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)
Did Boris Johnson and Vote Leave lie about the £350m per week?
Short answer: no. Slightly longer answer: Vote Leave did play fast and loose with the actual definitions—hey! it's marketing. And in...
-
With the CRU emails having been examined, it seems that some people—mainly techies—are really starting to dig into the data files. These fil...
-
Short answer: no. Slightly longer answer: Vote Leave did play fast and loose with the actual definitions—hey! it's marketing. And in...
-
It seems that the Gobblin' King is all set to embark on a building programme for nuclear reactors. Prime Minister Gordon Brown has hint...
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