The director of OXFAM has “demanded” that the governments of “rich” countries take in a great many more refugees than they are admitting at present. Now let me suppose for a minute that the governments of these “rich” countries accede to the “demand” of OXFAM and allow in many more refugees. Let me further suppose, in the interests of a fair discussion, that this influx of refugees leads directly to unpleasant consequences for the citizens of “rich” countries: consequences such as overcrowding, increased burden on the NHS and welfare, shortage of school places, damage to social cohesion and more terrorist atrocities. Would OXFAM then accept responsibility for these undesirable consequences? Would the director put on sackcloth and ashes and, with weeping and gnashing of teeth, call on the leaders of the “rich” countries and say, “I’m really very sorry. I now see clearly that these shocking consequences are a result of my quite unjustifiable ‘demand’ that you let in more foreigners. In future, therefore, I will stop interfering in matters which have nothing to do with the work of an international charity. I will return OXFAM to its original purpose of providing blankets for disaster victims and water pumps for people who live in arid areas”?

No, of course he would never admit to having been in the wrong. And he would not cease to meddle in global politics.

OXFAM is not a solitary example of this kind of corruption – the corruption of exercising political power without political responsibility.

The RSPB long opposed wind farms, saying that these are a danger to birds – until its directors decided to spend £100million of their receipts from public donations to build a wind farm for themselves. Then they attempted to mitigate this hypocrisy by claiming that the “single biggest threat to life on earth, including bird life, is global warming.” And therefore it is right to construct wind farms. Outrageously, this ignores the fact that the public donates generously to the RSPB for the protection of birds, and not to fund the private political fantasy of the charity’s directors. The RSPB also claimed, falsely, that it devotes 90% of its funds directly to the care of birds – while spending £21million annually on advertising.

Where does this stop? It doesn’t – for the abuse of charitable purpose is widespread.

The RSPCA has changed itself into a political force to campaign against hunting with hounds – thereby, it is reported, risking the forfeit of its royal patronage.

Meanwhile, the fabric of thousands of parish churches is being ruined because of the sentimentalists who run the Bat Conservation Trust.

I’m reminded of the saying, “They want to ban bear-baiting – not for the pain it causes the bears, but for the pleasure it affords to the baiters.” When one considers the way charities today politicise themselves, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that – as with the environmentalists – it is power over the lives of others that is the first item on their agenda.

And in their sights they have particularly anyone they consider to be “rich.”

Really, they are Marxists fighting class warfare under the cover of their charitable status.

This privileged status should be taken from them.