Bishop Hill reports that
Daniel Hannan was on the Today Programme just now discussing EU funding of charities. He didn’t mention fakecharities.org by name, but I think it’s fair to say that our efforts may have had an effect on the news agenda.
I have been consulting fakecharities.org daily since its inception, observing the rate of growth of its database. Today there seems to be an SQL problem:
Warning: mysql_connect() [function.mysql-connect]: Can’t connect to local MySQL server through socket ‘/var/run/mysqld/mysqld.sock’ (2) in /home/f/a/fakecharities/public_html/framework/class.database.php on line 61
Can’t connect to local MySQL server through socket ‘/var/run/mysqld/mysqld.sock’ (2)
Doubtless this will be fixed before long. I hope so, having been trying to draw attention to the site, as it were, IRL.
There were a number of comments on my earlier posting which made me think that perhaps it would be a good idea to be more specific about ‘fake charities’. What I would propose is that the Charities Commissioners (once restored, the ‘Charities Commission’ having been abolished) should distinguish between organisations thus:
1. Voluntary charities: all staff are unpaid volunteers; all revenue is from donations or benefactions; all trustees are elected; contractors may be retained only ‘by the job’.
2. Charities: more than 50% of staff are unpaid volunteers; all revenue is from donations or benefactions; all trustees are elected; contractors may be retained on annual basis.
3. Tax-funded charitable trusts (TFCTs): more than 50% of staff are unpaid volunteers; more than 50% of revenue is from donations or benefactions; more than 50% of trustees are elected; contractors on annual basis.
4. Quangos with a licence to beg: organisations not qualifying in any other category.
All of this, of course, rather presupposes the reform of the Charities Commission. It would be possible to devise several further categories by permuting the parameters, as it were, but this is probably undesirable from the point of view of minimising and simplifying regulation.
Given the casual nature of voluntary work, how exactly would you decide whether somebody has done sufficient to be a voluntary worker, or whether the charity is just listing them as a voluntary worker to retain its charitable status? –
I can think of a charity I was involved with for a few years which had a few paid staff working full time / overtime; and a lot of volunteers doing bits and pieces… – such a distinction seems irrelevant…
The charity I work for accepts volunteers only if they are (a) members and (b) trained. There are no casual volunteers. I can see that some larger organisations might have a problem as you suggest but apart from somewhat formalising the volunteering process, which might not be unduly onerous, I can’t immediately think of a way round them.
DK has server problems at the moment. Mine and Tim W’s are down, too.
Understood; thanks.