Writing in the Telegraph, Dalrymple speaks out against the charity Save the Children, which he says rewards its management under the pretense that British children are starving:
The first thing to say about it is that, like so many charities in Britain today, it is not a charity, at least not in the normal sense of the word. It is part of the charitable-bureaucratic complex that is to modern Britain what the military-industrial complex was to Eisenhower’s America. Like most bureaucracies, it is there to serve itself.It spent £88 million on humanitarian assistance in 2009 and £58 million on staff wages (it was far from the worst in this respect: the Child Poverty Action Group spent £1,551,000 of its income of £1,990,000 on wages). In 2009, its chief executive was paid £137,608 which, while not vast by the standards of commercial chief executives, was more than six times the median British wage at the time. This is certainly not what individual donors might think or hope their money is spent on; and it is certainly not what I think charity is.
I agree with the doctor on this one, I have for many years suspected that many of the main charities no longer serve the poor/unfortunate but are their for themselves.
I recommend this for anyone who wants to read further into it. http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/Sock%20Puppets.pdf
I do not agree on Mr Snowdon’s view of drugs but he is dead right with regards to UK charities. You can also include the National Lottery in this too in how its charity funding is used.