Well said Simon.

Its not as if someone must be a low-life or day labourer in order to need help.
Presumably the organisation has been keeping up with charity law and meets the requirements it legally has to.
Or should the wishes of those setting up funds be ignored when its no longer politically correct?

Plenty of trusts that specify a particular area only. Or particular type of work, or particular fields.
I'd love for the Wellcome Trust to spend some of its money on the types of charities I like to support. But they don't.
They have a remit, they stick to it. And thereby help people.

I'm a racist person too - I stick to humans rather than animals or environment charities. I'd love it if the trusts supporting animals spent it on humans instead. But they don't - and therefore make a difference for animals.
Gosh, rather like a charity for gentlefolk will make a difference with its donations.

My personal ideas or yours Sarah about what a charity should support don't count unless we set one up. Or we can choose to donate where we want.
I daresay neither of us will donate to this particular charity but doesn't mean no-one should.

Martin

As usual, you're absolutely right about transparency, secrecy, and their cryptic criteria. But as to the general notion of the charity as whole, I'm not so sure. As a (mostly) unreformed socialist, I probably ought to be horrified. by the notion of a charity specifically for toffs. But I somehow can't be. Take this paragraph:

"It’s not that the beneficiaries of the Guild’s grants in the annual report aren’t in need of help – helping people that are the victims of domestic violence or have been diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis are perfectly worthy causes.  But the idea that these people should be helped (over others) purely by virtue of their class is surely objectionable."

You're right that it seems like it should be objectionable. But...

Suppose I set up a charity specifically to help ex-musicians. Would you have any objections? But the idea that these people should be helped (over others) purely by virtue of their profession is surely objectionable - isn't it? How about a charity helping homeless people in London. Don't homeless people in Birmingham need help too? Why should some people be helped (over others) purely by virtue of their postcode? For that matter, lots of people need nursing care at home. Surely it's terribly objectionable to only give it to people with one type of illness?

The point is, there are many different ways to cut a cake, and no charity can be all things to all people. Would I personally give to a charity only supporting "people of gentle birth"? No I wouldn't. But I don't see any particular reason why others shouldn't if that's what floats their boat.