Originally Posted by
Keyser Soze
Yes, this quote is telling. This is where flimsy, cloudy, idealism meets and shakes hand with the hard headed reality of the real world.
There is no doubt that Oxfam is an outstanding organisation. They have made great strides in the world. Fundraising to the tune of £130 a year is tremendous. Their reaction and delivery on the ground equally so. Yet interestingly, many people still bury their heads in the sand and seem to think that charities cannot be scrutinised, should not be checked and must not be criticised. I have always found this to be an illogical trail of thought.
It is, and always was, and still is, very obvious to me that the ideals of an organisation (noble and well meaning) does not translate into individual brilliance inside it. The individuals inside it are wide-ranging and on a scale from awesome to appalling. In the awesome category they have skilled retirees, who bring expertise from the fields of the military, medicine, accounting and menial but necessary operational tasks such as laying sank banks for flooding. And of course those collecting money on the streets. Many work for nothing or for miminal pay, and rightly so, as the clue is in the word - "CHARITY". Those are the good guys.
In the second category we have the questionable bunch. Generally at the top. They say "I am working for a charity because I want to help". I have carefully watched the spiralling incomes paid for average executives and senor hire in charities. Often this is helping themselves as much as others. They are not there for charity. They are there to fill their pockets. Why are some executives of charites paid 80k - 120k a year? I have no idea. I understand that the demands an executive brings more pressure, but why they should be paid what a prime minister is paid, or mid level executives, is beyond me. If they want to work for a charity then they should be taking a financial hit somewhere as an act of charity. An executive should be drawn from a retired executives list who want to do it for charitable reasons, taking pay of around 40-50k instead. That would be bringing your skills to a charitable organisation, but not taking a full wallet for it, which is most uncharitable. You say in adverts that £10 can bring water to a child in Africa. Here is the killer question: "So how many did the chief executive allow to die at £10 a hit, because they wanted to strip out the fattest salary possible?". Food for thought.
In the final list are the pure evil. Those who have been exploiting children and sexually abusing others have committed more than a sex crime. It is far worse. Is it the act of abusing people when they thought you were bringing charity. This is not just a sex crime. It is worse than that. It is an act of calculated deception. When people do this when hiding behind charity it is like a Catholic priest routinely abusing children, skulking behind a cloak of trust. I think this ought to carry a harsher penalty. These scum ought to brough to justice then out out to grass, with their names sprayed all over the press as a warning to others who abuse by calculated deception.
I hear that obscene financial waste is another story to come soon from the charity sector. At a price of £10 a child for clean water, how many others have died due to this lack of financial care? The overall lesson of course, is the one I highlighted at the start. That the well meaning aims of an organisation does translate to alignment of the same to individual level. If people have been shocked by this story, then this ought to be the lesson learned - that even when it comes to charities, an air of sensible scepticism is a good thing to keep them on track.
Reply With Quote