them to continue deceiving the public.
Gideon Falter, the chairman of CAA claims his fight is against anti semitism but the victims of his attention are actually criticising the state of Israel and it is Falter’s own perception that conflates the two. Surprisingly, he manages to convince law enforcers that they are the same thing.
Despite hundreds of complaints to the Charity Commission, the CAA have continued enjoying its status. Their campaign against Jeremy Corbyn apparently doesn’t break CC rules but how can it be fighting anti semitism when Corbyn enjoys the support of many Jews? Are some worthy of being protected but others (those who support Corbyn) not? This attack on Corbyn should have been the nail in the coffin for the CAA. Corbyn, throughout his long and consistent public service has shown commitment to all his constituents and also to the wider world, defending many who had no voices to to speak up for them. He has never been anti semitic in any way shape or form. Criticising Palestinian treatment at the hands of the IDF and the Israeli government cannot reasonably be included in that category.
The attack on Corbyn was actually detrimental to the many hundreds of thousands of UK voters that have put their faith in Mr Corbyn. To remove him from being the Labour leader could have had a profound effect on future policies and therefore was a political campaign and absolutely not charitable. The CAA should have had its status removed the moment it commissioned this petition.