Do Paper Tigers, Toothless Lions, and Chocolate Teapots have one thing in common with the Charity Commission? Are they all statements of self-evident impotence?
Is the Charity Commission unfit for purpose by design, or by process, or by funding, or by staffing levels, or by staffing competence, or by apathy? Or elements of all six?
What does it take for the Charity Commission to do anything when a charity goes rogue? If they almost never act – only 200 inquiries per year out of 7000 reported problems - does that inaction effectively facilitate fingers in the till?
When do those running a charity, supposedly for public good, realise they are free to run it as their own honey pot? Is it after the first time some exaggerated expenses go unchallenged by the Charity Commission?
Or is it after realising that the Charity Commission write only a nice letter when an ex-employee has reported light-fingeredness? Or is it when the realise that denials about fingers in the till, by those with fingers in the till, have been accepted by the Charity Commission? Or is it after they discover that almost no-one with sticky digits is ever held to account by the Charity Commission? Or after they see that those who are fast of finger get to keep their skilfully acquired gains, even after being caught?
Will even previously decent people succumb to temptation when they walk through halls of gold, and everyone around them is grateful for the freely available “charity donations”? Do they express thanks in the appropriate way while receiving their “donations”? Are they appreciative of such a helpful Charity Commission?
Are there more questions than answers to the problems with the Charity Commission? Is the main question the one being asked by those in receipt of “donations”? Are they asking themselves, if no-one is held to account by the Charity Commission, is that my green light to pick up more green stuff?
