As someone who believes pretty absolutely in the right of each and everyone one of us, however rich or poor, to use our money however we wish I find it difficult to object to the rich using their money to advocate for causes in which they believe any more than I object to them owning vast yachts, which is not at all.
So much as I deplore the use to which the fortune of the late Paul Hamlyn is applied I can’t object in principle any more than I object (not at all) to those who direct their wealth towards the IEA, my idea of a worthy cause.
The big issues which your piece highlights which should exercise us all are the definition of a charity, whether a charity should ever be permitted to engage in political lobbying and whether charities should enjoy any special tax status under the law.
On the face of it charitable status is being grotesquely abused. There are simply far too few charities whose objectives would meet a narrow definition of charity which almost everyone could agree upon (eg the relief of poverty or the impact of natural disasters) as opposed to being middle class hobbies (eg beekeeping - disclosure I am a trustee of one such and believe it shouldn’t be a charity) or naked political campaigning.
The other insidious aspect of the vast network of interconnected, and often sock puppet, charities is their use as fronts by government to which taxpayer money can be directed to lobby the government to implement proposals that the government wants to implement anyway but would prefer the cloak of some apparently independent and worthy charity to hide in. All the stuff that Chris Snowdon valiantly exposes all the time.
I can sympathise with that, but Paul Hamlyn ISN'T choosing to spend money that way, because he's dead, plus he passed over control to trustees, so the question is; are the trustees true to the trust? Maybe they're been captured in the same way as have trustees of many of the old and once trusted institutions, such as museums, or even the National Trust, which makes sure trustees they choose control it, not members.
Secondly, there is to me a clear distinction between charity and politics. If only 'the right' had a fraction of the funds available to the left, it might do the research and take legal action to enforce neutrality of charities.
The third problem is the obscurity of this, probably deliberate, and never given an airing on, for example, the BBC.
The fourth problem is that elected government needs to be very careful taxpayer funding isn't leaking into politics, especially lobbying against government policy, or isn't being wasted.
That was my reaction when reading this that these Charities are appearing to cross the line into political activism. Mind you the Charities Commission are about as useful as a chocolate fireguard and won't do anything about it.
There are thousands upon thousands of charities but (unlike most quangos which expand like topsy) the Charity Commission is a small organisation without great resources. It registers new charities and checks that their objectives satisfy the basic criteria for being a charity, but that’s about it. They aren’t resourced to perform any sort of watchdog role. Most regulatory quangos (eg FSA) get funding to perform a watchdog role by extracting levies from those they regulate. Not surprisingly the Charity Commission doesn’t have the power to extract levies. The charity sector should be regarded as essentially unregulated.
I am very interested in funding for Charities and whether they deserve tax relief and how their money is spent, also if they lobby behind the scenes. On a personal note I rent my flat from a charity and many of us are being driven out by large increases in rent. It is supposed to be an Arts Charity. So far we have had an annual increase each year since 2022, many have had to leave, can't pay the rent, and the flats relet at much higher rents. Those left now have formed a group to fight back. So regeneration through the arts is being funded by tenants who are trying to earn a living and help the community. The Charity itself pays a peppercorn rent to the founder of the charity so our rent is pure profit apart from money for repairs and maintenance (which are never done) and their salaries. All we have done has increased Estate Agents' commission and inflated the housing market. I don't want to say any more because I have to be careful on the internet. I see one of the Charities in this county is listed as receiving funds. So I am doubly angry as my out goings appear to go on supporting those who have done nothing to help this country and my taxes are paying for them to be here - my council tax as well. My friends and I have, over the last 15 years, regenerated this town. We now wish we hadn't bothered. It hasn't helped either that we have a Labour MP after being Tory for decades. I didn't think things could get any worse for my County after being Tory for so long, but they are on a daily basis.
As someone who believes pretty absolutely in the right of each and everyone one of us, however rich or poor, to use our money however we wish I find it difficult to object to the rich using their money to advocate for causes in which they believe any more than I object to them owning vast yachts, which is not at all.
So much as I deplore the use to which the fortune of the late Paul Hamlyn is applied I can’t object in principle any more than I object (not at all) to those who direct their wealth towards the IEA, my idea of a worthy cause.
The big issues which your piece highlights which should exercise us all are the definition of a charity, whether a charity should ever be permitted to engage in political lobbying and whether charities should enjoy any special tax status under the law.
On the face of it charitable status is being grotesquely abused. There are simply far too few charities whose objectives would meet a narrow definition of charity which almost everyone could agree upon (eg the relief of poverty or the impact of natural disasters) as opposed to being middle class hobbies (eg beekeeping - disclosure I am a trustee of one such and believe it shouldn’t be a charity) or naked political campaigning.
The other insidious aspect of the vast network of interconnected, and often sock puppet, charities is their use as fronts by government to which taxpayer money can be directed to lobby the government to implement proposals that the government wants to implement anyway but would prefer the cloak of some apparently independent and worthy charity to hide in. All the stuff that Chris Snowdon valiantly exposes all the time.
I can sympathise with that, but Paul Hamlyn ISN'T choosing to spend money that way, because he's dead, plus he passed over control to trustees, so the question is; are the trustees true to the trust? Maybe they're been captured in the same way as have trustees of many of the old and once trusted institutions, such as museums, or even the National Trust, which makes sure trustees they choose control it, not members.
Secondly, there is to me a clear distinction between charity and politics. If only 'the right' had a fraction of the funds available to the left, it might do the research and take legal action to enforce neutrality of charities.
The third problem is the obscurity of this, probably deliberate, and never given an airing on, for example, the BBC.
The fourth problem is that elected government needs to be very careful taxpayer funding isn't leaking into politics, especially lobbying against government policy, or isn't being wasted.
That was my reaction when reading this that these Charities are appearing to cross the line into political activism. Mind you the Charities Commission are about as useful as a chocolate fireguard and won't do anything about it.
There are thousands upon thousands of charities but (unlike most quangos which expand like topsy) the Charity Commission is a small organisation without great resources. It registers new charities and checks that their objectives satisfy the basic criteria for being a charity, but that’s about it. They aren’t resourced to perform any sort of watchdog role. Most regulatory quangos (eg FSA) get funding to perform a watchdog role by extracting levies from those they regulate. Not surprisingly the Charity Commission doesn’t have the power to extract levies. The charity sector should be regarded as essentially unregulated.
I am very interested in funding for Charities and whether they deserve tax relief and how their money is spent, also if they lobby behind the scenes. On a personal note I rent my flat from a charity and many of us are being driven out by large increases in rent. It is supposed to be an Arts Charity. So far we have had an annual increase each year since 2022, many have had to leave, can't pay the rent, and the flats relet at much higher rents. Those left now have formed a group to fight back. So regeneration through the arts is being funded by tenants who are trying to earn a living and help the community. The Charity itself pays a peppercorn rent to the founder of the charity so our rent is pure profit apart from money for repairs and maintenance (which are never done) and their salaries. All we have done has increased Estate Agents' commission and inflated the housing market. I don't want to say any more because I have to be careful on the internet. I see one of the Charities in this county is listed as receiving funds. So I am doubly angry as my out goings appear to go on supporting those who have done nothing to help this country and my taxes are paying for them to be here - my council tax as well. My friends and I have, over the last 15 years, regenerated this town. We now wish we hadn't bothered. It hasn't helped either that we have a Labour MP after being Tory for decades. I didn't think things could get any worse for my County after being Tory for so long, but they are on a daily basis.