Against charity: for NGOs

Political lobbying by charities has been effectively banned in the UK:
Futures Forum: Concerns for campaigning: Lobbying Act will continue to restrict charities

Futures Forum: The Lobbying Act, civil society and criminalising dissent >> 'Why charities have been gagged in the UK election'

In fact, worldwide, charities, NGOs and 'civil society' are under pressure:
Futures Forum: Civil society under threat

And this is happening worldwide - as in Australia, December 2017: 
Green groups and charities could be collateral damage in government's foreign donation ban - The Conversation
Why charities are angry about the foreign donations ban - The New Daily

But who is lobbying against the ability of others to lobby?
Mining lobby calls for 10% limit on environmental charities' spending on advocacy | Business | The Guardian

And how much ' foreign interference' is happening through not-so-secret funding activities?
Tony Blair and his links to George Soros | Daily Mail Online
Netanyahu Blasts Soros for Funding Pro-Illegal Protests | Frontpage Mag
George Soros spending more than ever to push his liberal agenda worldwide | News | LifeSite
Pakistan's new anti-Soros campaign boosts its anti-Semitic, conspiracy Theory-Infested political culture - Opinion - Israel News | Haaretz.com

Of course, there is plenty of interference going on - through rather secret funding activities:
Futures Forum: Brexit: and Exeter's MP pushing for further investigations
Futures Forum: 'The Crisis in Democracy" > a short history of think tanks

As the New European points out, it depends what you mean by 'foreign intereference': 

Foreign influence in the domestic politics of any state is clearly an issue of importance. May told the EU to “keep out” of our general election campaign and has accused Putin of spreading fake news and meddling in elections to undermine free societies – although she has seemed less troubled by allegations of Russian interference in the referendum or Trump’s election.

Laws banning the use of foreign money for election campaigns are clear (or relatively so), but foreign money pours into all sorts of UK organisations and we encourage it. Our trains are owned by foreigners; our water is supplied by foreign companies; our car factories are run by foreigners; our scientific research is financed by foreign charities; our universities depend on endowments from foreign philanthropists; four of our national daily newspapers, accounting for more than half the total readership, are controlled by foreigners and non-doms.

Nor is it all one-way traffic: our much-maligned foreign aid budget is supposed to improve people’s lives abroad. Former International Development Secretary Priti Patel and Boris Johnson say it should be used to further British interests. Patel even talked about linking it with trade, which some might see as baksheesh – or bribery.

Fleet Street outrage over George Soros anti-Brexit donations | Latest Brexit news and top stories - The New European
Hungary: Eclipse of democracy in the heart of Europe | Latest Brexit news and top stories - The New European
.
.
.

Knowle relocation project: and other vanity projects

The District Council's 'relocation project' has been called a 'vanity project' more than once:
Futures Forum: Knowle relocation project: "Rather than expensive vanity projects, they should stay in their old home in Sidmouth (even expensive to heat) and concentrate on spending our money more wisely."
Futures Forum: Knowle relocation project: 'fiddling while Rome burns'

This is very much part of the larger context of planning as preening:
Futures Forum: Of vanity projects and local government
Futures Forum: "Vanity projects, speculation and unwise development" >>> "Bankruptcy risk as ‘desperate’ councils play the property market"

If we compare this particular project with another: 

Boris tried to push Garden Bridge over line on last day in office

28 FEBRUARY, 2018 BY WILL HURST

A letter released to the AJ under FOI has revealed that former London mayor Boris Johnson made a desperate bid to solve one of the project’s most intractable problems on his last day in office

Boris tried to push Garden Bridge over line on last day in office | News | Architects Journal

And the wider media is taking it up:
Boris Johnson blames Garden Bridge project blunders on successor - BBC News
Boris blusters his way around his £40m garden bridge fiasco | John Crace | Politics | The Guardian
Boris Johnson facing grilling over £37m spent on failed Thames Garden Bridge project | The Independent

Boris Johnson's garden bridge scheme scrapped | Daily Mail Online

As the London oversight committee looks a little deeper:




GLA Oversight Committee - Boris Johnson - the Garden Bridge - YouTube
.
.
.

Plans for Port Royal: a Drill Hall study

On Wednesday, the full District Council considered the cabinet's proposals for Port Royal and Eastern Town:
Meeting of the Council of the District of East Devon onWednesday 28 February 2018

The main point being that the Drill Hall will be put on the market:
Futures Forum: Plans for Port Royal: selling the Drill Hall, rather than producing a masterplan
Futures Forum: Plans for Port Royal: marketing of Drill Hall to coincide with draft Neighbourhood Plan
Futures Forum: Plans for Port Royal: 'Council proposes to drop regeneration plans and sell the Drill Hall'

The question remains, though, of 'what to do with' the Drill Hall...

Here are a couple of insights and examples to help give some direction and perspective:
Futures Forum: Local Heritage Assets: 'making better use of the available resources to identify, protect and maintain the historic buildings and places that matter to local communities.'
Futures Forum: The Lost Arc of Rhayder >>> turning an Old Drill Hall into 'a fantastic space for rehearsal, for live music, good food and the arts'

Here's an overview of the Drill Hall's recent past:
Futures Forum: Plans for Port Royal: the Drill Hall: a short modern history

And of the wider area's recent past:
Futures Forum: Plans for Port Royal: Eastern Town then and now

Graham Cooper of Sidmouth has been at the forefront of exploring the possibilities of the Port Royal and Eastern Town areas:
Futures Forum: Plans for Port Royal: mixed development
Futures Forum: Plans for Port Royal: 'Alternative ideas as to how the Port Royal area of Sidmouth could be redeveloped'
Futures Forum: Plans for Port Royal: anticipating a Regeneration Board >> Scoping Study consultation > an overview of the maps and the options

Here he presents the latest overview of the Drill Hall:

Over the last week, to familiarise myself more with the Drill Hall, I have produced the following  study. The sketches are meant as a design-aid to understand the external building fabric as it currently stands.

For further photographs and plans please visit the following two websites:

1 The “Sidmouth Drill Hall Hub” 
> gallery page:
Gallery | Sidmouth Drill Hall Hub CIC

2 The “Sidmouth Drill Hall Research Site” 
> Interior photographs taken in February 2017:
Interior photographs February 2017 - Sidmouth Drill Hall Research Site
Floor plans - Sidmouth Drill Hall Research Site

This study is compiled in March 2018

.
.
.

Sidmouth Plastic Warriors > Clean up around town, Ham and beach > POSTPONED to Saturday 10th March

Tomorrow's clean-up
Futures Forum: Sidmouth Plastic Warriors > Clean up around town, Ham and beach > Saturday 3rd March

... has been postponed to next weekend:

With a message from the SPWs:

Unfortunately due to the weather we have taken the obvious decision to postpone tomorrow's event around the beach, Ham and town, and have pushed it back a week to Saturday March 10th. After the winds this weekend there is likely to be a lot to do then.

Sidmouth Plastic Warriors (@SidPlasticWar) | Twitter
.
.
.

Against charity: "many young Africans hate the corrosive ‘white saviour’ imagery of this bloated industry"

We have been very hard on the charity sector of late:
Futures Forum: Against charity: outrage and self-righteousness "will only damage the interests of the most vulnerable"

But 'charity' is largely out there because it is needed:

Futures Forum: A quarter of children live in poverty in Sidford, Sidmouth

Futures Forum: Against charity: a critique of food banks

Although the standard places in the world which have always received charity would prefer not to:

Futures Forum: Africa leapfrogs technology 

Because it's very much a question of power.

Here's a piece from last weekend on the 'self-aggrandising' view of charity:

The BBC’s slavish support for charities like Oxfam and Save the Children deserves scrutiny

Ian Birell
Sunday February 25th, 2018



Comic Relief displays some of the ills of its troubled sector. The pay of its chief executive rose over the past two years from £132,194 to £155,690 (Photo by Chris Jackson/Getty Images)

Taxpayer cash, white-saviour imagery

My own view, based on reporting around the world, is that aid is often damaging in developing nations by propping up despots, driving corruption and fuelling conflict. All that free cash from foreigners makes some rich people richer while stunting the growth of democracy. This is a view shared by many experts, including the most recent British-born, Nobel-winning economist – and indeed by some of the BBC’s best-known reporters. Even African presidents are starting to call openly for an end to a demeaning dependency culture, while many young Africans hate the corrosive ‘white saviour’ imagery of this bloated industry.
...

The most obvious sign of institutional bias comes with the BBC backing of Comic Relief, which will be seen again with the biennial Sports Relief next month. This pushes a clear message to schools and viewers that aid works. It sends a signal that spraying money around the planet is an unalloyed good, that heroic celebrities dropping in on slums are doing good, that wealthy Westerners are saving the world. Never mind that many of its claims are questionable, much of the coverage hideously patronising and the barrage of films present distorted images of proud places. For this is how the aid sector became rich and powerful: by harnessing celebrity culture, just like Live Aid and all those charities with famous ‘ambassadors’, to promote their self-aggrandising world view.

The BBC's slavish support for charities like Oxfam and Save the Children deserves scrutiny - The i newspaper online iNews 

And in the light of the Oxfam scandal, Counterpunch asks how we can move beyond relationships of dependence where abuse is inevitable: 

Haiti And The Contradiction Of Rich People’s Charity

by NICK PEMBERTON

FEBRUARY 26, 2018

Oxfam, one of the biggest charities in Britain, has been exposed for hiring prostitutes, losing millions of dollars and practicing an overall secrecy that leaves the public with more questions than answers about the good they are doing in less industrialized nations. I am always weary of the nationalist isolationist right, and it is mostly because they aren’t isolationists. Donald Trump spewed the rhetoric of an isolationist but he hasn’t exactly been one. He may not believe in the ultimate goodness of NATO. He is right to have a critique but he almost stumbles on this one accidentally. He doesn’t believe that anyone would want, or should want to help other people. Hence he strips protections, promotes pipelines and lifts taxes for the rich, all in the name of freedom for those the most greedy and heartless. Anyone else, namely the poor, needs to make like the Donald and embrace criminal self-interest. It is the language he speaks and it is the actions he expects from everyone else, including many of the failed American and Western institutions. Liberals on the other hand are increasingly embracing these failed institutions precisely because Trump does not.

Donald in practice is not an isolationist though. He doesn’t believe in friends but he does believe in enemies. An isolationist wouldn’t be flirting with nuking North Korea. An isolationist wouldn’t talk about “stealing the oil” from Iraq. This past week the U.S. said they won’t give any money to Iraq’s reconstruction. His critique of trade deals is not that that they are disastrous for the environment or that they lower working conditions (especially for countries with less protections for their workers). Rather he says that America is getting ripped off. This mirrors is sentiment that the American white working class is being left behind because of liberal diversity at home.

Charities like Oxfam recognize that Donald is wrong and that countries like Haiti are suffering more than ones like the United States or Britain. They though still assume that they (the West) are part of the solution rather than the reason for the problem itself. This is not to say I am against wealth distribution per se. As our financial system collapsed, it was Wall St. who was bailed out. That money should have gone to poor people. The argument against welfare, reparations, and more recently a universal basic income, is that it is a handout that doesn’t allow people to grow on their own. Nonsense. Half the country is living paycheck to paycheck. How on earth is anybody supposed to “grow” or achieve “freedom” in such a state.

The problem though for Oxfam and others is that there is so often no such thing as a free lunch. What the Oxfam scandal shows is that these organizations are about power as much as anything else. Because of the weight of currency in poorer nations a person traveling there is almost always much richer than they were back home. There comes along with this a savior complex that believes that the laws, language and customs of the country you are “saving” are not for you. And a mentality that there are few laws at all for you because of your privileged status. There is also the cruel reality that these nations are so often in so much trouble that they have little power to say no to someone who wishes to help, no matter how many strings are attached.

In my experience in Ghana last year foreigners were always doing more harm than good. Fellow study abroad students hired prostitutes. One filmed and shared online a woman’s birth that he was supposed to be assisting on. One tried to steal a car but failed to get out of the driveway because it was a stick shift. Clubs featured rich old fat white men in the corner with their young black prostitutes.

Foreign aid on its own is not a bad idea. It is necessary. But why is it necessary? It is because the wars fought in the name of democracy are about making money. The threat of war is always present for those poorer countries who don’t cooperate with unfair trade deals between countries. I remember my professor in Ghana talking about Ghana basically giving away oil to the United States right now in exchange for peaceful relations. Who could deny this after the statement Trump openly said about Iraq? Dick Cheney’s organization Halliburton is another recent example. So when rich countries do give aid it is a public gesture that attempts to shield what they are doing with the other hand. And when aid is given, often to countries held hostage, it comes with strings attached.

There is also something inherent in these charity organizations that is anti-democratic. Having outsiders come in who don’t understand the community is a problem, especially when they bring cholera with them. We would be better off giving skilled people from these communities incentives to stay at home. There is a large brain drain from poorer countries that is hardly addressed by sending some foreigners back. On the other hand dying people in war zones like Yemen and Syria surely wouldn’t want to hear an argument about their doctors being too “privileged” to help. The broader issue of course is that the West gives with one hand and takes much more with the other. If charity from the rich worked there would no longer be rich people.

Some people make a profit off of of these misadventures but even for those that don’t there is a lack of faith in the countries we interfere in. We don’t believe that countries like Haiti have the right or the wisdom to figure things out for their own people. Instead we choose to trust our own military-industrial complex who overthrow leaders because they are disobedient to the U.S., with no regard of their popularity among the people they represent.

Until it is evident across the board that richer countries do more good than harm through their presence in poorer countries it may be best not to not interfere at all. As the saying goes, if you don’t have anything nice to say… It is not surprising that organizations like Oxfam, who operate on the assumption that they are above the people they are helping turned out to abuse the people in disadvantaged communities. Let’s not forget that the rationale for most colonialism and imperialist is social reform. In reality colonialism and imperialism operate as for profit ventures that seek to control and exploit poorer people. Should we buy into “reforming” charity work in Haiti and other places? Not with the actors involved.

The best ways to help poorer countries would be to establish fair trade that did not rely on force. It would be to to not have a military presence in these countries. It would mean polluting less, as our mass consumption in the West has led to chaotic environmental conditions elsewhere. It would mean providing financial incentives for doctors and other high-skilled workers from disadvantaged countries to work where they were born. It would mean to stop expanding our global corporations into these countries, as we take away from local means to make a living when we do this. It would mean accepting far more immigrants and refugees. It would mean not to starve people through sanctions. It would mean ridding the world of nuclear weapons. It wouldmean creating partnerships rather than relationships of dependence. And above all, it would mean distancing ourselves from the assumption that the poor can be saved by their oppressors.

Until all of these things happen power seeking charities will continue to have their role for better or worse. Arrogance and abuse by charities are not surprising given the differences in power they depend on. Still, to abandon the poor because of mistakes by the rich is unfair. The question though is what can we do to help besides charity? How can we move beyond relationships of dependence where abuse is inevitable? Are we even interested in this question? For the contradiction behind all charity is that the moment it works it is no longer needed.

Haiti is the most depressing example of this paradox. 9 billion dollars and 10,000 charities headed to Haiti after their earthquake. The relationships between actors are still the same. There are those who suffer and those who save.

Haiti And The Contradiction Of Rich People’s Charity - Counterpunch
.
.
.

Sid Valley Neighbourhood Plan: full draft published >>> 'how the community wish to see the neighbourhood preserved and developed over the next 15 years'

Yesterday saw the publication of the neighbourhood plan:
Futures Forum: Sid Valley Neighbourhood Plan: full draft is published and six-week consultation starts today

It can be accessed here.
Sid Valley Neighbourhood Plan – Shaping our Future Together

The official website gave some more information earlier today:

Acquires Statutory Powers as an Emerging Plan

Almost two years after their inaugural meeting, the Sid Valley Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group have announced that the Draft Plan was published on 28th Feb 2018. The plan sets out how the community wish to see the neighbourhood preserved and developed over the next 15 years.

A Written Ministerial Statement of the 10th of July 2014 is considered to have reinforced the National Policy Planning Guidance by making it clear that, once a neighbourhood plan has been submitted formally to the local authority for examination, it (and its policies) represent a material consideration to which weight can be given in considering the planning balance when determining any particular planning application or appeal.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/neighbourhood-planning

Policies The Plan is in two parts, the first describing Policies which will carry statutory weight when considering planning applications once the plan is Adopted and becomes ‘Made’. Once the Plan is Made, the policies take precedence over any policies described in the EDDC Local Plan as they refer specifically to the Sid Valley Designated Neighbourhood Plan Area.

Community Actions Also described are actions which consultations have revealed are outcomes desired by the community. As these ‘Community Actions’ are not concerned with the use of land, they do not have any statutory power, but will serve as blueprints for the continued development of the community across a wide sphere of aspirations, interests and activities.

Place Analysis The second part of the Plan is an extensive Place Analysis commissioned by the Steering Group which contains design guidance for developers of any new housing or of refurbishments of existing buildings. This design guidance would apply for instance to any proposals that come forward for the Drill Hall at Port Royal.

The six-week consultation runs from 28th February 2018 to 12th April 2018 after which no further comments will be taken into account.

Public Meeting The Steering Group have planned a public meeting at All Saints Church Hall on 21st March from 3.00pm – 6.30pm Members of the Steering Group will be available to answer any questions the public may have.

This is an important time for the Sid Valley Community and brings to a close the largest ever public consultation. Our consultations have been extensive, involving all households in our Designated Area, businesses, special interest groups and young people with the support of our schools. This is a vital stage in the statutory process which steers us towards the legal status of an adopted and Made Plan. We look forward to seeing you there.

The plan and accompanying Place Analysis are available to view on the home page at www.sidvalleyneighbourhoodplan.com

and http://www.sidmouth.gov.uk/index.php/neighbourhood-plan

Hard copies of the plan are available to view at Sidmouth Town Council, Woolcombe House, Woolcombe Lane, Sidmouth, at EDDC The Knowle and at Sidmouth Public Library.

Comments and responses should be submitted via email to: neighbourhood@sidmouth.gov.uk

Or by post to:

SVNP, Sidmouth Town Council,
Woolcombe House
Sidmouth
Devon EX10 9BB

Please be aware that all comments and responses will be made publicly available via the Neighbourhood Plan website and afterwards via an archive link held at Sidmouth Town Council Offices.

Deirdre Hounsom
Chair of the Sid Valley Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

For further information contact Deirdre Hounsom, Chair, Sid Valley Neighbourhood Plan at d.hounsom@hotmail.com or by phone: 07970 814568 and on http://www.sidvalleyneighbourhoodplan.com

Neighbourhood Plan Released to Public Consultation – Sid Valley Neighbourhood Plan
.
.
.

Against charity: "Charity is a cold grey loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim."

Attlee is said to have said (or at least expressed these sentiments):
"Charity is a cold grey loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim":
Clement Attlee - Wikiquote
Clement Attlee on charity - taxresearch.org.uk

Richard Murphy of Tax Research UK is pushing for a 'fairer tax system':
The Joy of Tax: Amazon.co.uk: Richard Murphy: 9780593075173: Books
The reasons to tax - taxresearch.org.uk

He has recently re-posted the Attlee quote:
Richard Murphy on Twitter: "First they came for Oxfam https://t.co/lK9R10pIoz via @richardjmurphy"

Which this blog has in turn referenced:
Futures Forum: Against charity: outrage and self-righteousness "will only damage the interests of the most vulnerable"

This blog has also looked at how 'philanthropy' is actually about preferring to pay fewer taxes:
Futures Forum: Against charity: against philanthropy

And how some would consider their giving to charity not as 'giving back to society' - but as a free choice: 

But what is not socially useful is to call these or any other contributions “giving back.” The implication of the term is that the donor has taken something from society by earning money and that this has created an obligation to return something through charity.

This view of charity is very counterproductive and leads to the general demonization of markets which has become rife in our society. The important point is that the act of creating wealth is itself productive. In a market economy, the only way to become wealthy is to create some good or service that others find valuable. The wealthy may contribute to social good by giving to charity, but before that, they created even more social good through the very behaviors that created their wealth.

Creating Wealth Does More Good than Giving it Back - Foundation for Economic Education - Working for a free and prosperous world

Futures Forum: Against charity: Creating wealth does more good than 'giving it back'

Clearly, there are several motivations at play when we 'give':
Wealthy give to charity to feel good, not avoid tax - Financial Times 

But a consequence of giving the money you earn to charity (rather than the state) is that it is counter to the social democratic notion of progressive taxation: 

The charitable giving model is an undemocratic use of funds

The UK’s Gift Aid gives the wealthy more sway in the allocation of scarce resources

'The subsidisation of the charitable sector in the UK costs well over £6bn a year' © REX/Shutterstock

Merryn Somerset Webb FEBRUARY 24, 201883

If you haven’t been in the habit of making regular donations to Oxfam, you might now be feeling a little smug. After all, you haven’t been suckered into misdirecting your cash towards what is now known to be an unpleasantly imperfect organisation. None of your money has been spent on salaries for employees who reckon that the perks of a foreign posting include the foreign prostitutes.

I’m afraid I have some bad news. You have not only donated to Oxfam, you have been doing so for years. And you still are. Oxfam may have given up on applying for millions in government grants this year, but tens of thousands of people still give money — a total of £54m in the year to March 2017 — and the vast majority of those donations attract Gift Aid. This allows registered charities to claim back from the Treasury any basic-rate tax paid on gifts to those organisations.

For each £100 donated to Oxfam, its accountants will go to the public coffer and demand another £25. Higher-rate taxpayers can then claim back £25 in their self-assessments. Additional-rate payers can ask for £31.25.

This means that every £100 given to charity by a basic-rate taxpayer will cost the Treasury £25, £100 given by a 40 per cent taxpayer costs £50, and the same amount from an additional rate taxpayer, costs £56.25. If, for example, Jeff Fairburn, the newly super-rich chief executive of housebuilder Persimmon, hands over £10m of his bonus to charity, his gift will (assuming it would all attract tax at 45 per cent) cost the Treasury — and hence the rest of us — £5.65m.

The phrase “Gift Aid” somehow suggests there is free money available. There is not. If Mr Fairburn gave his £10m to his favourite museum, the rest of us would instantly be down the equivalent of 100-odd primary school teachers for a year. The more goes in Gift Aid, the less there is left for public services.

Add in other state subsidies offered to official charities (business rates relief, VAT relief, exemptions from capital gains and dividend taxes) and the money redirected from the state to registered charities starts to add up: the subsidisation of the charitable sector in the UK costs well over £6bn a year.

This situation is not unique to the UK. Most countries offer tax credits of some sort for charitable giving. But the UK is remarkably lenient. We put very few limits on Gift Aid (even the US limits it to 50 per cent of earned income), we refuse very few applications for charitable status, and we do little to regulate existing charities.

That’s not good. The state urgently needs cash to spend on most people’s priorities: transport, infrastructure or education, for example. The ideal behind the progressive collection of taxation is the creation of a large pool of funds that can be used to pay for the provision of the services demanded by an electorate. Letting people opt out of this system and direct the money they owe in tax to one special interest undermines democracy.

The problem is particularly bad when practically no discretion is applied to what kind of organisation counts as a charity. Take religion. About one-third of US charitable donations go to religious organisations. In the UK is it about 20 per cent. Is the taxpayer happy to support religion on this scale?

What about the several charities in the UK devoted to the promotion and practise of homeopathy? The UK medical establishment is clear that homeopathy is “at best . . . a placebo and a misuse of scarce NHS funds”.

The NHS will no longer fund homeopathy, so how does subsidising it offer value to the general taxpayer? It’s absurd. The existence of Gift Aid means the wealthy have more say over how our scarce resources are allocated than the less well-off — the more you give, the more tax you are able to hypothecate.

Would toning down tax relief make a difference? Most research suggests not. But if we watch the US we will soon find out. Part of Donald Trump’s tax reform involves raising the standard income tax deduction for most people substantially — a plan that vastly reduces the value of charitable tax deductibles.

One standard argument is that we need to regulate the sector more closely. That would allow us to avoid subsidising the wasteful and force the kind of oversight of big charities that would find out the bad apples sooner rather than later.

The UK’s Charitable Commission constantly claims that what it needs is more resources. What they actually need is fewer official charities. A good 99 per cent of the organisations with charitable status in the UK should have it removed. They can carry on accepting donations and doing their work, but as civic organisations rather than state-sanctioned and subsidised bodies. A charitable endeavour should be defined by its intention and actions, not its status.

Reducing the number of charities would mean they can be properly regulated, inspected and held to the same standards of value and behaviour as all other publicly financed institutions. Salaries can be brought back down to earth, expenses reduced and senses of entitlement removed. The savings can be redirected to core state services.

None of this is likely to be popular, but given the increasingly obvious failures of much of the third sector, a global crackdown on charitable tax breaks is on its way. The UK has a great opportunity to use the horrors at Oxfam as motivation to lead reform of the sector.

The writer is editor-in-chief of MoneyWeek

The charitable giving model is an undemocratic use of funds - Financial Times 

.
.
.