Skip to content

Oh, right

David Jones, a trustee, said the charity “complied with Charity Commission regulations”. He said its executive salaries “are lower than the peer group charities and NGOs against which we benchmark ourselves”.

So that’s OK then.

OYW has 33 staff.

Middlin’ at best then.

Annual filings reveal that Robertson, 67 today, received a £440,000 salary and benefits package for the 18 months to June 2021, despite the pandemic having interrupted the charity’s summits, its largest source of funding.

Robertson McKay, 33, also chairwoman of Conservative Young Women, manages operations and received £194,543 in salary and benefits for the same period.

So which bit do we complain about then?

The amount of money? The other charities they select as comparators? Or the general level of pay in the field?

18 thoughts on “Oh, right”

  1. Hold on, it’s funding is from holding meetings with other charities? They literally make money from being a talking shop?

  2. A magnificent scam, well done! They correctly spotted that idiot corporations will shove huge amounts of their shareholders money at this vague hopey changey bullshit and that even stupider celebrities will add their support in exchange for a few freebies and the chance to spout platitudes in public.

  3. The inevitable consequences of well-heeled individuals, organisations and most regrettably governments purchasing 21st century indulgences become obvious once any scrutiny is applied as with this rather sorry bunch, the founders of the Captain Tom charity (which as far as I can make out simply gave grants to 4 other organisations), the risible Kids Company or the real pros like Patrice “4 Mansions” Cullors.

    However all of these pale into insignificance when compared to the allegedly still un-audited Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative. Maybe one of the 87,000 new IRS agents could finally get round to it.

  4. Jimmy Hoffa: any good cause will in time become a business and then turn into a racket.

    Charity – to give freely. Charity workers used to be volunteers working in their spare time, or ladies at leisure or retirees.

    When did ‘charity’ become multimillion/billion Pound political, ideological enterprises and a highly paid profession and career?

    Charities which employ people should be treated as companies and taxed. Most should be investigated by the police for racketeering- particularly the environment ‘charities’.

  5. One is forced to wonder how the salary of the CEO of said “charity” would compare with that of the Managing Director of a run-of-the-mill commercial enterprise employing a similar number of people…

  6. @ John B
    You mistyped “e.g.” as “or” before “ladies” – both retirees and ladies of leisure were and are volunteers.

  7. No, I think I know what he means, john77. The first group are volunteering in the time they don’t devote to other work activities. With the second two groups it often not “spare time” because all of their life is spare time. They become involved in charity work because it becomes a purpose in an otherwise purposeless life.

  8. Charities n3ed to enjoy people. Charities n3ed qualified people.
    Just like churches, schools, and sports clubs need qualified people.
    Do the people here think private schools and youth organisations should pay their teachers and cooks nothing.
    Should.doctos, nurses, soldiers and vets be forced to work for free also? As they should only do it out of their heart.
    There just seems to be a right wing hatred of charities.

  9. Charities n3ed to enjoy people. Charities n3ed qualified people.
    Just like churches, schools, and sports clubs need qualified people.
    Do the people here think private schools and youth organisations should pay their teachers and cooks nothing.
    Should.doctos, nurses, soldiers and vets be forced to work for free also? As they should only do it out of their heart.
    There just seems to be a right wing hatred of charities.
    . That is my view.

  10. Tank

    I will rise to the bait and say I believe the right wing, to use your phrase, including myself are resentful about forcibly funding what they see as powerful and influential organisations unashamedly hostile to their values be they charities or state broadcasters.

  11. There’s a lot of money to be made in the “sustainable conference” sector. I get about a dozen invites a week to conferences on “sustainable development”, “sustainable housing”, “low carbon this”, “zero carbon that”, all for several hundred quid a pop with “early bird” discounts, all with the opportunities to meet “leaders and policy makers in the field” from charities, local authorities, central government, etc.

    Would I pay for any of them? Not a one.

  12. “However all of these pale into insignificance when compared to the allegedly still un-audited Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative”

    The irony being that when Pootin nukes us all, the bombs will use Uranium that Hillary Clinton sold him.

  13. Charities are.an important part of a free democratic liberal society. They can provide services without the corrupting influence of big business or government.
    Do you think public schools should be treated like charities?
    The.third sector helps.many vulnerable people. The poor, minority groups,.women victims of crime famine, war, abuse and illness.

  14. Charities are.an important part of a free democratic liberal society. They can provide services without the corrupting influence of big business or government.
    Do you think public schools should be treated like charities?
    The.third sector helps.many vulnerable people. The poor, minority groups,.women victims of crime famine, war, abuse and illness. My view.

  15. And yet the left *hates* much of the non-profit sector.

    Public schools, for example.

    Apparently being part of “free democratic liberal society” is only OK if you are on their side.

  16. I once looked at the ‘thank you’ section in the annual report of the Carter and Clinton Foundations. Donors of $1m+ were listed. DfID was in there for both. So it ain’t charity at all, at least not that portion, as payment by UK taxpayer is compulsory under threat of court.
    The Carter foundation curiously campaigns for at least one UK law (on prostitution) to be changed using some UK money. Sod that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *