Comic Relief invests in Arms Firms

[David Guyatt]

That's the last offing penny I give them. The stupidness and audacity of following a guideline to seek the "best returns" is heart rending. Why not then put money into a Mafia syndicate, or the narcotics business. This guy has to go!

Comic Relief accused of investing in tobacco, alcohol and arms firms

Co-founder of charity counters that investment rules mean money must be put into schemes likely to yield best returns

• Ben Quinn
  
• The Guardian, Tuesday 10 December 2013
  

Comedian Peter Kay undretakes a challenge for Comic Relief's Red Nose Day. But the charity has been criticised. Photograph: Comic Relief

The co-founder of Comic Relief has defended the charity after it was accused of investing tens of millions of pounds in tobacco, alcohol and arms companies.
Peter Bennett-Jones insisted the investments were made based on legal guidelines which state they must yield the best possible financial return.
A Panorama investigation to be shown on BBC1 on Tuesday will say that in 2007-2009, Comic Relief money was put in shares in schemes that critics say contradict the core aims of the charity. The BBC has close links to Comic Relief.
Helen Wildsmith, who manages ethical funds for charities, said of Comic Relief: "They're risking their reputation, and a charity's reputation is very precious."
But Bennett-Jones, writing on the Guardian's website, said Charity Commission guidance was clear that trustees "must invest for the best possible financial return, while taking a level of risk appropriate for money in their care".
He added: "They should only adopt an ethical investment approach with specific justification and not on the grounds of individual moral views."
Bennett-Jones stepped down this year as Comic Relief's chair of trustees after 15 years in the role. "This sounds counter-intuitive, but it is the law," he said. "The broader the issues a charity supports, the more difficult it is to justify ethically screened investment as the range of industries that might need to be excluded would seriously impact on the fundamental requirement to maximise returns."
The controversial investigation All in a Good Cause will air at 10.35pm on BBC1 following interventions by the BBC's director-general, Tony Hall, and director of news. The programme was at the centre of a row that drew in Hall in October after it was postponed.
It will include testimony from alleged whistleblowers and donors who say they are deeply uncomfortable with the route taken by some charities.
Hall's personal pre-transmission intervention was prompted by claims that a string of executives had ruled themselves out of taking decisions about the programme, as a result of the BBC's longstanding ties with Comic Relief.
The programme will also criticise Save the Children, alleging the charity has "self-censored" its criticism of the energy industry so as not to upset potential and existing corporate partners something the charity denies. "The quest for money is beginning to destroy the mission," Dominic Nutt, former head of news at Save the Children, told the programme. "Every year I would prepare a line, to go to the media, to criticise British Gas. Every year it would be quashed."
Justin Forsyth, Save the Children CEO, said in a statement released on Monday: "It is simply wrong and misleading to suggest our silence can be bought. We will continue to campaign on all the areas we think matter most to saving children's lives both at home and abroad."
Panorama also alleges that Amnesty International wasted donors' money during its Secret Policeman's Ball in 2012, which is reported to have lost the charity nearly three quarters of a million pounds.
An individual identified as "an Amnesty whistleblower" said: "The most recent Secret Policeman's Ball in 2012, which I was part of, was pretty much a disaster."
In a statement on Monday, an Amnesty International UK spokesman said: "The March 2012 Secret Policeman's Ball raised awareness of Amnesty International much more cost-effectively than advertising would have done and helped us to increase income for our human rights work. While it raises money for us, the ball's primary objective has always been to raise awareness and the fact it might not cover its costs was agreed in November 2011 when the event received final sign-off."