100%. All too often heralded community efforts and initiatives are non existent beyond the spin. The same is true of so many areas of life unfortunately. It's always left to well meaning individuals to make a difference.

Especially Charity ! I always tell the chuggers I wont sign up for £10 a month, but have a way of making your charity £500,000 today, and that good cause can benefit tomorrow! Get on the phone to your charities ceo, tell him/her you have an idea, half their salary, give our charity 500k, they keep the other half, and its win win!

The function of the bigger charities is that they function as an extension of the political elites. A lot of the top jobs tend to go to politicians who, for one reason or the other, have decided/need to swerve out of the main game for a while or else the jobs go to politician's friends and family by way of influence and so on.

Always thought one of the cleverest parts of the US version of 'House of Cards' was the story arc of Claire Underwood and her role in the charity sector. Very telling.

Look at the likes of what David Miliband did when they stood down. Its a pattern repeated over and over again.

People talk of lobbying as being the most corrupting part of modern politics and they are not wrong but the role of charities/ngo's in how the current 'game' is being played out is pushing it closely for second place, and with a lot more nuances involved.

It's also how a lot of bribes, at an international level, are paid. Lets say Bongo Bongo land are in the market for tanks they don't need. The UK would never stoop so low as to just bung the right politician a brown envelope by way of securing the contract. But fund a 'charity' that the politician's relative or close friend has set up? That's how this s*** works. And why that over-seas budget everybody kicks up a fuss about is not quite what it seems.

And it's not just politicians. Corporations, Intelligence agencies and a host of others all have their vested interests in the charity sector for a whole host of reasons. The modern James Bond is far more likely to wear a pair of sandals and shorts whilst running a vaccine program in some far-flung village in the hills of the pakistan/Afghan border than swanning around in a tux and knocking back the old Martini's.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Very true the media call it soft power I call it bribery.

One more point

Indeed Matov raises a lot of overlapping issues of 'funding', and how they are described in various accounts.
'5hit the UK needs to bury in a hole somewhere' for some was designated as "Foreign Aid", whereby nasty stuff like uranium, asbestos and old car tyres where buried in a large hole in Africa/Asia somewhere.

And rich people have a lot to gain from charity work, by way off using it in their submitted accounts to reduce tax liability.

As far as the Olympics goes, there is disproportionate funding for some athletes. I can see a future where professional/sponsored athletes are (openly) allowed to compete in Olympics, rather than the sham of current amateurs.

And as for the other weighty matters, the Chinese winner is a definite no, but the GB lifter was an almost certain yes,...as long as there are no hidden extras.

I disengage, I turn the page.

The Olympics is taking a break for its mental health. I'm sure my work won't mind me taking a few months off too.
The legacy event for the next Olympics is Pretend Cause Posturing. GB expected to do well, whilst China and Russia have already lodged an appeal against it.

Red and Blue Army!