Read on Twitter
Been a while since I could class myself as a historian of voluntary action, but... I have at least done the reading. So much is wrong here. https://twitter.com/tinastowell/status/1333052773877821440
Save The Children was politically charged when it was set up because it wanted to feed German kids.
But charities have always been and always will be controversial and political. This is nonsense. https://twitter.com/tinastowell/status/1333053123615551489?s=19
But charities have always been and always will be controversial and political. This is nonsense. https://twitter.com/tinastowell/status/1333053123615551489?s=19
Politics has always been "complicated". In any case, for whom was it "complicated" when the Scouts wouldn't admit gay kids? https://twitter.com/tinastowell/status/1333053614449963009?s=19
Also nonsense. It depends on your "market plan". PETA funds itself pretty well despite living to be controversial. Not all charity is middle England cake stall.
(And why do you think middle England cake stall is uncontroversial anyway...) https://twitter.com/tinastowell/status/1333054052549136387?s=19
(And why do you think middle England cake stall is uncontroversial anyway...) https://twitter.com/tinastowell/status/1333054052549136387?s=19
I don't support the Salvation Army. Shut it down. https://twitter.com/tinastowell/status/1333054345877868546?s=19
It *can* be a unifying force. It isn't its sole purpose.
What it does VERY well is paper over the deliberately-created cracks of a system designed to benefit one class and keep others subservient. Which might explain why some want it to be apolitical... https://twitter.com/tinastowell/status/1333054693807894528?s=19
What it does VERY well is paper over the deliberately-created cracks of a system designed to benefit one class and keep others subservient. Which might explain why some want it to be apolitical... https://twitter.com/tinastowell/status/1333054693807894528?s=19
