BBC spend children in need charity money fraudulently

[jimboston]

So you all agree I’m right here?

About what? You think the BBC charity in the OP is a fraud too?

The point that I gather is that the charity is meant specifically for children and not for business. Meaning, the donations that were received were not given to the intended target. One could make the argument it was fraudulent, intent aside.

I’m not saying it was fraudulent in the sense that people running it are doing so for their own benefit or anything like that. I have no idea if that’s the case or not.

I am saying that JD’s point is valid... charities (who solicit donations for a SPECIFIC PURPOSE and who receive special tax breaks from the Gov’t) should be held to the highest ethical standards. Their should be no false advert and nothing close to crossing that line.

Based on my quick scan it appears this charity cleared ‘bent the rules’ and/or played fast and loose with what most would consider something designed SPECIFICALLY to benefit children.

[jimboston]

So you all agree I’m right here?

Nope, just can't be bothered arguing about this one. Helping develop communities and sponsor employment opportunities is a legitimate activity for charities. I did a quick search for their mission statement and couldn't find it, but I suspect an organization this high-profile is not going to do something which its own rules don't allow. If you're motivated enough to find their mission statement and see if there's a conflict, knock yourself out. I'm satisfied with giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Regardless of what their ‘mission statement’ says... I would argue that if the name of the charity or advertising for the charity makes a casual donator believe the money is for children, the. it should be for children. Not for adults.