Paying off Khan was 'least-worst option' according to Amnesty's IEC chair

Peter Pack, Amnesty International IEC chairman

Paying off Khan was 'least-worst option' according to Amnesty's IEC chair44

Governance | Niki May Young | 1 Mar 2011

A full and frank explanation of the reasoning behind Amnesty International's pay-off packages to Irene Khan and Kate Gilmore has been given by the organisation's international executive committee (IEC) chairman, Peter Pack, in which he describes the payment to Khan of over £533,000 as the "least-worst option".

"A lot of soul-searching" was involved in the decision to pay the former secretary-general of Amnesty's non-charitable trading arm, Amnesty International Ltd (AI), the sum of £533,103, and her deputy, Kate Gilmore, £325,244 to leave the organisation, Pack advised in a letter sent to AI staff around the globe. He described the circumstances around the settlements and advised that the "substantial majority (of the payments) reflected contractual entitlements".

After two terms in post as secretary-general of the organisation, the IEC decided in mid-2008 that it was time for Khan to make way for a change in leadership, Pack advised. This would have seen Khan exit her post at the end of her term on 31 December 2009. But Khan, who now sits on the board of the Charity Commission, disagreed with the committee's decision, and the IEC was forced to consider the options.

Pack said there were three options available to the committee: to change their decision, to dismiss Khan, or to reach a confidential agreement with her. The IEC agreed it could not change its decision and that dismissing Khan "would have done enormous damage to the operations and reputation of AI" having "a major adverse effect on the overall work of AI for human rights", Pack said. So upon consulting with a "highly-regarded London law firm" AI prepared a valedictory payment package for Khan.

Payments broken down

Khan's annual salary upon leaving AI was £132,490.

Breaking down the payments, Pack advised that £168,731 of the total was for salary, overtime and pension due for 1 April - 31 December 2009. A backdated salary increase from 1 March 2008 - 31 March 2009 totalled £58,933, and pension payments, time off in lieu and other back pay items totalled £59,014.

A further £20,000 in unpaid bonus payments from 2006 - 2009, £34,728 in relocation and housing allowances, and a £191,697 termination of employment payment were added.

"The nature of the settlement reached with Irene Khan, including the level of compensation, was in line with other organisations in similar circumstances in the UK," Pack said.

Khan produced Gilmore's settlement 

Following Khan's settlement it was decided in the second half of 2009 that Khan's deputy, Kate Gilmore would also have to leave the organisation, in line with the original intention to change leadership of the organisation. The IEC reached this conclusion, Pack said, "because Irene Khan and Kate Gilmore worked together very closely as a team". Khan was then asked to negotiate a departure package for her deputy to leave at the same time as Khan.

The package included salary and pension due for 1 April - 31 December 2009 of £85,982, a further full-year's salary and pension payments totalling £113,987, holiday and time off in lieu payments of £65,620, and a termination payment of £59,655. 

Lessons learnt

"There has not yet been time for us to absorb all the lessons learnt from the events of recent days," said Pack, "but some points are already clear and several lessons have already been implemented."

The current secretary-general, Salil Shetty, is on a salary of £192, 800 with an additional £7,800 housing allowance. But in employing Shetty, AI drew up terms "with expert legal advice", ensuring that no confidentiality agreement was signed.

Acknowledging the "anger and puzzlement" at the lack of communication with staff internationally, Pack advised that AI will improve its internal communications to "be as sensitive to the interests, needs and concerns of AI members as we are to the demands of external media".

Pack's full letter is available on the Amnesty International website.

The Charity Commission, of which Khan is a board member, issued the folowing statement: "This is a contractual matter between the non-charitable company AI Ltd and Irene Khan. Ms Khan was employed by Amnesty International Ltd, which is not a registered charity in England and Wales. There are two registered charities, Amnesty International Charity Ltd which carries out wholly charitable activities on behalf of Amnesty International Ltd, and Amnesty International (UK Section) Charitable Trust. Such legal structures are sometimes put in place by organisations like Amnesty which carry out some charitable activities and some activities which are not charitable in law. Charities can give grants to non-charitable bodies in furtherance of their purposes.

"Irene Khan, as a Charity Commission board member, was appointed by the Cabinet Office in January 2010. Even though she was not directly employed by either of the Amnesty charities registered in England and Wales, the Commission's framework for managing conflicts of interest ensures that Ms Khan is not involved in making decisions on any case relating to any of the Amnesty charities."

  • On 21 March 2011, lawyers for Irene Khan clarified details of the salary and severance package in a letter to Civil SocietyRead the letter here.

R. Rands
30 Dec 2012

Times change, organisations move on. I liked Amnesty better in the 1970's when it was more plainly devoted to campaigning on behalf of prisoners of conscience.

If I were to take philosophy to the point of daftness, I'd say it's just "growing pains" This is going on at Amnesty in the USA, as well. Susanne Nossel has resigned, effective 13 January, from the position of head of Amnesty International USA.

Here is an old piece from The New Yorker, telling something of Ms Nossel's background and its context. In addition, there is another link, a more current piece, with background on her recent resignation.

Peter Connolly
14 Nov 2012

Such disgraceful and self serving behaviour is just not acceptable. To pretend that the commercial arm is separate from Amnesty is naive and insulting. To pay out such enormous sums of money is somewhere between unethical and egoistical, and a huge insult to your supporters. You obviously have too much money and I have decided, after many years to cancel my monthly standing order to Amnesty and give it to a more deserving cause.

M Scott
9 May 2012

I am aghast at what I read though not surprised. The volunteers are being ripped off as are the public. The only charities regrettably that I feel able to contribute to are the National Trust, RNLI and Salvation Army, the big ones have a smell of corruption and greed at the top, and such high flyers have no place in such organisations, far better dedicated persons on lower remuneration with the subscriptions being properly spent.

14 Jun 2011

It is utterly grotesque that a woman who was well paid for doing her job should, as part of her terms of severance, receive, after just 9 years in the job, a salary and severance payment of over 4 times her salary. Here in the real world, after 30 years loyal public service my wife was made redundant with compensation of just over half a year's salary.
Ms Khan might (just) save her honour and the good reputation of Amnesty by returning £400,000 or so to support the causes she claims to take seriously.
Meanwhile, I am withholding the large sum of money I intended to donate to Amnesty in support of what I imagined to be its good humanitarian work, never thinking that it would go to line the deep pockets of some fatcat charitocrat.

Aron Teragram
9 Jun 2011

With conflicting views on capital punishment and the right to abortion it's small wonder that AI lost it's way under Irene Kahn. However she cleary understands that "charity begins at home". Not only is this morally questionable, but this is evidently not unique to her when AI dishes out these huge wages.
I've just read that AI France has a sliding scale of salaries whereby the highest paid recieves no more than 3.68 times the lowest salary, which I think is highly praisworthy. Perhaps AI should adopt this policy the world over, however at this rate the lowest paid employees at AI London would be earning approximately 50000 pounds.
For the reasons mentioned above I shall definitely not be renewing my 30+ years membership with Amnesty, whose enlarged policies however worthy have distracted from its original aims.

O'Sullivan Helga
6 Jun 2011

As member of AI since 1980, I am totally aghast at this news. For a long time I have noticed a certain lack of focus on the individual and I guess long gone are the days when the small groups of people devoted to letter writing and "adopting" a prisoner have been paled into the background. For my part I object to these huge sums being paid to the staff - past and present - and shall give my contributions to a more worthy organization.

Peter Bennett
13 May 2011

Charity means love but not the love of money, greed.

Pattrick Smellie
13 May 2011

Unaddressed anywhere that I can find is what led to the decision not to reappoint. I don't buy the "you can stay too long" argument.

Rather, as the member of an AI Section board during the terms of Irene Khan and Kate Gilmore, I'm pleased they are gone because of my experience of the IS leadership during that time.

Under Irene and Kate's leadership, in my view, Amnesty took massive risks with its global influence and brand by attempting to place the right to choose abortion on the campaigning agenda - an attempt that was only barely nipped in the bud, and the details of which are almost unfindable in the AI database, such is the organnisation's poor transparency. However, inside the engaged leading elements of the movement, it was not only a major issue, but a massive distraction from the work of the movement.

As a supporter of the right to choose, having to fight this cause was particularly dispiriting, but I and many other members could not see how opening up that front would advance our campaigning against "grave abuses" sufficiently to outweigh the polarising impact on the membership - many of whom believe equally passionately in the right to life - let alone the impact of gifting Amnesty's critics such an unnecessary "own goal".

Equally unwise under Irene Khan was the strategic decision to downplay Amnesty's legacy positioning as the champion of individual human rights defenders by individuals in free countries. At a time when other charities have begun recognising the power of the individual human story to motivate individual donor action, Amnesty moved away from that to campaign more thematically. I have no problem with the themes chosen or the desire to widen definitions of grave abuse - the Stop Violence Against Women campaign is a good example. But to remove from that mix the powerful Amnesty capacity to give agency to individuals on behalf of other individuals was both a strategic and tactical blunder. The IS leadership tended to dismiss such concerns as an old guard reaction and only grudgingly accepted the continued emphasis on the individual.

I wonder how much of those tensions lay behind the decision to move both Irene Khan and Kate Gilmore on.

nhs employee
ex donor
19 Apr 2011

I worked out Ms Khan got more in 4 years working with Amnesty than i will earn in a lifetime. And here's the rub, i am very good at my job, work hard, and give money to fund someone who was so bad at her job that her board wanted rid of her.

I will give my money in future to a charity that spends it on worthy causes, and Irene Khan certainly doesnt qualify.
I would have respected Amnesty much more if they had sacked her, and her deputy too if that was appropriate. If she kicked up a stink for more money so be it, at least i would have felt they had to give her money because the law is an ass if it had come to that.

Sam Ijioma
22 May 2011
Response to [tessa]

I feel exactly the same and could not express it better. My salary is paltry in comparison to what these useless penpushers are commanding and I have concluded that they can obviously manage without my contribution. I find myself deeply offended by the amount of digging I have had to do even to find this story. AI appears to be either in denial or hoping that time will result in forgetfulness. I resent being assumed to be senile as well as stupid.

Adrian Ward
3 Apr 2011

I have only today learnt of the enormity of this hideous issue and have immediately cancelled my direct debit. There will be many more like me.

23 Mar 2011

Amnesty have lost the plot. Its become top heavy with too many donations going to fat cats with their fingers in the till. I have no choice but to cancel my membership. The UN Secretary General gets paid less than these greedy urchins. Amnesty needs new honest leaders on realistic salaries. Until then many of us in Bristol will not be returning. I cannot believe i am doing this...goodbye Amnesty.

Steve Myhill
21 Mar 2011

Will someone tell me why anyone should donate part of their hard earned cash to an organisation that is so profligate with contributions, instead of putting them to the use intended by the donor? This whole episode smacks of wet, weak mismanagement.

Roger Hutchins, D.Phil
19 Mar 2011

For more than three decades, most of my adult life, I have supported Amnesty with the modest monthly payments I could afford.
I am outraged that Khan's and Gilmore's greed has plundered Amnesty's funds, that the structure and management of the organisation enabled them to do so, that Khan was authorised to negotiate her close colleagure Gilmore's severance package.
How and why was Khan awarded a £58,900 increase for her last year? Why is her replacement Salil Shetty being paid almost £200,000? Was nothing learned before that appointment? A charity is not a milk cow. Is there nobody of real ability out there who has made his/her grub-stake in business, and would consider it an honour to work for Amnesty for 4 to 8 years for a salary that bears some relation to the values of supporters?
It may be true that the £860,000 spread across millions of supporters is only pence per person, but thats entirely NOT the point.
Robin Rowley's view (above) should be the one that prevails. But I am agonised to find that I can not follow his example. I have lost trust in Amnesty. The revealed structural faults, supine management, secret deals, continuing top salary levels, are repulsive. I have cancelled my membership, and it feels like a ghastly bereavement.

3 Mar 2011

The Anmesty Board can't excuse itself so lightly: (1) why agree to such a contract in the first place; (2) why did they not more effectively monitor and record Irene Khan's performance over the years; (3) why did they not negotiate harder when she demanded such a wild settlement, surely it was not in Irene Khan's interest to be dismissed if that was the only other alternative option - that there was the leverage for making a more reasonable settlement. While the Board can be blamed for being asleep on the job, Irene Khan bear's the primary responsibility for demanding such a sum in the first place - rank hypocrisy. It's right she should return the money, she most definitely does not need it, remember the long and lucrative UN career prior to Amnesty. That sum would keep an average Amnesty worker in post for a decade or more; it would lift hundreds of the poor people she says she supports, out of poverty for life. People are right to question Khan's job as Charity Commissioner, the Commission should be lobbied on that. As for the comment about banks, two wrongs don't make a right. yes bankers have to be held to account but it doesn't mean charities never have anything to answer for.

Bill Miller
2 Mar 2011

This decision should not have been taken without consulting members. I'd like to put pressure on Irene Khan to get the money back, too - twitter/facebook campaign? She has gone on to an equally profitable role, so she surely doesn't need the money... give it back, for shame. As an Amnesty activist, trying to shine a light on horrendous human rights abuses worldwide, I thought I was pretty unshockable, but this is the limit. I'm appalled by this.

Robin Rowley
2 Mar 2011

I am a pensioner who donates a part of my small pension to Amnesty each year. I will certainly continue to do so despite this outrageous gaff. Let's get a little perspective and plain truth here, we all make mistakes, even the good Amnesty trustees. By their own actions, both Kahn and Gilmore have proved themselves to be the "disease", of which they pretended to be the "cure". Ok, so they might be corrupted by greed, but the rest of us are not. Take heart people, we are well rid of those two. Right now, I feel most for the rest of the Amnesty organisation, particularly the brave local activists and those very low paid idealistic staff, all over this planet. I say remember who you are! You are the last line of hope. You are the only friend that so many who suffer indescribable agony and despair have got left. Hold firm together now. Stay with the fight. Continue to recognise and to shun evil, even among your own. That's your job and you do it beautifully. I will continue my absolute support for Amnesty International in it's noble work to bring rescue, comfort and human decency to all victims of cruelty and man-made suffering on this Earth. In my modest way I am very proud to be with you. Keep up the good work and let's all move on shall we?

28 Mar 2011
Response to [Robin Rowley]

good and heartful reaction, I approve

Kenneth Hobbs
Ex member
2 Mar 2011

I just think it's sad that here we have an organisation criticising Governments for secrecy and repression and they themselves have a secrecy agreement on these payouts, had it not been for the Daliy Mail, this would have been kept secret from members with AI complicity.

Hypocracy comes to mind

Edward Ingle
2 Mar 2011

This whole affair is a disgrace. How did the board of AI get itself into this situation in the first place?
The words negligence, or at very least incompetence and ineptitude, spring to mind.

The charity sector is not a place where football players' and managers' salaries and pay offs should prevail. The charity sector is not a business; it is dealing with the real and generous donations of individuals who want to see a change for good in our world, who donate believing that the organisations that they give to will hopefully deliver that change.

As for Ms Khan's appointment to the Charity Commission, am I missing something here? Poacher turned gamekeeper? As the chief executive of a charity and a trustee of two others, on the facts presented, I am far from happy that Ms Khan has been appointed to the Charity Commission.

Carl Allen
1 Mar 2011

Trustees ...'We recognise the considerable and impressive changes you have achieved, and the strong, decisive leadership you provide. Nonetheless, we believe that it is in the overall interests of AI that no one leader - how ever good they are - stays in office for too long, and that two terms is an appropriate time for any one person to lead AI."

The trustees were faced with two policy options but one was costly and the other was not ... note their use of the term "overall interest" with the term "best interest" not being used.

The trustees are entitled to use their discretion in choosing which policy they wanted to be in place and there can be no quarrel with that, affordable but costly though that is.

The chief executive is entitled to compensation as a result of such a policy change and there can be no quarrel with that.

1 Mar 2011

As an Amnesty member for some years, I do find this whole messy business disturbing. How were things allowed to get to this stage in the first place ? Whatever the 2 figures concerned achieved, this is a lot of money, and certainly not what local groups and individuals spend a lot of time fund-raising for.
Note to Senior management and other senior figures in AI: don't lose touch with your members!!

1 Mar 2011

Irene & Kate, donate the money back to AI and I will restart my subscription that I have just cancelled as a result of your payout. Values???

Barbara Drozdowicz
ChangeUp Officer
Barking & Dagenham Council for Voluntary Service
1 Mar 2011

It is sad to realise that charities cost money. But realistically speaking - they do. An org has staff, overheads, other expenditure etc. Volunteers cost too - we're past times when people wouldn't claim volunteer costs(except for really devoted minority or really small poor organisation). It is just weird that AI allowed to be catch in a net like small boys - does it mean that AI has such weak policies and such lousy legal advisors? They are certainly paid too, maybe too much...? Mrs Khan was not a charity employee "at least" but still it is shocking if you think about it. And yes, she is greedy (and her deputy too) and yes, I wouldn't vote for her if she stood up for president but yes, I hope that AI will be more careful in future and cease to waste people's money.
By the way, they would do themselves a favour if they let us know what is happening before the whole press buzz...

Muriel Simmons
Allergy UK
1 Mar 2011

If the 'two terms' was not made plain at the start of the contract and did not form part of the contract then I would say that these two ladies have a justifible grievance.
We expect a high level of professionalism in the third sector and expect to pay for this however we also expect those leading the organisation to care about the objectives of the organisation and taking a high level of pay off like this would seem to be the reverse of this.
It is sad that when people think about AI for the next few years these events will spring to mind rather than the excellent work they do and the dedicated staff that work within the organisation.

1 Mar 2011

I would like to ask Irene Kahn, hoping that she is readingm, to show that she is coherent with the values she promoted during her 8 years as AI's Secretary General, and return the money to AI, so that the organisation can use it to empower poor people in the south. Irene, small AI sections in the South demand dignity, do the right thing!

1 Mar 2011

By my calculations, with 3 million supporters worldwide, each donor paid about 30p each of their annual gift to pay out Irene and Kate. This is not much at all. Considering both were on salaries much much less than most other international charities (Human Rights Watch pay over double the salary to their head), I'm not sure that this story is actually that shocking. To put this in perspective, the fees that banks charge Amnesty are many times this payment.

David Tallon
1 Mar 2011

One, staggering, fact is overlooked so far. Surely membership of the board of the Charity Commission is wholly inappropriate for someone with this history - even taking Mr Allen's robust defence into account ?

Carl Allen
1 Mar 2011
Response to [David Tallon]

In my youth, I was acquainted with a number of long serving leaders of organisations. Some had long passed their usefulness and others had not.

So I am not defending a person but refuting a policy assumption of ... 'We recognise the considerable and impressive changes you have achieved, and the strong, decisive leadership you provide. Nonetheless, we believe that it is in the overall interests of AI that no one leader - how ever good they are - stays in office for too long, and that two terms is an appropriate time for any one person to lead AI."

So shall we ask all the other trustees and leaders in the sector to submit to this policy?

And by way of note, such a policy will start a merry go round of the old boys and girls, and as in the private sector, with an automatic increase in compensation.

Roy Biddle
1 Mar 2011

I have been a regular donor to Amnesty since 1987. My monthly donation is a relatively small one. I didnt appreciate how small till I realised that I would have to continue donating at that level for over 8,000 years to cover the cost of Khan's payout. I have no problem with charities paying staff competitive (but not excessive) salaries: most skilled third sector employees could still earn better pay in the private sector. I understand that the trustees will have undertaken a lot of soul searching before coming to this agreement. But how badly wrong have things gone when an organisation finds itself having to make payments such as this? And how much did trustees consider how this would feel to the regular donors who fondly imagine that they are helping to promote human rights?

1 Mar 2011

I can't believe these women have been prepared to take these sums of money, considering how the funds could contibute to achieving the organisation's aims, and live with that on their conscience.

As an Amnesty donor, albeit a low level one, it has made me question whether to keep giving. If I continued to give at my current level for my entire life it would contribute less than 1% of the amount paid to these women! My donation feels utterly worthless now and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

1 Mar 2011

I would suggest both "hard to swallow" and "too little too late" for most supporters.

1 Mar 2011

What a pity that:
• AI got into this mess through seemingly poor practice
• Loyal donors funds have been wasted in this way
• They didn’t come clean and make this statement days ago
• AI is not as vocal in their condemnation of Robert Mugabe as they were of Ian Smith
• They have not said much about the current situation in Libya

John Watson
1 Mar 2011
Response to [Norman]

I share the surprise and anger about the pay-offs, but I find it particularly galling at this time when Amnesty is playing a huge part in supporting the fantastic people-power in the Middle East and needs public support for this campaigning. Not saying much about Libya? The Middle East is dominating the work - just look at the lead story on and (the UK and International sections)

Mike Groves
1 Jun 2011
Response to [John Watson]

John, AI cannot and does not influence Middle Eastern or global politics in the way you believe. It keeps issues on it's own website, so supporters can feel better about themselves by sending an email that will never be counted or read by those who commit the violations. AI give supporters stuff to do (make cards, take pictures with messages) to keep them happy. (Most of that stuff gets chucked in the bin by the way). It works though, because supporters give them money in return.

Ask AI how many members or the % of members they have in the Global South where most of the horrific violations take place. Ask them to demonstrate they effected change anywhere. They'll show you a letter from someone they have financially supported, who will of course be grateful. Why does China execute more people than ever before, why does Iran stone people, why does Saudi crucify people still? Because middle class English people have no sway in their world. Accept this, move your Secretariat south and try and to join the fight for real, or keep making your Christmas Cards and feeling good about yourself.

1 Mar 2011

For me as a regular donor to AI for the past 27 years, its not about the final payout, which was bad enough in itself. But this simply reveals the frankly obscene amounts of money being paid to officers of a charitable organisation.

Pack says Khan's salary equated to £132,490 per annum. But then in the next breath he says her total remuneration package for only nine months was worth £168,731. This includes 'overtime' which to me seems ludicrous in the context of what one would assume is a job that has an element of vocation. Either way it points at a salary in excess of £200K in real terms, and that's just ONE officer.

Its plain that AIUK have lost the plot in terms of what it was set up to do. No one in charitable organisation should be paid more than an average managers salary, 50-70K tops. Also no one should be in a position like that if they're prepared to use employment law to effectively fleece a charity of large amounts of its supporters hard earned cash.

I'm disgusted by this whole fiasco and very disappointed in an organisation that I've supported for many years. Right now I can't see any way I can continue to regularly donate money to them, although I would like to continue to take part in campaigns.

I'm going to take a breath and calm down before I decide, but I think its very likely that they've lost me as a financial supporter. I'd rather give money to an organisation that uses it to do the work I thought I was supporting. Not to pay telephone number salaries to people who obviously have more interest in those than the cause they are supposed to be furthering.

Carl Allen
1 Mar 2011
Response to [Mozo]

After years of devoted work ... "'We recognise the considerable and impressive changes you have achieved, and the strong, decisive leadership you provide. Nonetheless, we believe that it is in the overall interests of AI that no one leader - how ever good they are - stays in office for too long, and that two terms is an appropriate time for any one person to lead AI."

Trustees cannot unexpectedly decide on this sort of policy and not pay the cost.

1 Mar 2011
Response to [Carl Allen]

I agree Carl, but the point is they should never have been paying remuneration packages of this magnitude in the first place. I'm sure lessons will be learnt from this experience, but I for one am going to find it hard to believe that such a culture of nest feathering isn't still going to be there in the future.

For example, I understand that the current secretary-general, Salil Shetty, is supposedly on a salary of £192800 with an additional £7800 housing allowance. I'd say that's a good four times what anyone in that position should be paid. At a quarter of that salary most people would think they were on to a good thing, especially if the rewards are there both in terms of job satisfaction and the raising of one's profile for future potential positions.

In the context of a donation funded entity like AI, its shameful that they're paying these sorts of salaries to management. One might even comment that its equally reprehensible that the people involved accept them, but that's just a personal view.

Carl Allen
2 Mar 2011
Response to [Mozo]

Sadly for those who donate, many leaders in the sector espouse payment levels comparable with the private sector.

But we are not the private sector.

Billy Nocash
1 Mar 2011

i donate £15 a month to Amnesty UK - how many individuals subscriptions have these two greedy women taken? I think it's disgraceful. I also heard from someone who used to work there that the management under Khan & Gilmore regularly paid off staff with confidentialty agreements and money to save being taken to employment tribunals and getting bad publicity.

1 Mar 2011

Are these charitable funds? If they are I think this warrants a Charity Commission investigation.

Niki May Young
website editor
Civil Society Media
1 Mar 2011
Response to [Anon]

The Charity Commission has already advised that it will have no jurisdiction over the payments as it was the trading arm, and not the charity of Amnesty International, which was responsible. See here:

5 Mar 2011
Response to [Niki May Young]

I guess like many supporters I am unclear about the relationship between the Charity and the Limited Company. Where do my subs go?
On another point I heve heard that many charities pay huge salaries to their Top People, and tiny ones to the coal-face workers. They say that if they didn't pay these big salaries (and golden handshakes) then they would not be able to recruit high-calibre people. Where have we heard this before?

Carl Allen
1 Mar 2011

Trustees to chief executive ... " 'We recognise the considerable and impressive changes you have achieved, and the strong, decisive leadership you provide. Nonetheless, we believe that it is in the overall interests of AI that no one leader - how ever good they are - stays in office for too long, and that two terms is an appropriate time for any one person to lead AI."

She should have gotten much more, is my opinion.


[Cancel] | Reply to:

Close »

Community Standards

The community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

  • Robust but respectful debate
  • Strongly held opinions
  • Intelligent relevant discussion
  • The sharing of relevant experiences
  • New participants

We will not publish:

  • Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
  • Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
  • The posting of contact details for yourself or others
  • Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
  • Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
  • Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
  • Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
  • The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

  • Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
  • Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
  • You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear


  • Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
  • Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.

Barnardo’s opens 89 charity shops and aims to be ‘biggest chain in the country’

29 Sep 2016

Barnardo’s opened 89 charity shops last year, and has overtaken Oxfam to become the second largest charity...

Heritage Lottery Fund launches £10m to improve youth engagement

28 Sep 2016

The Heritage Lottery fund has today launched a £10m pilot programme and is inviting groups of charities...

TSB bank raised double the amount for charity after switch from national to local focus

28 Sep 2016

TSB has raised £1m for local charities, which is double the amount it was raising when it had a single...

'Stop accusing volunteers of replacing paid staff; those jobs are never coming back'

29 Sep 2016

People should stop moaning about volunteers replacing paid staff because those jobs are never coming back,...

Labour MP wants National Citizen Service to be rolled out in Wales

29 Sep 2016

A Labour MP has urged the Welsh government and Westminster to agree to bring National Citizen Service...

We need the press to investigate the larger charities, says CEO of Media Trust

29 Sep 2016

Caroline Diehl, chief executive of the Media Trust, has said that it is important that charities are scrutinised...

Eduserv agrees £138,000 payment to retiring CEO without telling full board

26 Sep 2016

Eduserv, a charity that provides IT services to the public sector, agreed to pay its retiring chief executive...

Barnardo’s launches ten-year strategy with plans to double fundraising income

22 Sep 2016

Barnardo’s has announced a ten-year strategy which will aim to grow income by a third and change its...

Charities urge donors to give their first plastic £5 note to a good cause

19 Sep 2016

A social media campaign is urging people to donate their first plastic £5 note to charity, after the...

Join the discussion

 Twitter button