A charity that relies in the main part on taxes is no more a charity than a prostitute is your girlfriend.
Why not wander over and view a few prostitutes over here...?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The very model of a modern scientific man
Your humble Devil was thoroughly amused by Neil Ferguson's fall from grace, and is very pleased to have found the time to outline Fergus...
-
Short answer: no. Slightly longer answer: Vote Leave did play fast and loose with the actual definitions—hey! it's marketing. And in...
-
Sorry, I've not been on my best form recently. I have suspected for some time that the realtionship was not going to last, even to the d...
-
Via Chicken Yoghurt and his exciting new post format, I am reminded of Pigdogfucker , whose post on these peepers I am entirely in agreeme...
4 comments:
Anyone checked out the RCP on fake charities?
http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/sites/default/files/page/2010/12/2009-annual-report.pdf
Page 43 and on.
You are being unkind to prostitutes. They at least, provide a service to their clients and are honest about what they do.
If you want to honestly evaluate your position to determine if you are on the right side of the argument, don't you think the question, "Am I calling Macmillan Cancer Support a bunch of fakes" is a good place to start?
Macmillan is not a fake, the £1 million turnover threshold in "fakecharities" is absurd. You're unfairly labelling large charities as fake even though the state donations they receive are at best minimal.
To be quite honest I think your 10% of income from the state threshold is a little harsh, a test based on state money as a % of donations from the public would give a better indicator as to the purpose of the charity as either "a servant of the needy" or "a servant of the state"
Post a comment