?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Comments

( 5 comments — Leave a comment )
parrot_knight
Sep. 4th, 2014 01:01 am (UTC)
Not with you on Newmark, though the practices of some charities as with individuals and other kinds of associations of individuals can leave something to be desired at election time.
philmophlegm
Sep. 4th, 2014 08:11 am (UTC)
I don't expect anyone to actually agree with me on most of the things I post. YMMMV. (Your moral mileage may vary.) I absolutely agree with Guido on this though. Charities and pressure groups should be wholly separate, and the latter should not get the tax and other benefits of the former.
parrot_knight
Sep. 4th, 2014 09:07 am (UTC)
I don't agree - charities are inevitably involved in advocacy and all that implies.
bunn
Sep. 4th, 2014 12:34 pm (UTC)
I think inevitably they always will be, because with so many issues, it's only charities that have the expertise to advise and the authority to raise an issue as something that requires legislation. And then there's the whole issue of how else someone who is not particularly rich and wants to raise an important point about a fixable but unsexy and not particularly profitable problem can possibly proceed.

I have to admit though that with some very large rich charities with very broad remits, I feel a tad uneasy. I am not sure that their donors really know what they are up to.

Edited at 2014-09-04 12:35 pm (UTC)
bunn
Sep. 4th, 2014 12:34 pm (UTC)
As you may have noticed, I disagree with you on almost everything, on principle :-p
( 5 comments — Leave a comment )