Warning Over £100,000 Charity Executive Wages

So.... you still trust Charities?

I came to the conclusion during the last 15 years that something just wasn't right about these Charities and now I see why:

Six figure salaries for staff at Britain's taxpayer-funded foreign aid charities risk bringing the industry into disrepute, the Charity Commission's chairman William Shawcross has warned.

Some 30 people working at the 14 leading UK charities that make up the 50-year old Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) are paid more than £100,000 a year, according to new figures.

A Daily Telegraph investigation into charity industry salaries showed British Red Cross CEO Sir Nick Young earns £184,000 a year.

James Forsyth, chief executive of Save the Children, earns £163,000, while the charity's chief operating officer Anabel Hoult earns £168,653.

news.sky.com...

I think a lot of your money goes towards funding these CEO's Salaries while you aren't earning a Quarter of their Salary.... also they get a lot of people working on a Voluntary Basis and don't pay them a thing while these CEO's live it up!

Going to continue giving to these causes?

Yes its a charity. However if you had the choice of not getting paid while working extremely hard, using years of experience compared with working a 'normal' job at a normal business for pay - which would you choose? you have to eat and live and get around yourself right?

Not many have a personal fortune or huge inheritance to caost for the rest of their lives working for free.

Just because its a charity does not mean that people can afford to give their time and their money.

Sure the amount seems a bit high, but if they didnt pay those wages they would have to get a "cheaper" person and that means the charity is not getting the best it needs to operate at the levels they have to.

Originally posted by Biigs

Sure the amount seems a bit high, but if they didnt pay those wages they would have to get a "cheaper" person and that means the charity is not getting the best it needs to operate at the levels they have to.

you may sell yourself to the highest bidder no questions asked but some (extremely talented) people hold themselves to a higher standard and dont do things for money or the leverage it provides them over other people

just because youre paying more doesnt mean youre getting a better "product"

reply to post by Biigs


I think it's right in your face!

'You have to work Voluntarily but I will get my £180,000 at the end of the year'

This is what is in their minds when you are given a Job on Voluntary Basis!

This isn't right.... and has anything actually changed? It's still the same in many area's!

Simply saying that talented people getting those checks, could be getting paid FAR more in other businesses and that not everyone can give their time and money at the same time.

Thats all.

How they go about announcing it and other things are certainly insensitive, but the actual pay, is logically justifiable.

Just saying it now before the thread runs away with the notion that a charity can operate 100% on volunteers and get the incredible things they do, done.

A full time employee of a charity needs to have their living costs met, I will agree. That means they need to receive a salary or some other form of remuneration in exchange for their skills and time.

However £100k+ is too much. There needs to be a cap on how much charities can spend on salaries, before they lose their charitable status, and become classed as businesses.

Just my twopenn'th.

reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist


This has been an open secret in the UK for more than ten years now, and yet it's taken this long for people to actually start talking about it.

There's one religious charity I know of (an incredibly famous one) that built a brand new office building in my city, and they drive around in luxury cars, sit in luxury offices (when they can be bothered to go into work) and demand adoration from their lowly staff like kings in ivory towers.

These people have no interest in helping people, they have an interest in lining their own pockets and trying to maintain this image of holier-than-though superiority over others. They are the lowest form of scum, pretending to be working for the impoverished while funneling money out to support their own luxurious lifestyles.

They really are some of the most despicable wastes of skin on this planet.

reply to post by Biigs


Sorry, I should have added that not all Charities are untrustworthy as there are certain ones like those fighting Cancers and Mental Health which are Legit!

Also RSPCA..

You think that's bad? Check out how much money is wasted through the United Nations.


This organisation's members are unelected. The entire outfit lacks transparency.

Not really surprising. I found this article linked a couple of days back on the same theme.

articles.mercola.com... tent=art1&utm_campaign=20130807

I must admit, it's something I have thought about a lot over the years... where does all the "charity" money go? I remember many years ago when one of the big banks collapsed - BCCI I think - when it was reported how much some of the big charities lost after parking large sums there to play the markets!