Scandal

Mypoint is these so called organisatiions like many others are no longer charirties" but big businesses run mainly for the benefit of the highly paid staff. How much actual income is spent on"administration" and how much on actual good work

Read a report recently that said 60% of all funds raised by large charities went on administration, that's disgraceful.  I only give to charities after checking their annual accounts and the charity commission website.

Most of my charity giving goes to our local scout, no salaries to be paid as money stays within the group for the benefit of the children

To a certain degree there is confusion about the status of the RSPCA as a charity and its apparent public spirited prosecution of offenders accused of cruelty.

As I recall it, the RSPCA is required by statute to act as the prosecuting body in such cases, and it is therefore important not to regard such undertakings as them acting in a charitable way.  The Police could not take the prosecution even if they were capable of it, they would have to pass it to the RSPCA. So how does this fit with the charitable status?

IMHO it would probably create a more accurate picture of the RSPCA's charitable activities, if the required investigation and  prosecution of persons of thought to be guilty of animal cruelty were  separated from the charitable activities altogether.

TF

Prosecution of persons accused of animal cruelty is the RSPCA fullfilling their remit, thats WHY many of us supporters actually support them monetarily. The Police are overstretched these days to be doing it. Our local Wildlife Crime officer was re-asigned, so there is no-one else. I dont agree with some of their fund raising practises, but the work of their  officers on the ground is first class, and deserves support.

I get annoyed with the media knocking their good work, when they are doing exactly what their supporters require of them.

 Their Charitable status was granted by Royal warrant, hence Royal Society of Protection of Cruelty to Animals.

Sorry rayjsj, but I think that you are slightly missing my point.

Firstly let me say that I entirely agree with, - and support your view on the superb work carried out by the RSPCA on the ground. Their Royal warrant is entirely justified in that respect alone!

My point was that there is a danger that the exemplary work of the RSPCA in preventing and detecting animal cruelty, might be detracted from, by their statutory  duty to act as prosecutor in such cases.

My sole reason for raising the question was because I am a supporter of the charity NOT one of its detractors.

TF

I think that some of these charities are caught between a rock and a hard place.

They clearly have to raise funds in order to exist. But fund-raising is a very labour intensive activity - not everyone wants to stand on the street rattling a tin and that probably isn't the most effective way anyway.

So they approach (or are approached by) organisations that will do the fund-raising for them. These organisations usually guarantee a minimum return for the amount they are paid - so that the charity doesn't end up paying out more in fees than it collects.

These organisations also have their own costs and they tend to be rather 'aggressive' in making sure that they hit their targets. These are the sort of campaigns that then (rightly) come in for criticism.

I agree that some people at the top of charity organisations are doing very nicely for themselves (just as in businesses) and this just does not feel right.

I also agree that the RSPCA do some excellent work - and who else would do it?

There has to be a balance here and sometimes the balance tips the wrong way.......as so often happens when money is involved.