Neither of these are charities I'm familiar with.
But I work for a charity myself. We provide professional services to vulnerable people. Because of this, people sometimes accuse us of "wasting money" on wages. Emotionally I understand the point, but we couldn't provide these services unless we paid for them. Relying on volunteers would never provide the continuity needed to deal with a single victim over a five or six year period.
( Dr Preference AjcuiVd289, Mon 27 Feb 2012, 22:05, 1 reply)

That doesn't sound like a charity
It sounds like a commercial setup. You charge people for services carried out by paid staff. What's charitable about that?
(ubergeekian, Tue 28 Feb 2012, 9:30, closed)

I agree
Doesnt seem very charitble, it just seems like you offer a service. Just like any other company.
(Dan dan dan They tik urh jerbs!!!, Tue 28 Feb 2012, 10:09, closed)

"We provide professional services to vulnerable people."
I don't think the vulnerable people are charged for these services. The wages are paid to those who provide the service (so that they can live and continue to provide the service) from the money generated by the charity.

Giving someone something for nothing does seem pretty charitable to me. The fact that the goods or services being provided needs to be paid for by someone at some point shouldn't really be a surprise. The RNLI doesn't say "What the hell do you mean?! We assumed you'd just be giving us the new lifeboat!"
( Pig Bodine., Tue 28 Feb 2012, 12:15, closed)

OK, fair enough
If the charity raises the money from donations, shops or little old ladies' legacies then it's fine. The ones I don;t trust are those which get all their funding from national or local government contracts, pay their front line staff peanuts and their managers shedloads and then whine about being a charity.
(ubergeekian, Tue 28 Feb 2012, 15:39, closed)

More
A "Not for profit" service?
(Misery McUglywife an attention seeking sociopathic fuckstain., Tue 28 Feb 2012, 21:35, closed)