I have been pondering the statement from the Chair of the @ChtyCommission all week. A number of the assumptions are a little troubling: especially the curious, circular arguments that charities should confirm to what the public think a charity should be. https://charitycommission.blog.gov.uk/2020/06/17/building-charity-fit-for-a-post-covid-19-world/

Two key problems: (1) How do you judge what "the public" think charities should be? The CC needs to be absolute sure that its survey data is robust and those answering question were informed and aware of exactly what was being asked (incl definitions of 'charity' and 'trust' etc)

(2) But, in a wider sense, why should charities confirm to some ill-defined set of (often romantic) notions held by "the public"? We have a set of definitions of "public benefit", developed over a long period by elected representatives and encoded in law.

I fear it is reminiscent of provocateurs setting "the public" against "elected elites" & "bureaucracy". And it leads to unusual conclusions: not least a suggested redefinition of the charity register - surely a register of organisations that have charitable status.

To redefine it as "not offering a place for life" is odd. Why would an org not be there for "life" if it maintains its charitable status? What are the standards beyond legal definition and compliance with charity law that earn a charity a place on the list?