Yesterday I wrote about the rather sorry tale of an MP complaining to the Charity Commission about the work of a charity, on the grounds that it was behaving too politically. This is of course in the context of a Parliament that has recently passed a Law to supress the involvement of charities in political campaigning. It should be noted that when Conor Burns complained to the regulator of charities about Oxfam, that he did so under the auspices of previous rules which have been in existence long before part 2 of the lobbying bill was passed. Although the lobbying Bill prevents Charities from political campaigning in the year before a General Election, in the case of the 2015 election the embargo begins 7 months beforehand. However I think the MP for Bournemouth West has signalled that he and his colleagues will not hesitate to challenge any attempt to take a line they don’t agree with by charities if they think their own careers could be affected.

I was surprised but rather pleased that when I tweeted about my blog last night, Mr Burns actually responded, indicating that he had read the blog. Our discussion went like this:

CB: Interesting piece. You speak of trying to address the symptoms. Through politics we try to address the causes.

IC: I used the phrase deliberately, food banks are a band aid. How does your treatment of Oxfam help either cause or symptons?

CB: Fixing the economy so it creates jobs and tax revenues. Trying to get public finances back into balance.

IC: I’m grateful for your responses, but would like an answer how reporting Oxfam can resolve causes or help with symptoms?

CB: That is to confuse 2 separate issues.  I want to test whether that sort of ad is in accord with charitable status.

I did point out in a final tweet that the idea of testing Adverts from charities for compliance with regulations in the context of social threats to our society appeared to be a bit like complaining about the paint finish on the walls of a house, that had just lost its roof. So far however and some 16 hours since my last comment Mr Burns has not responded. I think his early interest in my comments has waned. However it seems that Mr Burns is not alone in wanting to threaten Charities if they attempt to challenge the approach being taken by the Government on issues of social concern. According to a disturbing article in yesterdays Independent, someone on the payroll of Iain Duncan Smith has threatened to close down Trussell Trust if they continue to speak up about poverty in a manner that the Government finds uncomfortable.

When David Cameron first began speaking about the Big Society, many of us were very sceptical that he even understood what he was talking about and perhaps more significantly if he and his chums were prepared to listen to the charities he was appearing to court. It is now clear that people like Conor Burns and Iain Duncan Smith want charities that act like Victorian children. They want them to be seen but not heard! Sadly that aint going to happen. Mr Burns and Duncan Smith need to realise that the best way of stopping the comments and challenge is to do as Mr Burns pointed out in his first tweet. If you can address the causes of the symptons that many of us are trying to deal with, we won’t have any need to speak out. However that will take something of a paradigm shift in your policies!