Reply to post: Re: their current [charity] (false) flag is a useful tool to peddle their BUSINESS

As pressure builds over .org sell-off, internet governance bodies fall back into familiar pattern: Silence

W.S.Gosset Silver badge

Re: their current [charity] (false) flag is a useful tool to peddle their BUSINESS


It's a major problem/feature of ALL formal charities, actually. Few years ago, the UK Charities Commission issued a statement which started as condemnation and ended as begging, regarding one of their "hard" requirements: that a charity should spend no more than 85% of its donations on itself. That at least 15% of the money donated to it by well-meaning citizens, should actually go to the nominal purpose of the charity, to the people/purpose that the donators actually wanted to donate to.

The UK Charity Commission stated that well over 90% of the UK's "charities" failed to meet this requirement. Over 90% of UK Charities spend over 85% of their donations on themselves, not on the charity's purpose.

As an indication of HOW toxic the virtue-display parasites are, Oxfam (audited as over 95% funnelled into itself IIRC) spent 3 months reclassifying all its expenses internally and announced it was now spending less than 10% on itself. Yay! Totally not gamesmanship or bullshit!

(Their CEO once appeared on Secret Millionaire -- pungently pointed up how even the tiny fraction that gets to the recipients the donators intend, is essentially all pissed up against the wall by being spent on things utterly useless to them (but sound O SO AWESOME to idiot parasites back in their aircon offices on hte other side of the world).)

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020