Adam

I'm an occasional reader. I agree with TangovictorTango and SimonK that you are using the IG platform to air your own (presumably pro-capital) views, and think that's a real pity.

Is a policy tending towards socialism and a planned economy a moderate political stance? Well, given where the political centre is in the world, no it isn't (arguably the centre is completely in the wrong place - but that's another discussion). But your word "extreme" has negative connotations that I think you employ deliberately - perhaps you could say "radical" instead. You can call the difference trivial if you like, but language matters.

I don't know if readers' opinion matters here - and we could debate all day as to whether the critical comments here represent the majority of readers' opinion - but perhaps before making statements that assume all sane people support capitalism, you could pause for thought. When you do, remember that the richest 1% of people in the world own the same amount of wealth as 60% of the poorest. That recalled, do then carry on typing.

Jon

My point, Adam, is that the money would end up in the same place anyway - it's only due to WBC's transparency that you know about it but instead of applauding them, you’re attacking them for it.

I agree with David M, WBC are sufficiently transparent. They must have been for you to decide that you're uncomfortable with some of the ‘extreme/non-mainstream’ organisations who get the cash. The resources were available for you to make an informed decision (and you chose to drink the beer anyway).

You suggest that WBC should strive to be even more transparent due to the 'controversial' nature of its causes. But aren’t all causes – in having both supporters and opponents – controversial? Labelling causes such as the International Socialist Resistance as ‘extreme’ is your own political opinion, as others have pointed out.

You really started something here Adam, and it will be no surprise that I agree with SimonK. You are right that the organisations you choose from the WBC list are not mainstream, but if you think they are extreme, then I think you have a limited political perspective. Advocating a planned socialist economy is not mainstream NOW, but it was actually the policy of the Labour Party (remember them, they run the country) not all that long ago. It really isn't your job to label political parties this way, and all it does is illustrate your perspective. To many people (me included) Thatcher was extreme.

Anyway, it is so unfair on the Workers Beer Company, a fantastic community/voluntary group that have been supporting community, campaign and trade union causes for many years, successfully, through a really interesting business model (they also own a pub).

You do a really good job, poking holes where they are needed in poor charity accountability and management, but you are off target this time.

Let's have a look at your own words again, Adam, and then we'll unpick them. "Yet a quick peek at the Workers’ Beer Co. website reveals that the money spent at the bar may well end up sponsoring extreme left-wing groups such as the totally sane International Socialist Resistance organization, a stated aim of whose is to promote a “socialist planned economy taking the needs of the environment into account.” Hmm."

First of all you describe International Socialist Resistance as "extreme". Now I may be nitpicking over semantics, but I don't think that "extreme" means the same as "non-mainstream". It has a negative connotation - many people would be happy to say that their own political views are non-mainstream but few would describe themselves as extreme (or worse, extremists).

Secondly, and less ambiguously, there's that "totally sane". Unless you seriously want us to believe that it wasn't meant sarcastically, it quite clearly implies that you don't believe ISR to be totally sane. That is undoubtedly a political viewpoint. Ditto your little "hmm" at the end - do you really expect us to take it to mean anything other than, "I think this aim of ISR is at best questionable and at worst nonsense"?

I'm not planning to report you to the Charity Commission, and I think this whole discussion has got a bit out of hand. I really don't mind what your political views are, but I do think you could do with being more aware of how they come across in what you write. That way, you might have found a better example to illustrate your substantive point about the need to be wary of anyone who says, "all profits go to charity/good causes" - which is something that I think we can all agree with.

SimonK: You say I've taken a political viewpoint in my capacity as a charity employee. You also (rightly) point out that the Charity Commission regards political posturing as seriously naughty behaviour. However, I would appreciate it if you could point out where precisely you think I've expressed a political opinion. Apart from saying that International Socialist Resistance isn't mainstream - which isn't controversial - I'm not sure what I'm supposed to have done. Also, though the WBC isn't a charity, it is a Voluntary Organization as definied by IG's Memorandum of Association, which is why we have a legitimate reason for querying its operation

Dougald: Err, yes - you're right. So perhaps the money from Friday might only have gone towards moderate causes. But I still want to know what those causes were! As I - ahem - may have mentioned before, this wasn't made clear.

Anon: I'm afraid I don't understand your point at all. Of course, where I spend my salary is my own business; and if the money being paid to WBC volunteers went into their own pockets, I'd likewise have no problem with them giving it all to extreme political causes. But that's not how it works. The cash goes straight to the (sometimes non-mainstream) organization. Which is why there's a legitimate interest in querying how the WBC beer-tent worked. 

Charity Chris: Yes. Yes yes yes. Absolutely right.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

First, please accept my apologies for posting the same points twice - I thought my first attempt had been lost in the ether.

Adam, your reference to "good causes" is disingenuous and betrays what I think is the real, political motivation for your post. WBC clearly stated at the beer tent that none of the money raised went to "private profit", and that it went to "labour movement and campaigning groups" - which is a fact. There was no vague subjective statement about the causes or campaigns being "good", I think from WBC's perspective that is a given and everyone else must make up their own mind.

Adam - to be fair, I guess your original point has become somewhat lost in the example chosen. It is still not uncommon to see what appears to be a commercial enterprise using some label along the lines of 'all profits go to charity', without any kind of information as to exactly what charity (eg TV phone votes).

I take the point that 'labour movement and campaigning groups' doesn't necessarily cover the full range of organisations listed by the Worker's Beer Company, which would seem to cover a fairly wide range of both charitable and non-charitable organisations.

So WBC's members donate all their earnings to the organisations of their choice and tell everyone about it.

Instead, the people behind the bar could legitimately serve beer, get paid for doing so and then, without telling anyone, spend all their earnings (as private individuals) on the charity/company/extreme outfit of their choice anyway, leaving the consumer none the wiser. Nobody asks for a detailed explanation of how the employees of IG, for example, spend their earnings - and nor should they. Why should this be any different?

It seems that in this case, by opting to be open in declaring where their earnings go, the members of WBC are actually being punished for their transparency. Something which seems to be in direct opposition to the point of Intelligent Giving.

"there's a much greater chance of people being offended by the WBC's choice of partners than those of any international-aid outfit"

Excuse my French, but bollocks is there! Don't assume that just because something offends you, other people feel the same way. I'd much rather run the risk of my money ending up with the (frankly rather irrelevant and fundamentally harmless) Communist Party of Great Britain than give it to Oxfam and run the risk of it some of it getting siphoned off by the (fundamentally murderous) regime in Burma.

More importantly, you haven't really addressed TangovictorTango's main point, which is that the Workers Beer Co is not and makes no claim to be a charity, and you are using this blog to promote your own political viewpoint (which, dare I mention it, the Charity Commission might not take too kindly to).

Yours, in increasing disillusionment.

Hi Adam, hi all!

My recollection from my extremist youth, confirmed by a quick visit to the WBC website, is that the causes the money goes to depends on who's working the bar. So all of those organisations are listed because their members work on WBC bars at some point

The bar staff work for free, and the organisation they belong to gets paid £6.50/hr for each member of staff they provide. Which organisations staff the bar varies from event to event. So maybe the question you should be probing is which organisation(s) provided the staff on Friday night?

Dougald

I think SimonK and David M have got to the bottom of things: they (and, it appears, the rest of the world) think that the WBC gave adequate explanation of the causes they'd support on their beer tent. I, on the other hand, didn't think they said enough.

In most normal circumstances, I'd agree with David M that the level of disclosure offered by the WBC would be acceptable - which is why I agree that aid agencies don't need to reveal every single partner they work with on their collection tins. BUT because the causes supported by the WBC are extreme, I think it places a greater burden on the WBC to be totally transparent about them. Why? Because - as I said in my last comment - there's a much greater chance of people being offended by the WBC's choice of partners than those of any international-aid outfit.

Second, I think TangovictorTango raises a really interesting comparison. Tango, though you might choose to shop at Tesco and bank with a mainstream bank, even though you don't like their business practices, lots of people don't. Banks like Smile (and its parent, the Co-Op) thrive on the basis of consumers deciding to ditch companies with 'unethical' investments. Likewise, lots of people choose to shop locally because of their dislike of supermarkets' business practices. Just because an company isn't a registered charity doesn't mean its customers can't judge it by ethical standards.

Again, I emphasize that I do not wish to make any value judgments about banks, supermarkets, trades-unions or anyone else outside the charity sector. All I want to do is make this simple point: that when you're buying something 'for a good cause', check out what that good cause is. Because you might not agree with it.

Finally, I am a wine buff, as TangovictorTango says. As such, I seriously dislike 'party wine'. Hence my consumption of the beer tent's beer.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

Are WBC even a charity? Neither their website nor the Charity Commission's suggest they are. I am concerned that you seem to be using IG to put forward a personal political perspective. You could make all sorts of criticisms of all sorts of private companies - Tesco, McDonalds, British American Tobacco, the list is endless. That's not supposed to be what IG is about, I think that you just don't like the particular organisations that benefit from WBC.

I'd hate to see a unique voice in the charity sector become "Intelligent Consuming" and be lost among a huge swathe of organisations and individuals telling us which capitalist enterprises do and do not deserve our money...

I'm going to have to agree with the other people here. In your original post, you (rightly) criticise people who simply say that they will use your cash for a "good cause". But the Worker's Beer Co haven't done that. They've been completely upfront about what the money is raised for - in brief on their sign ("labour movement and campaigning groups") and more fully on their website. You might not like what they are campaigning for, but frankly, that's your problem.

Adam, I think you're using IG to air a personal political perspective. A look through the Workers' Beer website finds no mention of it being a charity, and it has no listing on the Charity Commission website either. So unless I'm mistaken, it's a private company (if I am mistaken, then this post is going to fall flat!).

Personally, I have concerns about my bank's investments in the arms industry, yet I do not get upset that not every letter they send me about my overdraft makes this clear. I don't particularly like the idea that when I shop in my local Tesco, the workers who stock the shelves and staff the checkouts get paid measly sums of money while the profits from the goods I buy line shareholders' pockets.
I could go on and on...

There are some interesting organisations on the list of WBC beneficiaries. The Communist Party of Britain are not one I'd like to see grow their politics, nor are the thoroughly batty Workers Power. But WBC are a private business and I won't waste my time complaining about how they operate or where their money goes, just as I won't waste time complaining to my bank or to Tesco. If you're worried about your money funding political groups you disagree with, you could consider whether or not to buy beer from WBC. I thought you were a wine buff anyway...

If IG wants to switch focus to become "Intelligent Consuming" then I think that's a shame - a unique voice would be lost among hundreds of others telling us what not to buy...

Well Adam, I do think your position is clearer now, but I also think it is a little unreasonable to expect a charity to display all its beneficiaries when trying to sell something. Do other grant making charities do this - I have never seen Christian Aid list all their partner organisations when going around with their collecting tins. I would say putting up a sign saying proceeds going to labour/campaigning causes, with a list on a website is more than enough, and an awful lot more than many charities currently achieve. In other words, IG should be congratulating Workers Beer Co on their decent level of transparency, which after all is what your remit is

Hi Adam,

It's commendable that you've stuck with this to try to be more clear in your arguments. It seems that your real issue is that "party-goers on Friday were potentially supporting non-mainstream and avowedly political groups without their knowledge."

However, the Workers Beer Co do say (on the two images you provide) that they support "labour movement and campaigning groups."

Now, campaigning groups are pretty much non-mainstream by definition. If what they were campaining for were mainstream, there would be no need for the campaign.

And the labour movement is political - the labour movement is all about the collective organisation of working people to bring about improved conditions for the working class through campaigning, collective bargaining power with employers, and the application of political support (e.g. trades unions funding of the Labour Party).

So I think the Workers Beer Co did provide information to let party-goers know they were potentially supporting non-mainstream and avowedly political groups.

Oh gosh - I really ought to make a couple of things clear, since perhaps I wasn't clear enough in the original posting:

1. I do not wish to make value judgements about any of these political groups - other than to point out that many of the organizations helped by the Workers' Beer people are non-mainstream. If anyone wants to argue that a group that argues for a socialist planned economy is politically moderate, than I'd be terribly pleased to hear from them.
2. On the other hand, I wanted to point out that the beer tent nowhere indicated that such non-mainstream causes would be supported by customers' purchases. Whether or not non-mainstream groups are reasonable in their aims - which is of no relevance here - my point is that lots of people might have been a bit annoyed if they'd found that communists were being helped by their drinks-buying habits.
3. In other words, party-goers on Friday were potentially supporting non-mainstream and avowedly political groups without their knowledge. This might have annoyed them if their own political views did not agree with the cause supported. However, nowhere was it made clear on the beer tent that such annoyance might have been caused. I thought - and think - that this is disrespectful, and that a bit more transparency about the beer-tent's operation (perhaps in the form of leaflets available on the night) wouldn't have gone amiss.

Catman/Martin/LMC: Yes, I agree that these causes may become mainstream in future. Speaking in my capacity as the employee of a charity, I have no opinion on whether this is a good or a bad thing. However, my point is that they are not mainstream now - and that could cause people to become upset (etc. etc., see above).

Finally, Danny, I think any opinion that might be defined as party-political is by definition controversial. Isn't it?

Adam, Intelligent Giving

thats what you get for your £40. The whole blog seems to be distanced from the actual remit of this "charity". And what qualifications Adam has to pass of his personal issues as charitable topics to discuss I don't know!

catman

Adam: you say that "These organizations' very non-charitable-ness (if you'll excuse the awful phrase) strongly suggests that the causes they promote will be controversial - or perhaps extreme."

No, it doesn't. All it suggests in this case is that the causes they promote will be political, as organisations set up for political purposes cannot be charitable.

Hey guys, have you missed me? Take better aim next time.

From IG's About us page: " ... we want to improve how charities operate, by making them more transparent and accountable."

Nothing on there about making value judgements on particular causes. As others have pointed out, many causes start out by being viewed as a bit strange - or, at worst, bonkers - but become mainstream as public interest and statutory agendas change. Fifty years ago, vegetarians were a bit scary and weird - to most people. Now us carnivores are fighting a rear-guard action in many arenas.

Of course, some causes will always be bonkers. Or even downright scary. In my opinion as a private individual. But ethically, should IG (given it's stated mission, quoted above) imply that giving to these is not intelligent giving if the organisation meets transparency standards?

-----------------------------------------------

... nearly Vlad the Impaler - and happily pot-stirring again

It seems like things are getting rather confused here. Surely Adam should be congratulating Workers' Beer Co. for being transparent and putting their beneficiaries into the public domain. I don't really think it is reasonable to expect the charity to plaster it onto the pint glass. Was there any actively misleading information at the beer tent? It seems that Adam is just irate because they give money to an organisation which he does not like, rather than any lack of transparency. Plus, his comment on the lack of charitable status is very confusing indeed - Amnesty is not a charity but does that make it extreme? Being a charity does not automatically guarentee some form of quality (as your profiles all to clearly demonstrate)

Hiya Adam,

The woodcraft folk are a non-religious alternative to the scouts or guides associations. We learnt normal kids stuff and every week we went up to the local woods to learn about our environment. I suppose my e-mail was to assure you that we weren't taught how to make bombs or start revolutions.

Some causes may seem scary to IG's more rightwing readers, however there are some household charity brands that previously seemed very out there, Amnesty International and Greenpeace spring to mind. Inevitably, some of those non-charities that are listed on the Workers Beer Co website may be ahead of the majority and in ten years time will be getting the levels of support that environmental charities now get.

catman

You say organisations that are 'non-mainstream' or 'extreme' cannot be charities.
Yet they are.

Certainly many non-mainstream, a few at least can be considered extreme.
We are talking charities here, you know the organisations who see a need, set up a group, get something done on a practical level or by campaigning. Those sorts of groups.

Not all groups are charities. Doesn't mean the groups are somehow something that people shouldn't support. So what if they are controversial - was the beer any good? Thats of more importance to many people drinking beer.

Come to think of it, of the overseas appeals for disasters I've seen on TV in the last few decades, can't recall a single one where I knew the money was being given in the end to charities rather than people and companies.
Can anyone else?

Martin

Martin: Organizations that are either 'extreme' or 'non-mainstream' cannot legally be charities - and very few of the organizations supported by the Workers' Beer people are charities either. These organizations' very non-charitable-ness (if you'll excuse the awful phrase) strongly suggests that the causes they promote will be controversial - or perhaps extreme. 

Catman: Err?

Adam, Intelligent Giving

in the woodcraft folk (where I learnt valuable tracking skills)

I was the woodcraft folk

Umm...last I looked, many charities are non-mainstream causes.
If they were mainstream, the government would support it.

Extreme? By what standard? Who sets the standard and where do they get the ideas from?
While I will be unlikely to support the totally sane International Socialist Resistance organization, that doesn't mean other won't.

People can choose to support many types of organisation. The people buying the beer may care about where the money is going. Or may not care.
Some of the public at least doesn't do an in-depth research when deciding what charity items to buy. A beer is a beer - can support shareholders, can support methodists for all I know. Or care.
I have to admit its a good way of fundraising - giving people what they want rather than the more usual crappy pens.

Must look into getting a beer tent for my local charity - a non-mainstream, even extremist charity for homeless people in an area where the council say there are no homeless.

Martin

Well yes, Charity Chris, it is reasonably transparent of the beer people to put their beneficiaries on their website - which is something I should have given them more credit for. But it would be my guess that most people buying drinks there last night wouldn't have known (or been comfortable with, perhaps) their cash going towards what are some genuinely extreme (i.e. non-mainstream) causes. I think that's the main point - so David's argument that the socialists have (perhaps) some pretty reasonable policies is not totally relevant in this instance.

Adam, Intelligent Giving

It's clear that you didn't like the beer tent. However, shouldn't you instead applaud their transparency?

I would suggest that the information given is reasonably transparent. The money will support labour movement and campaigning groups, and a number is given for further information. Ok - the full list and aims of all groups supported isn't given, but you can find out.

The information is at least presented for you to make a choice. You're free to pop into the local off licence, who in general will present you with details of where their profits go before you make your purchase

Don't they?

I am shocked by your post - given that you continually, correctly, criticise charities for not telling you where the money you give is going. In this case you are not giving anything, but buying beer and other alcohol.

The Workers' Beer Company have been around for years and years supporting all sorts of events, and all sorts of causes. Their profits go transparently to all sorts of causes, who are again transparent about their motives.

Why you are so worried about the few pounds going to the Socialist Party is beyond me. Their main aims are against the war in Iraq, opposition to nuclear weapons, opposition to low pay, free quality education for all, opposition to ID cards, opposition to racism and all forms of discrimination, supporting asylum seekers, supporting trade unions, free healthcare and other things that are so much more scary than the things private companies put their profits into, eh?

When you buy your beer from ordinary brewers do you know where your profits are being invested? No? You surprise me.