Uk charity staff salaries

[OldBlueLady]

I think they gave them the benefit of doubt because these type of charities are often doing work that social services should be doing.
If an employer needs to make you redundant you get a payment, it's the law.

Maybe our MPs should be looking at investing in social services and civil servant jobs rather than cutting back, and rather than allowing charities the opportunity to exploit loopholes that may be around. These kind of services should be administered by professionally qualified people, and NOT, imho, by charities.

 

[mrsblue]

I think they gave them the benefit of doubt because these type of charities are often doing work that social services should be doing.
If an employer needs to make you redundant you get a payment, it's the law.

Its very likely that it will be shown the place was run in a shambolic fashion and not value for money. But I lose faith in the reporters when they throw around one liners that seem to be negative hype.

Without wishing to upset anyone,

Many charities raise vast amounts which then goes on inflated salaries,I think many are just glorified gangsters mugging off the public.They adopt cruel tactics with their barrage of phone calls ,texts and even door knocking,it's wrong preying on the elderly.

 

[rigsby]

I completely agree that charities should be accountable.
I don't take this information on face value though. She had 5 assistants. That information could mean something or nothing. To judge you would need to know their job description and hours. If they were all full time and booking appointments at the nail bar and picking up her dry cleaning then that would not be appropriate but I suspect that they may have positions that incorporate a party of the charity and they also arrange things for her obo that section of the charity. Just guessing but I'm saying that a tabloidesque '5 personal assistants' line probably isn't what that implies.


Bear in mind she is a walking advert for her charity. People know of her charity because of the way she looks and she is photographed and talked about. Boris Johnson spends more of his time playing the buffoon for cameramen for the same reason. It's all just PR.


Handing out cash for kids to buy drugs. That for me is where I question the validity of the criticism. I got pocket money, my dad never asked for receipts as he gave it to me to decide what to spend it on. If it was CDs, football, drugs, porn - he would never know. They were giving cash to kids to have a level of responsibility for cash that was just theirs. That is not a bad thing and inevitably some kids will spend it on drugs same as that's where my pocket money could have been spent. Kids that are cooped up in little flats with parent(s) with low income - if someone trusts them with a bit of cash to do what they want with there can be a lot of value in that.


I'm all for scrutiny of a charity who are responsible for a lot of funds. I'm not up painting everything they did in a bad light as not everything has to be painted in a shade of miserable.

To me she always looked and came across as a total fraud. In fact whenever she came up in conversation I always referred to her as a total wrong'un.

Agree with mrsblue about her interview.... although I think she is stupid but thinks she's smart.....as do many conmen/women that I've ever crossed paths with.

 

[davewebbsbrain]

People who have charities in their will are fools. In the main, monies left to charities like Cancer charities go straight into the fatcats pockets and not to fund research. A charity should be just that. There shouldn't be fatcats sitting at the top with huge salaries.

Some say these fatcats earn their money, drawing in extra funding etc but I am not sure they need a big salary, big office, big car to do this

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

People who have charities in their will are fools. In the main, monies left to charities like Cancer charities go straight into the fatcats pockets and not to fund research. A charity should be just that. There shouldn't be fatcats sitting at the top with huge salaries.

Some say these fatcats earn their money, drawing in extra funding etc but I am not sure they need a big salary, big office, big car to do this

Communist!

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Maybe our MPs should be looking at investing in social services and civil servant jobs rather than cutting back, and rather than allowing charities the opportunity to exploit loopholes that may be around. These kind of services should be administered by professionally qualified people, and NOT, imho, by charities.

Completely agree. All sorts of government work is syphoned off to charities and private companies. Social Services, education, prison service, transport, post, etc etc. And once it is accountability is difficult to manage and profiteering can result.

 

[mrsblue]

People who have charities in their will are fools. In the main, monies left to charities like Cancer charities go straight into the fatcats pockets and not to fund research. A charity should be just that. There shouldn't be fatcats sitting at the top with huge salaries.

Some say these fatcats earn their money, drawing in extra funding etc but I am not sure they need a big salary, big office, big car to do this

Going back a few year's ago,

The CEO of Oxfam was on a staggering £150,000 per year for completing something like 30 days work!
RSPCA are probably the most secretive of the lot,they constantly refused to divulge their salaries.

Around 2009 I took a telephone call from an old lady,she asked if I would accept a paper money box and ask neighbours and friends to put change into the box,I never did ask anyone BUT the old crone constantly badgered me and suddenly I had begging letters from every charity you can think of,conmen and conwomen.

 

[steveo]

[h=1]CAN YOU ALL PLEASE SIGN AND SHARE THANKS



UK CHARITY STAFF SALARIES[/h]
[h=2]TO: GOVERNMENT + CHARITY COMMISSION[/h] Campaign created by david west https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/uk-charity-staff-salaries#

---

FACEBOOK
TWITTER
EMAIL



Put a cap on all UK based Charity's staff and consultants where their salary can be no more than the PM.

[h=3]Why is this important?[/h]Most charity staff do a fantastic job and receive no salary at all. I realize if you want good employees you have to pay them a reasonable wage but surely it is wrong for charity's to pay out mega bucks.

Surely the reasoning is that the more you pay, the better quality of fund raiser you hire and the more money you raise. Don't forget all these charities are competing with each other.

 

[mrsblue]

Surely the reasoning is that the more you pay, the better quality of fund raiser you hire and the more money you raise. Don't forget all these charities are competing with each other.

Its a charity though,do the top dogs really need salaries in excess of 100k for a few days work.

 

[Pubey]

Its a charity though,do the top dogs really need salaries in excess of 100k for a few days work.

Salaries tend not to be paid on what someone needs.

Bankers don't 'need' ridiculously large bonuses. They're paid because they are skilled individuals in a competitive marketplace.

You can question the morality of both, but the salaries of CEOs for charities are a drop in the ocean compared to what gets paid in the financial sector.

 

[steveo]

Its a charity though,do the top dogs really need salaries in excess of 100k for a few days work.

So would you rather they pay 50 grand and raise half the money?