Save the Fatcats 60


These are the top salaries at the Save the Children fund.

CEO Justin Forsyth £139,950
COO Anabel Hoult £139,950
COO / CFO & Strategic Initiatives Rachel Parr £131,970
Global Programmes Director Fergus Drake £113,300
Fundraising Director Tanya Steele £112,200
Marketing & Comms Director Sue Allchurch £111,920
Policy & Advocacy Director Brendan Cox £106,029
CFO Peter Banks £102,000
HR Director Paul Cutler £100,980

The UK average salary is 26,500.

StC has just given Tony Blair its “Global Legacy” award. What kind of people like Tony Blair? People who earn over 100,000. I am not sure that if you put money in a tin, or bought from their charity shop, you thought you were paying that many fat salaries. There are also gold plated pensions and other benefits. Justin Forsyth, the CEO, of course worked in Tony Blair’s neo-con policy unit.

As I have written before, very few charities are in any sense independent any more. Save the Children Fund gets 176 million pounds – over half its income – in grants from various governments, including over 80 million from the British government. That compares to 106 million in donations from the public. In 2012 over 70 million pounds was spent by Save the Children UK on its own staff costs. This was reduced on paper to 44 million in 2014 by the expedient of transferring some Headquarters staff from Save the Children UK to Save the Children International. I have an uneasy feeling about some of Save the Children’s accounting presentation. Justin Forsyth’s and Annabel Hoult’s salary of 139,950 sounds a lot better than 140,000 doesn’t it? Rachel Parr’s 131,970 sounds less than 132 grand.

Save the Children’s highly paid and very numerous HQ staff work in a swanky office for which they pay a staggering 6.5 million pounds a year lease. Do they really need their HQ in ultra expensive Central London? I suppose all those high earners have to get home to Islington. Their HQ costs more than all their other premises put together, including all their shops.

I wonder how much all of this is known to the 13,000 good-hearted volunteers who work many hours for nothing to support these people.

I give regularly to charity, by standing order. I am sure so do many who read this blog. If you are giving to Save the Children, I do urge you to re-target your charitable giving.


60 thoughts on “Save the Fatcats

1 2
  • Herbie

    Is this some sort of Masonic thing, or is the Serbian PM squeezing the life out of the bombing git, and with a bit of a smirk too:

    https://i1.wp.com/inserbia.info/today/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/blair-vucic.jpg

    Ee’s a big lad that, but went all putty as he shook Putin’s hand when he arrived in Belgrade to commemorate its WWII liberation.

    (at 2.44.40)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSWAVKiC9uU

    They’ll be back with their Slav brothers soon enough I expect. Bulgaria too. The Turks will be pleased.

  • Republicofscotland

    The figures are astonishing. There are more than 195,289 registered charities in the UK that raise and spend close to £80 billion a year. Together, they employ more than a million staff – more than our car, aerospace and chemical sectors – and make 13 billion ‘asks’ for money every year, the equivalent of 200 for each of us in the UK.

    But many charities have become hungry monsters, needing ever more of our money to feed their own ambitions. And while registered charities claim that almost 90p in every pound donated is spent on ‘charitable activities’, many spend at least half their income on management, strategy development, campaigning and fundraising – not what most of us would consider ‘good causes’.

    In England and Wales there are 1,939 active charities focused on children; 581 charities trying to find a cure for cancer; 354 charities for birds; 255 charities for animals, 81 charities for people with alcohol problems and 69 charities fighting leukaemia.

    All have their own executives, administrators, fundraisers, communications experts and offices, but few will admit they are doing exactly the same thing as other charities. Take the case of Ethiopia.

    Two decades ago there were 70 international charities operating there, today the figure is close to 5,000.
    A 2013 parliamentary inquiry into the charity sector found there were so many charities that the Charity Commission for England and Wales was struggling to ensure that most registered charities were genuine, rather than tax avoidance schemes or political campaigning groups.

    The inquiry said the Commission, which receives more than 900 calls, letters and emails every day, didn’t have the staff to check whether our donations were actually going to real charitable purposes at all.

  • Republicofscotland

    Whilst we’re on the subject of “Charities”
    _________________________________________

    A coalition is building to strip Scottish Private Schools of their “Charitable Status.” there have been strong calls to remove what has been called a taxpayers subsidy for private schools in Scotland.

    The Scottish government are looking at ways to scrap this obscene public subsidy its morally wrong. It means all taxpayers including the poorest are, subsidising the rich and the privileged, to privately educate their children.

    Fettes College where the war criminal Tony Blair was educated is a prime example.

  • Republicofscotland

    So-called ‘charities’ for the most part are nothing more or less than a means of extracting even more money from the masses to swell the already overflowing coffers of the mega-rich.

    We need to collectively realise that we are being scammed on a massive scale and every time we respond to the emotional blackmail emanating from these highly dubious institutions 24/7, we are no more contributing to a ‘good cause’ than we are in buying the corporate rubbish masquerading as ‘consumer goods’, which largely originate from the same sources, as the large charities are more often than not, simply a thinly-disguised front for propounding the corporate policy and interests of our Elite masters.

    It very much goes ‘against the grain’ to actually even attempt to write this piece, such is the power of the propaganda directed at us, but write it and fight the internal conflict I must, if we are to spread the word regarding this hoax.

    But firstly let me state for the avoidance of doubt, that I have nothing but admiration, except maybe tinged with a little sadness, for the millions that freely give what little spare time they have as voluntary workers for many of these utterly unscrupulous organisations.

    These people are some of the most selfless on the planet and yet they are being deceived on a monstrous scale by the Elite bloodsuckers who perpetuate this state of affairs without even so much as a mild attack of conscience.

    Whether we are being almost literally accosted in the street by someone thrusting a collecting box at us, or subjected to massive multi-million pound advertising campaigns in the media, the name of the game is indeed emotional blackmail of the most insidious yet persuasive kind.

    There is something innate in the human psyche (apart from those psychopaths who prey upon us) which engenders in us a need to show others that we are essentially, ‘good’ and ‘caring’ people and it is this desire that is subtly turned against us to perpetrate the hoax of charitable donations.

    I do not include within this category, small local charities, run by and for victims of various kinds of suffering or injustice, but all those world-wide and nationwide, household-name type charities, whose names with whom we are all so familiar.

    We should also consider the more basic issue of why these grand-scale charities are needed in our supposed enlightened times, anyway.

    Are we not supposed to be civilised beings?

    Or are we so uncivilised that we cannot or will not adequately feed and otherwise generally care for every under-privileged member of our species?

    Have you even ever asked yourself the question as to why this may be the case?

    If the mega-rich really wanted poverty and hardship to end, they could do so almost overnight by expending a small amount of the daily interest from their enormous fortunes.

  • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)

    Debt relief and the 0,7% of GNP aid target have had sticks poked at them over the day, in particular by by Baal-Komodo.

    On debt relief:

    “The 1998 Summit in Birmingham expanded debt relief for poor countries, freeing up funding for spending on essential public services like health and education. At Gleneagles in 2005, G8 leaders pledged to Make Poverty History with significant further debt cancellation and pledged $50 billion in extra aid.”

    and

    “Sierra Leone had nearly all its debt written off in the aftermath of the 2005 G8. On condition it did what the World Bank said. Does it look today as if its health and education, supposedly freed up by debt relief, have improved?”

    Is anyone seriously saying that that those initiatives by the G8 should not have been taken? And that substantial debt relief has not actually occurred?

    The reference to essential public services (in particular Baal-Komodo’s jibe re. Sierra Leone) miss the point, which is that if the poorest countries are dispensed from the obligation to pay interest and repay capital on loans they have taken, some national income is presumably freed up to pay for/buy other things, eg medical and school services. The fact that some of those poorest countries – whose poverty stems in part at least from corrupt and inefficient government – choose not to do so is hardly the fault of the countries which have forgiven the debts owned to them. And it lends weight to an increasing emphasis, within the context of foreign aid, on good governance in recipient countries.

    On the 0,7% of GNP aid target:

    Again, do I get the impression that this target is being criticised on here? In the past, only Sweden and (I think) the Netherlands were meeting that target. If it is the case that the UK is now reaching it (or near to it) then I should have thought that that should be welcomed rather than sneered at, surely?

    I shall come back to a few elements in Craig’s post in due course.

  • CanSpeccy

    Should people be more concerned if executives of a 150 million pound a year charity are paid 140,000 pounds a year, which is approximately what an ambassador is paid, or if they are paid only 26,000 pounds a year, about what a bus driver earns?

    If you want competent executives to manage a charity you surely have to be pay competitive salaries.

    What should be of concern is how the money is actually dispersed. It is the overall efficiency of the organization in getting benefits to intended recipients that matters. To that end, I believe that all charities should be required, on demand, to provide those they solicit for funds with a clear, concise statement of their accounts.

    In fact, I propose a new charity, to be called Accountants for Better Charitable Accounting. This organization would work with accountants who donate time to auditing the accounts of other charities and preparing clear summaries for public distribution.

  • Je

    Don’t worry. Blair can see how this controversy is damaging the charity and will have the decency to return the award. Forsyth will realise how toxic the Blair brand is and will resign. Powell will realise how being at the centre of a government involved in a murderous invasion disqualifies him from being on the board of Save the Children. And he will resign also. Those left will at last grasp how enormous salaries and extravagent HQs are not how charity money should be spent. (And pigs will fly.)

  • glenn_uk

    @CanSpeccy: “If you want competent executives to manage a charity you surely have to be pay competitive salaries.

    You must be thinking of Irene Khan, former UK director of Amnesty International, who had to resign in disgrace for causing a lot of embarrassment to the organisation (and its members). As a reward for this incompetence, she was handed £533,103 goodbye gift from AI funds. A stooge of hers, some personal assistant, was also given some £160K (as I recall). She also had a luxury flat, chauffeur driven car, and all sorts of various perks thrown in. Not to mention generous relocation and “living” allowances.

    http://www.scotsman.com/news/163-500-000-pay-off-for-amnesty-chief-1-1501851
    And…
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/nov/11/nick-cohen-is-amnesty-fit-fight
    (sorry about the Cohen ref).

    That’s a competitive enough level of pay and competence for you, CanSpeccy?

  • Jo-Anne_E

    At least there doesn’t seem to be too much of a discrepancy between male/female salary earnings. StC are doing one thing right.

  • Jives

    Spot on Craig.

    Im so angry and nauseated im gonna e-mail them in the morning and ask the exact same question of these troughers.

    Disgusted.

  • Sally

    Working as a missionary physician in the third world tropics, for many years. It is common place to go to a small village and in a small store see a big box that says, world food program not for sale, ask the store owner, what is that, oh that is rice, how much, x per kilo. The world food program, the charities, go to the charity execs first, then the national government gets the next pick, then the provincial government gets the next pick and the mayors of the small town gets the rest.

    I got some materials together, I went to a disaster zone and gave it directly to the needy. I was
    almost killed by the mayor and his relatives.

  • Elron

    “What kind of people like Tony Blair?”

    The more pertinent question would be “Why would people like Tony Blair?”. I’m more concerned with what influence has been sitting on their shoulder quietly whispering “Tony Blair” into their lughole? They must surely know the toxicity of the man – they were pressured no doubt by some shadowy organisation that Tony is merely a PR man for.

  • Uzbek in the UK

    Bravo Mr Murray. Very well exposed bastards. Unfortunately most of the large charities got involved with politics and loose their primal sense. I bid there are thousands of volunteers working for no pay at all for this fund and few dozens of fat cats grabbing more than 2 millions between them.

  • Scouse Billy

    I recall the opprobrium I received for pointing out the “failings” of this charity here a few years back.

    Funny how things turn around – nice to see you getting something right Craig 😉

    For anyone interested, here’s a real doctor and activist that knows what’s really going down (Medecins sans Frontiers, don’t make me laugh):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3cvqrNvcR8

  • Mary

    Fat cats: £25m is too much

    Thursday 27th Nov 2014
    Bosses club slams ‘inflammatory’ BG Group chief executive pay deal

    BRITAIN’S fat cats scrambled to distance themselves from their club’s newest applicant yesterday, slamming the “inflammatory” £25 million pay packet offered to the would-be chief executive of BG Group.

    Outraged gas workers demanded an 85 per cent tax “deterrent” on millionaire wages after Helge Lund was offered pay worth that of 2,113 minimum-wage workers to run the privatised firm.

    The Institute of Directors (IoD) said it feared that the cash-and-shares package would be “a red rag to the enemies of the free market” and urged shareholders to reject it at a December 15 extraordinary general meeting.

    Mr Lund — currently head of 67 per cent Norwegian state-owned Statoil — is being offered a £12m “golden hello” in shares and up to another £14m a year if he hits performance targets.

    The IoD warned: “This pay deal would do serious damage to the reputation of British business six months ahead of a general election,” branding it “excessive” and “inflammatory.”

    But the offer is in line with previous payouts at BG Group, the oil and gas exploration wing of formerly state-owned British Gas.

    Following its 1986 privatisation under Tory PM Margaret Thatcher it has offered a string of top executives eye-watering packages to head up its operations.

    Since 1991, when then British Gas chairman Robert Evans faced the public’s rage for accepting a 66 per cent pay rise to £370,000, the BG Group spin-off has handed out deals worth up to £28m.

    Energy industry union GMB said the IoD was right to fear that Mr Lund’s offer “will bring big business into even more disrepute.”

    But GMB national secretary Gary Smith demanded a big tax rise on those earning £1m, warning that words “will not stop them.”

    He said: “The top managers right across industry and commerce help themselves to vast sums simply because they can do so and no-one stops them being simply greedy.

    “That is why GMB calls for a top tax rate of 85 per cent for very high pay — not to raise revenue but to stop the likes of BG offering £25m in the first place.”

    The current average executive pay and shares package within Britain’s top 100 stock market-listed companies stands at more than £2.43m a year, according to analysts Income Data Services — 92 times the average wage and 205 times the minimum wage.

    Directors’ pay has risen six times faster over the past 14 years than ordinary workers’.

    “Deterring excessive pay for top managers will leave more to be shared with the all the team who create the wealth,” Mr Smith said.

    http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-1f06-Fat-cats-25m-is-too-much

    ~~~~

    Not forgetting BG is colluding with Israel in stealing Palestinian gas.

  • Tom

    Disgusting, wish we can STC to court for abuse of admin costs. No salary should be above 50k, or they should seek work elsewhere.

  • Scott Edgefield

    A related concern is how these high-flying “charity” executives can also end up with real political clout over all of us. They move up the slippery pole, hopping from one charity board to another, without ever having to produce the quantifiable results those of us in the real world have to in order to succeed.

    Eventually they might get a knighthood for their “good works”, and end up on the board of a hospital or such. Next thing you know they are rewarded with a peerage and are sitting in the House of Lords, where they can actually affect our nation’s laws without even being elected…. ever.

    They could even get appointed to something in the EU, and REALLY avoid any direct accountability. How else can you explain a nobody like Baroness Ashton coming out of the woodwork to be the de facto Foreign Minister for 500 million Europeans?

  • Ba'al Zevul

    Mark – Your Osborne post – looks like he’s hyperventilating, possibly in an attempt not to pass out completely. He’s been looking noticeably unwell this month –

    https://www.facebook.com/ScottishIndependence2/posts/1716617848564142

    A commentator thinks he’s turning into Tony Blair, but my guess is Michael Forsyth.

    Far be it from me to hope that he collapses under the strain and is taken to a busy inner-city NHS A&E around midnight. Far, far.

  • glenn_uk

    @Scouse Billy: “…Medecins sans Frontiers, don’t make me laugh”

    Why should they make you laugh? You’re the comedian around here.

  • Mary

    Leaked email: Save the Children trying to “contain” damage from Tony Blair award

    Save the Children is trying to tamp down coverage and “contain” the damage from the award given to former UK prime minister Tony Blair by its US arm.

    A leaked internal email to staff from the international charity’s chief executive Jasmine Whitbread does not indicate, however, that the charity intends to withdraw the “Global Legacy Award” Blair received at a glittering New York gala on 19 November.

    http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/leaked-email-save-children-trying-contain-damage-tony-blair-award

  • anti-hypocrite

    All major ‘charities’ are run by ‘fatcats’.

    Hasn’t David Milliband taken up such a fatcat job in America? Gordon Brown flourishes on charity.

    It is a disgrace that ‘Save the Fatcats’ UK spent 70 million pounds out of 176 million pounds or so collected on its own staff costs.

    People give to charity on the understanding it goes to the needy, not to these fatcats and their high paid staff.

    In my view, charities should be mainly run by volunteers and any staff pay should come from the government and should be very basic. Running costs should also be borne by the government and again be basic. Every single penny collected for charity should go to charity.

    I am also opposed to charities feeding the advertising industry. Advertising by charities should be banned.

  • Alan

    Utterly depressing. Children will suffer because the rich and greedy take their massive cut of public money before it goes on to the needy.

  • Clare

    I like Book Aid – £2 buys a book for Africa. You can set your donation to whatever you want but rest safe in the knowledge that every £2 buys a book for a library that will treasure it.

    They used to get government grants but lost them due to the austerity measures.

    http://www.bookaid.org/donate/

  • Jemand

    I’ve known for years that corporate charities are fronts for fatcats. But people who want to feel good about themselves don’t like that message. If you want to give to those in need with no admin overheads, buy a homeless bum a sandwich.

1 2

Comments are closed.