Fewer Britons giving to charity, study says, with donations down by ÂŁ1.4bn, reports the Guardian.
The article gives cost of living pressure as the main reason for the decline in giving. Commenters in this thread on the UKPolitics subreddit also mention invasive chuggers and the fact people tend not to have cash on them these days.
The article itself continues,
Peter Grant, an expert in philanthropy at Bayes Business School, said the decline in giving also reflected a more polarised society. âCulture warâ attacks mounted by rightwing politicians and media on voluntary organisations such as RNLI and the National Trust had undermined the wider legitimacy of charities among some donors.
Maybe, but far from being the victims of “attacks mounted by rightwing politicians and media”, a lot of charities seem to have been eager to volunteer for the front lines of the culture wars.
This excerpt comes from the section of the website of Oxfam International headed “What We Do”:
3. Center decolonial and feminist practice in our organization
Decolonization is intrinsic to achieving gender justice for all. Our sector comes from an extractive colonial history â hetero-patriarchal and racist in nature. Neocolonial dynamics continue to shape our sectorâs work and approaches. We will evolve into an organization that centers decolonial and feminist practice by building on our principles and initiatives to deeply integrate them into every aspect of our work.
There speaks a soldier of the culture wars. How long did they expect to keep waving their banners without anyone noticing that they had picked a side?
I believe that Oxfam does still occasionally do the “help suffering people in emergencies” thing that most of those who buy from or volunteer to work in their charity shops think is their main purpose. That’s my excuse for buying that nice scarf I saw in their window the other day, anyway. But I wonder what proportion of what I paid for that scarf went to pay the salaries of the sort of people who write “hetero-patriarchal” with a straight face. And writing guff about “neocolonial dynamics” is actually one of the less bad things some of Oxfam’s paid staff have got up to over the last few years, as can be seen by reading some of the many previous Samizdata posts about Oxfam at this link.
Added later: Here is another example of Oxfam’s enthusiastic participation in the culture wars:
JK Rowling: Oxfam sorry for video after ‘cartoon JK Rowling’ accusation.
Oxfam has apologised after posting an animation for Pride Month featuring a character in a “hate group” who some say resembles author JK Rowling.
The charity has denied the cartoon woman with red eyes and a “Terf” badge is based on the Harry Potter writer.
In trying to make a point about “the real harm caused by transphobia”, Oxfam said it had “made a mistake”.
Compare the pictures in that BBC article and see if you believe Oxfam when it said that “There was no intention by Oxfam or the film-makers for this slide to have portrayed any particular person or people.” I do not. In the Telegraph’s account of the same story, the resemblance is even clearer. Some smart work by the Telegraph’s picture editor has almost certainly found the very photograph of Ms Rowling which Oxfam’s cartoonist had in front of them when they drew the middle witch.
That’s taking a side. I have read several comments by people who are on the same side who acknowledge and deplore this. When you alienate half the population, don’t be surprised when they stop giving you money.
Oxfam is a political organization first.
“âCulture warâ attacks mounted by rightwing politicians and media on voluntary organisations such as RNLI”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-68490291
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13120787/RNLI-rebellion-volunteers-quit-row-bullying-anti-English-racism-rescuers-tiny-inflatable-boat-holds-eight.html
But of course it’s “right wing” attacks.
WTF’s “center” ?
A close friend of my wife died of cancer just over a year ago. Toward the end of her life she received exceptional care from a local hospice. They now get the majority of my charitable donations. I am very reluctant to give to any charities nowadays unless I can be sure that they donât do more harm than good. Any that get taxpayers money are discounted immediately as they are already picking my pocket.
Oxfam are a vile organisation. The quoted passage really is nonsensical gibberish. Anyway, isn’t it a kind of colonialism telling Johnny Foreigner how to treat women? They seem to have the whole thing backwards.
My cost of living has nothing to do with why I wont pay these evil grifting fuckers one penny piece. I came to that conclusion long before the term ‘culture wars’ was even a thing.
jgf, the extract with the U.S. spelling of “center” in it came from Oxfam International who are even woker than Oxfam GB, judging from this story from 6th March:
Oxfam considered ‘scaling down’ emergency relief work to become climate ‘influencer’ over governments.
Yes Natalie – the “political attack” came from leftists who infiltrated charities and took them over.
As can be seen from the passage from the Oxfam document you cited – the language is from Frankfurt School “Critical Theory” Marxism – with its obsessions with race, sex (the Critical Theory Marxist version of feminism) and sexual practices – sexual practices that, for example, Islam would punish by death “kill the one who does it, and kill the one to whom it is done” – so if Oxfam loves homosexuality, why does it not condemn Islamic Law?. And, of course, the standard Marxist lies about the British Empire – which “Lenin” took from the so-called “liberal” Hobson – who wanted not only to wipe out Jews, but to wipe out a lot of other ethic groups as well.
Is wanting to commit genocide against racial groups not “racist”? Or is racial genocide O.K. when leftists such as Hobson and H.G. Wells push it?
Oxfam workers ?
Fucking amateurs, says Brendan Cox
What exactly is woke about the RNLI? I read the articles from Pedant General above and it looked to be more about a few asshole managers and bureaucratic sclerosis rather than woke, leftie policies. I mean I don’t want to believe it. I grew up on Blue Peter telling me all the good they did and sent some of my few measly pennies to support it as a kid. And the other thing I loved about it is that it is a such a great example of how such services can work without government coercion.
So, please someone, tell me it ain’t so!!
FWIW, @stonyground, my father died in the Princess of Wales Hospice in Glasgow, which is a charity, and they were so remarkably kind to him and supportive in his last days. It is a beautiful, sunny, positive place with kind and generous staff. How they do it, when death is an omnipresent backdrop, I really don’t know. After they moved him from Gartnavel NHS which was a horrible place — dirty, shockingly high MRSA, with staff who treated the patients as an inconvenience — to this place, it was like moving from Mordor to the Shire. They also get my money too.
I donate to the RNLI but solely to the RNLI in my town, not through Head Office.
The RNLI experimented with government funding in the 19th century, and dropped it like a hot iron as the government wanted to meddle in their operations. They’ve stayed away from government funding ever since.
Looking into their accounts, there is a mention of “1% government funding”, but digging deeper that is actually RNLI trading operations, selling training services to people who have obtained the money to pay the fees from the government.
Once upon a time, in the humanitarian logistics module of the Defence Logs Staff Cse, we had a talk from chap from Oxfam. It was pointed out to me by the academic from Lincoln running the module that his first content slide didn’t talk about their good works, but their turnover…
When I was a kid, we all gave our pennies at school to the UNICEF and Red Cross collections.
The internet (mostly) gave us a chance to learn exactly what utter jerks those people really are, and so those charities have been dropping ever since. Sounds like Oxfam has a similar story.
It all comes down to much easier-to-find information about hidden (and not-so-hidden) agendas.
Two problems with RNLI:
1. It’s massively well funded already.
2. Management are jerks-firing whole lifeboat crews for having coffee mugs with pictures of women’s boobs.
@bobbyb, FWIW I think the best thing to do is to donate locally to small charities. These global charities are almost guaranteed to both have huge overhead, and to have lost sight of their original mission. I’m sure there are exceptions, but I think doing stuff like this locally is generally a better idea.
My ex used to work for a company that was deeply tied in with United Way. I used to call it McCharity. Everyone donated, but the strange thing was that nobody seemed to know what United Way actually did with the money. It was all about “giving to charity” not about “helping families deal with hardship due to loss of loved ones” or “saving dogs and cats for rehousing” or “helping alleviate a famine in Africa.” And even on this last one Bob Geldof I think was a great guy with honestly good intentions but I actually think Band Aid made things worse not better. Why? Because it is a mega corp. in Africa with boundless opportunity for fraud and corruption.
So I think better to give locally to small organizations or organizations with whom you have a personal connection.
And what is the worst charity of all (although we aren’t allowed to call it a charity)? Welfare. How could it not be full to the brim with corruption, completely lost on what its original mission was, used as a political tool, and every other type of horrific part of what mega corp charity means. And the worst part of it is? When you give to a small charity or one you feel connected with, you get a huge benefit of feeling you are really doing some good. And you feel the sense that you get to direct what good to do with your money. And the people who receive benefits from such charities are genuinely grateful for the help. With welfare — the giver doesn’t feel great, instead he is threatened with jail if he doesn’t contribute. He has no control over where the money goes, often going to things he vehemently hates. And the recipients? They call it an “entitlement” and feel no gratitude, instead feel resentment that it isn’t enough.
There are exceptions. I know people who have been down on their luck and public assistance has been a temporary bridge to lift them up, and all of them are extremely grateful for the help. But the whole corporate set up is just ugly and nasty and any good that comes out of it is more by accident than by design.
Oxfam’s political activities became more than I could stomach thirty years ago or thereabouts (a pity, as before that I used to support them wholeheartedly). Much the same applies to a lot of other big name charities. So the question is, what has changed recently to cause a noticeable drop in funding? Have more people found out about what goes on, or something?
A lot of nonsense is talked about what “Woke” is and what its origins are – for example, some people tell us it is a mutated form of Protestant Puritanism – which is rather odd considering that the Republic of Ireland and Spain have some of the most “Woke” regimes on Earth.
In reality the matter is not particularly complicated – “Woke” is Frankfurt School “Critical Theory” Marxism – it is an effort by Marxists (going back a very long time now) to react to the “failure” of industrial workers to support Marxism, by reaching out to new “victim groups” – trying to use women, ethnic minorities, and people involved in unconventional sexual practices, as cannon-fodder for the coming to power of a Collectivist regime. People who shy away from saying, for example, that Oxfam is controlled by “Critical Theory” Marxist doctrines are a waste of space – one can not oppose Marxism if one is frighted to even name Marxism are not going to be effective in fighting it.
Fraser Orr “what is Woke about the RNLI?”
It acts as a taxi service for illegal migrants (who then go on to leech off British taxpayers and commit crimes against British people – especially women), and there is also the matter of its advertisements…..
It is not unusual for a charity to appeal for money, although television advertisements are rather expensive and a lot of money now goes to paid managers (normally the way the left gains influence in an organisation – they do it via management bureaucracy), but have a look at the advertisements – it is normally a women shown as the person going out to save people. Yes, most certainly yes, women are involved in saving people at sea – but it is not that wildly common, normally (although NOT always) it is white-straight-men who do this.
And it used to be the same people as they got older (retired and so on) who dealt with the administrative side of things – without being paid.
But then the administrative side of Oxford and Cambridge used to be handled by porters (people in charge of the entrances to colleges) who handled the administrative side of colleges (kept the registers of students and so on) – rather than the highly paid managers who do endless paper work today, and concern themselves with the “ethic, gender and sexual orientation balance” of who the students are, the Frankfurt School, “Critical Theory”, DEI-EDI Marxist tap dance of “Diversity and Inclusion”.
I think that the problem with the RNLI is their current enabling of illegal immigration. Illegal, as in accessories to crime. They are doing a lot of TV advertising at the moment, if you leave something in your will you can have your name printed on a lifeboat.
A bit pointless if you are dead.
Considering the amount we personally give to charity, I firmly believe the government handing over our tax pounds is immoral.
Longrider,
But somewhat ironic if you died at sea!
Stuart Noyes,
Absolutely. We have “Comic Relief” coming-up on the BBC which is chugging funded by government extortion. Oh, the irony. A moving spirit behind this is Sir Lenny Henry who is a firm believer in reparations for our colonial past. Would that that colonial past include his decades as a successful entertainer (which must have earned him a few quids) or his knighthood or his border-line “National Treasure” status? Lenny did better out of the Empire than I ever have. He was married to Dawn French for years so he does have that legit cause against white folks đ.
Longrider,
But somewhat ironic if you died at sea!
Stuart Noyes,
Absolutely. We have “Comic Relief” coming-up on the BBC which is chugging funded by government extortion. Oh, the irony. A moving spirit behind this is Sir Lenny Henry who is a firm believer in reparations for our colonial past. Would that that colonial past include his decades as a successful entertainer (which must have earned him a few quids) or his knighthood or his border-line “National Treasure” status? Lenny did better out of the Empire than I ever have. He was married to Dawn French for years so he does have that legit cause against white folks.
From the OP:
Now from (yes) the BBC…
Those terrible white men banned burning women alive. The hetero-normative monsters!
What gets me is a lot of this guff from the likes of Oxfam is the idea that all these coloured folks lived in an Edenic paradise in harmony with nature until Europeans came along. This is patronising racism.
“Oxfam considered âscaling downâ its emergency relief work to become a climate âinfluencerâ over governments, it was claimed today.”
That is definitely another reason not to give them any money. The amount of harm that has been done by believers in the climate crisis delusion is incalculable, any organisation promoting it is a force for evil. Of course it needs to be pushed so much harder now as it becomes more and more obvious that the supposed crisis is non existent.
Spot-on, Stonyground.
I really hope you were joking, because I read this and laughed – it was a GOOD joke! It would just be depressing if it were real.
It’s real.
https://youtu.be/N6c5izOmva8?si=DRy5g5jDbiFVcJkD