28th September 2008, 08:56 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by RedEarth
Also, I can't imagine charity shops taking over other shops (charity or otherwise). The difference could also perhaps be summed up like this - if Oxfam, for example, spent 90% of its time generating income, the majority of which was used paying the people who made that income, and then gave thruppence ha'penny to poor starving people, they wouldn't be very good as a charity.
Well there are precedents for charities taking over other charities or merging. And there is even recent legislation (2006) that specifically addresses the matter of charities merging (see press release below)
http://www.charitytimes.com/pages/ct_fea...umbers.htm
As for the parallel with a charity paying staff to make income I don't see that as valid. Surely an archaeological charity that pays 90% of its income to staff carrying out the function of the charity i.e archaeology, is actually being efficient, rather than wasteful.