 |
Bruce Kent Britain's best-known peace campaigner |
|||
THE WORLD OF 'CHARITIES' has its critics. I am one of them. Ask yourself why some causes and projects get government approval (which is what charity status is) via the Charity Commissioners and others do not. For the approved there are tax benefits, access to trust funds and an air of respectability. Other causes and projects get none of this. Why?
Why is the Tank Museum at Bovington in Dorset, which promotes a military view of our society (itself already highly militarised), a charity, and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, promoting a less militarised and nuclear-free world, not? That's easy. the latter is thought of as political. The Tank Museum is considered educational. It is educational to support the status quo. It is political to want to change it. “Donors are happier with straight appeals for help rather than appeals for political or social change.”It is true that within their own terms of reference 'legal' charities can rock the political boat to a limited extent. Not that most of them want to. Donors - and much activity is geared towards them - are happier with straight appeals for help with immediate problems rather than appeals for political or social changes. Abolish 'charity' status? I don't think so, though the name could do with a change. We do need a public body with the duty to make sure that money raised from other people is honestly used. But I would give all financial privileges currently reserved to 'charities' to all educational and campaigning bodies operating within the law to make changes in public attitudes and activity. This will not stop competition for donor funds (always part of life) but it would put an end to the current division between respectable charity sheep and dubious non-charitable goats. > Nick Seddon: When charities aren't charities [0] > Geoff Mulgan: Why charities will improve [0] > More features [0] |