On Thursday 3rd of August the Beeb, shown a program – Panorama – Trouble at the RSPCA – this program was advertised showing issues with ‘being heavy-handed by prosecuting them and taking away their animals” also within the 30 min program was shown ex-staff of the RSPCA and ex-staff of the Charity Commission.
To go into detail the program shown three examples of people accusing the charity of being heavy handed with prosecutions – I have no doubt the RSPCA were correct to prosecute in all three cases! Since the program the RSPCA has released statements on each case – which the BBC should have sought prior to publishing the program and explained in better detail.
62 Cats in one house
62 Cats – don’t protect this persons feelings – that womans was a hoarder – if provided with advice by the RSPCA (where she used to work, so knows what it takes) and that was ignored then yes she should have been prosecuted to reduce those numbers down. The woman is now refusing to accept the court conviction and trying to claim against the RSPCA – a ridiculous notion which her solicitors should have advised against due to cost – even when she knows the RSPCA were advised by her VET1of the situation! I play with my cat at least an hour a day and she has FIV and herpes, something some of those cats will have also had. All cats should be monitored for temp, weight, toilet habits and how much she is eating, as they don’t show signs of distress as easily as other animals – this couldn’t be done with SIXTY TWO of them along with other animals too!
Yaay maths time; let’s say you needed to spend just 10mins with each cat a day (be that grooming on a monday, weighing on a tues, claw clipping wed etc) thats 10.5 HOURS A DAY!!! That doesn’t even include feeding or litter cleaning and 10mins per day doing anything with a cat is not really enough, not to mention she had other “pets” too! Articles also state “She doesn’t have the inclination or the means to inoculate them”2 so the cats didn’t even have the needed vaccinations to protect them from the virus prevalent in the house!
The show implied it was just her and there were no others in the house with her to spread the tasks to, nor did the show or any other media advise of any paid help either. So unless this woman is some form of McFly then an average person wouldn’t be able to provide a suitable domestic environment. What if they were allowed out too, it makes no comment if they were house cats – how could you do any tasks needed and monitor 62 cats you didn’t even know if they’d been in the house, advertising as a ‘sanctuary’ you’d like to think they weren’t roaming the streets!!!
This is a clean cut case! Hoarding to the point of Cruelty is still Cruelty, regardless of intentions!
Essentially what Panorama have done here is provide validity to people who have abused animals to say – i’m allowed to and shouldn’t be stopped. The BBC should not have allowed the program to air.
too many allegations are thrown his way and I agree the governance doesn’t sound correct! He should step down to protect the charity from further disrepute coming from his involvement
changes since the 70s but only after charity had correclty gone through a governace review 34
Barristers – known people who have protected animal abusers – why the hell would the RSPCA not make complaints about someone who is supposed to have a moral requirement to uphold the law and the law is the Animal Welfare Act.
ex-CE of the Charity Commission involved in the show is not appropriate and not acceptable that a person in such a position involves themselves regarding a specific charity – along with putting their names to a program which tried to make animal abusers seem like they’re disadvantaged by prosecution.
Heavy handed with prosecutions – no chance – 1 in 200 prosecuted is nowhere near enough! Don’t be ridiculous!
Sensitisation is poor reporting! This is clear from the advert directly after the program asking “Is it possible that a pill prescribed by your doctor can turn you into a killer?” – this question is clearly worded in a manner not suited to unbiased publishing and is the TV version of Clickbait! Its well known Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors remove some emotion, obviously, their main aim is to reduce depression and work by stopping serotonin from being reabsorbed – so it builds up within the body rather than being removed by the body. One of the most prescribed medications in america Prozac is an SSSI medication. Medication does not make people kill, medication removes the depression which held them back from killing and increases their emotional state and motivation to do what makes them happy, sadly some people are psychopaths – you cannot blame the medication but the services that went with it, anyone on high doses of medication or with severe depression should be receiving frequent therapy to guide them and make certain they’re not going down dangerous paths (even then most people who have a want to murder don’t go telling people about it!) The author of this received much backlash on Twitter, and rightfully so – Correlation does not mean Causation – every journalist should have this tattooed on their wrist.
Transcript of the Program - Click Here
Tonight the animal owners who claimed that one of our best loved charities is being too hard on them. It is the way they handle things. It is their away or the highway. The British public backs the RSPCA to prosecute animal cruelty, but does it always get it right? To be told I was mistreating birds of prey has left me feeling absolutely broken. And is the charity so determined to succeed it ignores the human cost? It went on for years and years, and it ground me down. I still feel injured. Former RSPCA insiders worry there is chaos at the top. I personally think that the RSPCA commentary is not fit for purpose.
We ask is the world’s oldest animal charity doing its best to keep public trust? We love our animals. My dog is called Bertie. Shall we go for a run? He is going to be my sidekick on this investigation. Or is it the other way around? Where is the stick, Bertie? He’s half toy poodle and half whippet, so he will keep me on my toes. Sometimes… It feels like he’s the master and I’m the dog. Woofety woof woof woof. Some animals don’t get love and affection like Bertie. That is why we need the RSPCA. The RSPCA has a full-scale rescue service…
It has been standing up for animals since 1824. The RSPCA gets more than 100 million per year in donations and legacies. Its inspectors see some extremely distressing sights. From stray dogs shown in this campaign video, outright cruelty. All of these dogs, filmed by an inspector, died. Many of them are in rigor mortis already. The RSPCA prosecuted the dog breeders who did this. They didn’t go to jail but were banned for life from owning dogs. The charity’s most powerful weapon in protecting animals is bringing private prosecutions. But some animal owners complain it is being too heavy-handed. This is the RSPCA headquarters here in Sussex. Critics say the charity has long been too quick to prosecute animal owners and too aggressive. Three years ago in independent report took the charity to task over the way it prosecutes people. How much has changed?
Good morning. This is Bertie. Hello, Bertie. Steve Rainton has been displaying birds of prey for 20 years. He is now helped by his partner, Natalie. Amazing, we’ve had her for five years. Stand well back… Last year Steve and Natalie faced getting criminal records when they were prosecuted by the RSPCA. Good girl. Steve said it all started when somebody he knew took four birds from his farm. Worried the rest of the birds were at risk Steve took them home in cages for temporary safekeeping and rang the RSPCA. Originally we asked the RSPCA for some help. Where we were keeping the birds wasn’t safe and we needed somewhere else to keep the birds. What Steve didn’t know was that the RSPCA had received a complaint about him mistreating the birds. When inspectors called at his home he let them in. He wished he hadn’t. Once they were in they started taking photographs, you know, trying to gather evidence against me. And that’s the way I felt bullied by the RSPCA. RSPCA inspectors do not have powers of seizure, so they called the police who took Steve’s birds away. Steve was charged by the RSPCA with eight animal welfare offences. Natalie, who does not own the birds, also faced eight charges. They used my partner. They basically said they would drop all charges against my partner if I took the rap, basically. I’d never broken the law. I’ve never been in trouble. To be told I was mistreating birds of prey, it just left me feeling… Absolutely broken. Earlier this year magistrates cleared Steve and Natalie of two charges. The other 14 were dismissed. The RSPCA says it is because of police mistakes. The whole thing of them being there to help you, in my case, wasn’t the case. Up until the day they knocked on my front door while we saw them as a good charity. The RSPCA said it acted properly and lawfully throughout. There was sufficient evidence. And that it was in the public interest.
It says it prosecuted around 800 people last year, down by 50% in four years. If an RSPCA inspector investigates a complaint of cruelty, that person has less than one chance in 200 of being prosecuted. Certainly not trigger-happy. Most of it is now dealt with by way of advisory notices and warnings. In fact most of it is dealt with by a reasonable conversation on the doorstep. Giving reasonable advice. Reasonable people take reasonable advice. The RSPCA and its inspectors do good work. No question. And criticising a much loved animal charity may not make me popular. But what can happen to an animal owner if there is no reasonable conversation on the doorstep? If no advice is given?
Gwyn Protheroe farms over 5000 sheep in mid Wales. These sheepdogs are working animals. Without them he cannot do his job. Last year the RSPCA prosecuted Gwyn following the death of one of his dogs. She was a working dog. It’s not clear why she died. But she was thin and had been a small dog from birth. From the vet’s report and postmortem done by the RSPCA they found a problem with her liver and her heart. The dog lay unburied for two days. She died while Gwyn was working 60 miles away. An RSPCA inspector called the police, who removed the dead dog and two of the sheepdogs. The RSPCA said he hadn’t done enough to prevent the death and that living conditions were poor. He was charged with three animal welfare offences. It’s the way they handled things, you know? It is their way or the highway, basically, you know? The case took a year to come to court and had a big effect on the family. What was it like when he was charged? Scary. It wasn’t a nice feeling. I felt really bad for dad because he isn’t a bad person. He didn’t really, like, deserve it. What did you say to them? That it would all be all right? Which it was proved, wasn’t it? I’m sorry… A judge dismissed the case, saying Gwyn has considerable expertise as an animal owner and acted reasonably. How did you feel when that verdict came through not guilty on all counts? Relieved. A sense of justice. Because he was cleared the dogs should have been returned. But, extraordinary as it seems, they were not. RSPCA staff asked if they could keep the dogs and re-homed them. I got a phone call, she asked the question again, the people in the kennels have got attached to the dogs. The RSPCA said it kept hold of the dogs while it considered to appeal. It would be two months before they found out if they would get their dogs back. I couldn’t work out why they wanted to keep, again, prolonging the process of us getting the dogs back. You keep thinking everything is coming to a close. But it was like they were ripping the wound open again. The RSPCA says it was right to prosecute. And while some cases don’t succeed 92.5% of its prosecutions are successful.
There is very, very rigorous process by which the evidence is checked to make sure we meet the evidential test. We get the experts in, we depend on an independent veterinary opinion as to the degree of suffering. Once the matter goes to court it is for the magistrate to convict or acquit. Fighting animal cruelty is important but has the RSPCA sometimes gone too far? Barrister Jonathan Rich stopped defending RSPCA cases nine years ago. I gained a firm impression that I was really being personally targeted. It reached a stage where my involvement in cases was actually not helping my clients, because they would throw significant resources at any case in which I was involved. He also faced a number of professional misconduct complaints linked to animal welfare cases. Two from the RSPCA. I have seen a lot of the rough and tumble of the bar. But this was in an entirely different league. And it went on for years and years and years, and it ground me down. I still feel today, I still feel injured. None of the complaints succeeded. One from the RSPCA took eight years to be fully resolved. I got pretty low. I was treated for depression. I’m not embarrassed to say that. Do you still defend animal cases? If the RSPCA are involved I will not be appearing as an advocate. Which is a great shame, given the expertise I believe I brought. Barrister Sara-Lise Howe believes she has been singled out, too. She says the CPS was warned she wanted to undermine RSPCA private prosecutions. I have no doubt that they have been targeting me. I was 16 years in court, I’d never had these accusations. Just trying to represent my client. To get the court to look at the law. The RSPCA says the criticism to the CPS about Sara-Lise Howe was made in error and nnot at their request. It respects and upholds the vital role played by defence lawyers in testing the prosecution’s case. For the RSPCA to do its job properly it must be well run.
This June the Chief Executive Jeremy Cooper resigned. The second to do so in three years. Trouble at the top should be a worry for any charity. If I am a donor I want to know my money is going to be well spent. And the chances are significantly higher that my money as a donor is going to be well spent if the charity is well governed, well led, sound decisions are made. The RSPCA staff are overseen by 25 unpaid trustee is called the council. They are supposed to keep an eye on things, not run the show.
One of the key rules, really, is that trustees in a large charity shouldn’t really dabble in operational matters. That is for paid staff. But we’ve discovered that’s what’s been going on at the RSPCA. Chris Lawrence used to be the charity’s chief vet before he became a trustee. The RSPCA are essentially is a great organisation. Fantastic staff who work incredibly hard. But you come to a point where you have to say enough is enough, I can’t any longer support the way this is happening. I had real concerns about the way the RSPCA was being run at council level. He’s never spoken publicly about leaving the charity he loves. The Council found it really difficult to properly delegate. What does that mean? It means almost micromanagement. Chris Laurence resigned as a trustee last year. His fellow trustee, David Canavan, is still there. The RSPCA spends £50 million a year responding to complaints from the general public about abuse of animals. He’s speaking to MPs about fundraising. The two years, the RSPCA allowed him and another trustee to run the charity unpaid, while it was without a chief executive. For any charity, doing both jobs at the same time, for such a long time, would be a no-no. For a large charity, that is off the bscale, in terms of being so unusual. I find it difficult to see how a large charity could properly run itself if it doesn’t have a permanent chief executive who is independent from the nonexecutive trustee team. This is the Manchester Animal Hospital, the RSPCA’s busiest. It provides extremely subsidised neutering, micro-chipping, vaccinations, to quite a poor -ish area within Manchester. Three years ago, Steve Carter was asked to look at redistributing some of its vet services to branches across the North of England. Among them, Rochdale, 16 miles away. It was a branch that struggled financially. It tried to do the best it could, but it overextended itself. Steve Carter says getting more vet services could have helped Rochdale’s finances and says David Canavan was keen on the move. At the time, he was also an unpaid trustee of the Rochdale branch. That’s a conflict-of-interest, isn’t it? I believe it is. I made it very clear to trustees and two senior management that this was not a decision I could support in any way, shape or form. Steve feared it could have meant closure for the Manchester Animal Hospital. I did not want to see that provision deteriorate in any shape or form. That was one of the main reasons that I decided I had to leave the RSPCA. The RSPCA says it did discuss its Northern operations. No changes were made and there was never any suggestion the Manchester hospital would close. It says there was no improper interference by David Canavan and as acting chief executive he oversaw a period of stability and sound management.
Brighton, a stone’s throw from RSPCA HQ. We’ve been told that what happened here reveals more cracks behind the scenes. Nationally, the RSPCA has a policy against anyone importing dogs for commercial purposes. But here in Brighton, the local branch was re-homed scores of dogs from Spain and Portugal in apparent conflict with that policy. Around 150 dogs over three years were imported by another animal welfare organisation, and brought to these RSPCA kennels. They were then re-homed. The Brighton branch had lots of British Staffies, which are hard to home, and was keen to offer a mix of breeds. The RSPCA said the dogs were not being imported for commercial purposes. The RSPCA told us the Brighton branch didn’t profit from re-homing these animals, but we found out the issue did worry some staff. They couldn’t support others transporting animals hundreds of miles across Europe, when there were plenty of British dogs to help at home. Trustee David Canavan got involved in 2014. At the time he was also effectively running the charity. We understand that David Canavan told the branch that so long as 40% of the dogs in my kennels were brought to them by inspectors, they could fill the remaining space is how they wanted, providing the trustees and legal department didn’t object. The RSPCA said any suggestion David Canavan acted contrary to its policies is completely untrue. He referred the matter to the Chief Vet and the RSPCA revised its policy, so the branch had to get permission on a case-by-case basis. It says the branch was trying to help as many unwanted dogs as it could, and its main focus remains local animals. At the top is the RSPCA a smoothly running organisation? I personally think that the RSPCA, currently, is not fit for purpose. I think it stems from the background of counsel. I don’t think the government process and structure has moved on much since the 1970s. Wipe-out this is the headquarters of the Charity Commission, it’s the body charged with making sure our charities are up to snuff. It told Panorama that the RSPCA’s governance is below the standard it would expect from a modern charity. It is monitoring the trustees’ role in leading change will consider regulatory action if the required improvements aren’t made quickly enough. The RSPCA says its trustees are working with the Charity Commission to implement the recommendations of a recent independent review. The RSPCA has its own reform agenda.
It wants for more powers to investigate, so it has to rely less on the police. Its supporters say only the charity has the necessary expertise and resources to prosecute. Critics argue it should be left to the police. The type of cruelty that the public disapproves of is obvious. It doesn’t require a specialist organisation to prosecute. I’m on my way to see one of Sara-Lise Howe’s clients. Sarah Mellanby lost her appeal against conviction for seven animal welfare offences earlier this year. That some of my cats there. That’s Leonard and Elmo. Puff Daddy, Thomas O’Malley and that’s Hubert. Sarah used to a large home to shelter unwanted cats. So who have we got here? That is Lionel Blair. LAUGHTER I know, super hair. Dennis the Menace, Charles Worthington. Some people would say looking at this that you are a mad cat lady. Yes,
they probably would. Are you a mad cat lady? Guests. Where are your cats? I don’t have any. Four years ago she had more than 60. You had 60 cats, 62 cats. Isn’t that a bit crazy? Well, I’m too soft, I’m just too soft. They were unwanted cats and I was homing them. Some of the cats she took and had cat flu, which is contagious and can be nasty. I kept them and kept them comfortable. It’s not good, but they were alive, they were as well as they could be. The RSPCA, which made repeated visits, disagreed. It says some were emaciated, as well as cat flu others had problems with their eyes and teeth. And it says she failed to seek appropriate care from a vet. All her cats were removed and Sarah was tried and convicted. I think a lot of the people who have had problems with the RSPCA are people who would be described as vulnerable. The mad old lady who takes into many cats, they have got themselves into a mess for caring, because they care too much. I think that is a big difference from someone who delights in seeing an animal suffer. The RSPCA tried to help and advise Sarah. The appeal judge said she was deaf to that advice and the idea that the RSPCA were treating her harshly was not supported by the evidence. But he did reduce her sentence, so, after four years, 21 cats could come home.
A vet who supported Sarah throughout, is no fan of the RSPCA. What does somebody like Sarah do with cats that are left on her doorstep? Take those cats in or discard them, shut the door and leave them to die? What’s the options? Yes, we know that a lot of these cats were chronically infected with cat flu. They have been and they will remain that way. The RSPCA asked the court to make Sarah pay some of their costs. She now has a £100,000 charge on her home, to be paid to the RSPCA when she sells it.
My heart’s been broken. They’ve just warn me down and I’ve been depressed. They’re just like this giant machine that just crawls through people’s lives and they’ve got no way of getting out of it. The RSPCA says it prosecuted as a last resort. It was endorsed by the appeal judge and the Crown Prosecution Service. The costs were high because it took so long to conclude the case, and this was not the RSPCA’s fault. The RSPCA says it only prosecute when mistreatment is serious, cruelty blatant and when other ways to help animal and owner have been exhausted.
Back in Wales, the Protheroes are still waiting to hear if they’ll get their sheepdogs back. Three days after Panorama wrote to the RSPCA, the dogs were finally returned. Can one if you open the door while I left her in, please? Outside the Protheroes’ solicitors… It’s a big relief. It’s nice to see them. They’re looking OK, aren’t you? Hope they’ll be as happy to be home as we are to have them home. The RSPCA says the delay in returning the dogs was lawful and proper, while it decided whether to appeal. For many, including its critics, the
RSPCA remains a great British charity. I think the RSPCA is overall a force for good. The inspectors do good work every single day, there are out there in all conditions. Charity fight the RSPCA depend on more than donations, they also need public support. Public trust and public confidence in the work that charities do will only be sustained if charities are seen to be doing the right thing. That means behaving in a responsible, transparent and accountable way.
The RSPCA says it is committed to continually improving everything it does. But to its critics, it stands accused of being a charity that sometimes lacks charity – to humans.
In 2015 the Charity Commission head, Paula Sussex, advised there were talks ongoing regarding charging to keep the Regulator a float, while in March this year the treasury gave the all clear for the Charity Commission to formally look into the possibility of charges and costs.
This a very current and heated issue, which i’m still very conflicted with. On one hand I do very much agree with William Shawcross, believing the largest Charities should be contributing to the regulator to fund the costs of regulating the majority of smaller charities (that’s probably the socialist in me!) – but should it not come from public taxes?
As far as my opinion goes the Treasury already supports charities quite well with their Gift Aid Schemes and other tax benefits for registered Charities. While most would say any charge for regulation should go to those who benefit from regulation, but it cannot be that simple as you can’t really charge Homeless people or animals, rare trees, users of foodbanks, cancer patients, and the list goes on. One thing all charities have to have in common, by their very nature, is that they are to benefit the Public, mostly certain specific areas or selected groups of people but over all the benefit is to the public.
The problem with this is you can’t charge those people who are using the services, you can’t charge employees, you can’t really charge Trustees as they’re offering their governance for free and you don’t really want to increase taxes to the public (as that would result in public resentment and criticism of the Third Sector and political scapegoating of the industry too). This really only leaves the current government budget being increased from its current point which means budget will need to be gathered elsewhere (We’ll shy away from current party politics and fiscal policies for now). We’re left with the following options to gain some budget back to effectively regulate;
Charities to pay
Fines/Charges to charities
Gift Aid Scheme changes
Mixture of the above
CAVEAT:with my current experiences with the regulator I do not believe it is fit for purpose regardless of how much money you throw at it.
Lets look at some figures;
An organisation which can spend £5000 on creation of a new logo; I’m all for marketing, but when the organisation is not achieving what it needs to and the main reason it provides is budget then this expenditure shows the core aim is not the true focus.
increased spending on agency staff, which almost tripled from £900,000 to just under £2.7m in 2015/16 which to me says their HR function is not appropriate either (now hiring new HR management as of 7.7.17)
The Charity Commissions own report said it hit 16 out of 17 of its internal targets – who created them – why has Parliament not set targets in line with Third Sector organisations requirements?
In 2015 there are around 2.5 organisation for every 1000 people 1 , I like that statistic as indicator, it provides a clearer view of just how many charities there are.
As of December 2016 78% of the revenue brought in by charities is received by the top 1.3% of charities (2201) organisations 2 , to make up the current funding for the Regulator at least to its current level (matching what they receive now)
1. Charge Charities
Lets look at some options;
Charge each of the top 1.3% of charities would need to be charged over £9,500 each – possible given their size but unfair to the beneficiaries of those specific organisations.
Charge each charity evenly you’d need to charge each of the 167,109 around £125 each, much more reasonable but hardly fair that a £5000 per annum playgroup is charged the same as a £25m+ charity, but then again each charity is under the same regulatory requirements, oversight and authority.
Charge on a graded scale so based upon income the below table shows charging each charity just £35 per year (appropriate to cost for administration of the charity status) and also fund the Regulator, while the largest 2000 charities would be £1500 per year, a small percentage of the >£5m per year incomes. This would provide the regulator with a few hundred thousand pounds more than their current budget
Annual income bracket
Number of charities
Annual income £bn
Total Annual Charge
£0 to £10,000
£10,001 to £100,000
£100,001 to £500,000
£500,001 to £5,000,000
*My example of Charge
The current law requires charities to file their documents on time, and the burden is on the Trustees to do so, if you are not able to do so then you should not be signing up as a Trustee, I believe a fine for not filing your books is needed to encourage clear lines between the disorganised and the effective. Currently there has been an ongoing inquiry for those charities which have been late filing their books for more than two years, the cost of this inquiry will be massive, yet this could have been recouped if the charges were like other documents where the trustees directly are fined, not the charity! This will make certain the documents are provided on time and prioritised jointly by all trustees. A fine of either £100 in total split between the Trustees, or £50 each per Trustee should discourage ignorance of a legal requirement.
3. Charge / Tax Companies
The £2.1bn contribution of the FTSE100 companies in 2014 3, I couldn’t find any record of more current figures, but lets just use £2.1bn as an example – not forgetting this is just from the FTSE100 companies, not any other company than ones listed on the exchange – if just 0.02% of this had to go towards regulation it would bring in £42million to the regulator, this could again be easily enacted and would put administration of such matters on to the accounts teams of the FTSE100 which would be easily able to support this function.
Some Charges/fines I think may appropriate to Charities themselves;
Application Fee – a set fee to process the application to register, this may be £10/20 only, but will add up and cover some costs
Authorisation Fees – to request authorisation to pay connected staff, or payment of Trustees or release of land for sale etc
Constitution changes – I think non default Constitutions should be charged to be reviewed correctly (although some of the default docs I think could be improved)
Late Accounts Fine – fine should be appropriate if the accounts have to be sent back to the charity as insufficient/inadequate
Missing info fine
Not updating Trustee info
Any other misgiving which relates to a requirement
4. Gift Aid Changes
In 2014/15 the UK government provided £1.19bn in gift aid to charities 4, this may be a cleaner option by providing say 24% gift aid rather than 25% the other 1% could fund the Regulator.
This would mean 4% of the £1.19bn going to the regulator, providing £47.6m to the regulator, which is a few million more in real terms of what they received a decade ago. The benefit of this is that its simple! Doesn’t add to the additional administration of the regulator and provides and appropriate and proportional income which would vary on the income of the sector.
Major Caveat: Charity Commission
Commissions current proficiency in respect of what is not only needed by charities but also what is needed by the beneficiaries of those charities does not seem to be inline. The commission currently has little open channels for the public to request help/support or advice while those charities which are abusing the law have little way of guaranteeing action and consequences to the abuse. If the commission is to continue without holding responsibility for prosecutions of those abusing charities then the funds must come from the commission’s budget and be passed to Crown Prosecution to action those needs. Very few people now believe the commission provides value for money or does what the law intended it to do. My own issues with an abused charity have taken over 3 years for the commission to open an inquiry. That is ridiculous that abuse can be ignored like that for such a period of time, regardless of what budget they have available, there are charities up and down the country struggling for funds and they manage to achieve much more!
Lets not forget this is just for England and Wales – Scotland and Ireland have their own regulator!
Public bodies like this do not usually lose their budgets without warning, nor without not showing theirs benefit themselves! The Charity Commission needs to stress, without reservation, the issues prevalent in the third sector to show why money is needed and why regulation is vital! As far is public knowledge the Commission has not delegated or partnered with other Charity organisations to support their workloads! One of the first things I would have done was make certain the day to day drivel from Mrs Jones and her WI meeting was passed over to an organisations like CVCs, those people who wanted hands on supporting advice should be passed to those local organisations created to do so! The regulator should be concerned with regulatory matters and their litigation to protect the industry and the massive amounts of public funds which goes with it.
In the end Charities are there to mop up the errors and misgivings of parliament to protect the public interest, it should be the government which provides the needed funds to regulate and police the industry properly. Charity abuse is one of the most detested of all abuses and those volunteering for them of their own free time must also see some protection and guarantee that when issues are exposed they are corrected swiftly and those responsible are punished sufficiently, where necessary. Sadly the Commission is already funded by Taxes paid to the government by the people of the UK, if they’re then going to charge Charities too, who are doing the jobs which are only created by an inefficiency of government mechanisms then essentially people are being taxed twice as they will pay from their taxes and from their donations to the charities.
The main problem with other options is that the Commission cannot implement or control it and only the Government may say that its a more appropriate option. My expectation is that the commission will at some point advise that charges to each charity are going to be put into place, no matter how many disagree with cost being fulfilled in that way
I’m a man who rambles; I like my books and like my words, but there are things in life which I struggle to find a suitable word for. There is one Kafkaesque, this word describes perfectly how we have felt about the commission over the last few years
After reading an article in The Guardian by Geoffrey Robertson QC about the Charity Commissions refusal to provide the HDT registration as a charity in 2014, it got me thinking about the registration process and how not once does the law give any regard to moral principles.
This is certainly understandable but I wondered how many of the general public would be aware? – If a charitable cause fighting for rights of a group of people can be declined Charity Status (although this has since been revoked and they are now a charity), I wonder how many of them payed attention to the cost attributed to this decision, which essentially means the funds are reduced to spend on support of all other charities by the body – added to removing funds from the valuable work of the HDT. The casefile from the tribunal states “It is important to record that the Charity Commission made clear in its decision, and indeed in its submissions to the Tribunal, that its objections to the registration of HDT were technical legal ones and that it recognised HDT’s valuable philanthropic work in the field of human rights” So this means they added a legal burden to this charity to instigate a tribunal because of their own ‘technical legal objections’.
What does this say for the state of the Charity Commission decision makers who declined this group? Or that a processes hasn’t been created to allow the commission to make this decision, after all they have the power of the high court as stated in the Charities Act.
I can understand the Charity Commissions stance that an aim to change law may be perceived as political, however the aim was to protect individuals by changing laws which persecute them…..how can that NOT be a charity in any view?
I think this case should have hopefully made clear some issues with charitable wording, however this shouldn’t have been needed and certainly not in the way this has had to have happened. There should be a clarification of political purpose and an extension to be very specific.
Fighting for rights to specific subset, one which does not remove other living beings rights
What if they were fighting for rights of another group, more decisive? Lets say they were fighting for rights of people who want slavery to return, this wouldn’t be allowed as not only would this be a ridiculous cause, but it clearly fights for rights that remove others rights and dignity.
Any organisation which fights directly for rights of a demographic that doesn’t ask for rights to be removed from others to achieve their aims MUST be a charity, regardless of what risks this poses to UK foreign relations. Although its written in law that the High Court must take into considerations any foreign relations and not judge upon their laws, the UK has a responsibility to the world in standing up for rights of people, regardless of what political impact that may have. By not allowing the register of a charity like this, they give legitimacy to countries who do destroy human rights, that in itself is a worse political statement for the UK.
The Human Dignity Trust have even been praised by Ulrike Lunacek, Vice-President of the European Parliament;
Ethics is a very important, nay critical, aspect of Charity. We all have a moral obligation to protect, promote and defend charities, after all they do good work? Its this element that is questioned although charities have an objective which is required to be for public good, how much is actually given to ethical conduct?
Ethical Investment &Fundraising
There is plenty written on ethical investments, not only for charities but becoming more popular for consumers to appreciate in corporate world too, these investments can be criticised greatly from the Church of England investing in Arms production to Comic Relief owning shares in tobacco firm. These were criticised by the public for going against what they do, however I’d take this one further – we shouldn’t allow investment of charities into things which other charities fight against, hows is it possible that there are so many charities fighting war torn countries, yet other charities can invest in arms production, what about all those fighting against animal cruelty (hats off to the charities who do not support, condone or fund animal testing), when there are charities pumping massive amounts into companies which fund animal experimentation. This cycle shouldn’t be possible, but i would go as so far as to say there should be one ethical investment charity, which controls the morals which investments can be made – no charity should fund arms, animal experimentation (Support the cause), tobacco, large pharma, salve labour or even invest in countries whos human rights are suspect!
I know there is much criticism on the moral decision to take profits but is it really better to take a donation from an organisation which is ethically dubious and use those funds for good, or is that only ever going to protect that organisation? I believe its the latter
How do you confirm a charity is not only using its funds ethically but both professional and truly working for the cause itself? I’m not sure there is an answer here, but I believe complaints and issues within a charity need to be more publicly available, a key statistic would be the number of whistle blowing complaints of the charity (be they investigated or not) that figure would give a better impression of what the internal staff and volunteers believe to be the ethical standard – only those who are suspicious of dubious activity would complain, the more complaints the more its is a reliable figure to require investigation – clearly something is wrong if there are multiple whistle blowing from inside of an organisation. I wonder if the Charity Commission actually has set limits where enough complaints come in for there to be an automatic investigation into the charity, I feel there should be but very much doubt there is any such policy.
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.