<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rdf:RDF
 xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
 xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
 xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
 xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
 xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
>

<channel rdf:about="http://www.pledgebank.com/CharityReform">
<title>Comments on CharityReform pledge</title>
<link>http://www.pledgebank.com/CharityReform</link>
<description>Comments on 'protest for a day outside the offices of the Charity Commission and ICR'</description>
<dc:language>en-gb</dc:language>
<dc:creator>team@pledgebank.com</dc:creator>
<syn:updateBase>1901-01-01T00:00+00:00</syn:updateBase>
<syn:updateFrequency>2</syn:updateFrequency>
<syn:updatePeriod>hourly</syn:updatePeriod>
<items>
 <rdf:Seq>
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.pledgebank.com/CharityReform#comment_578036" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.pledgebank.com/CharityReform#comment_571491" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.pledgebank.com/CharityReform#comment_570205" />
 </rdf:Seq>
</items>
</channel>
<item rdf:about="http://www.pledgebank.com/CharityReform#comment_578036">
<title>Comment by S A Armstrong</title>
<link>http://www.pledgebank.com/CharityReform#comment_578036</link>
<description>A 'universal complaints proceedure'
seems to be a prerequisit for any organisation. I find it hard to understand why the charities do not have such proceedures. Charities are a business therefore are open to complaints a proceedure for dealing with complaints should be mandatory.

With out such proceedures how are complaints dealt with ? 

Service users require and deserve professional accountable and verifiable proceedures in complaints.

Just being labled 'charity' does not negate the need for  protection
from bad practice or service.</description>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.pledgebank.com/CharityReform#comment_571491">
<title>Comment by Paul B. Tovey</title>
<link>http://www.pledgebank.com/CharityReform#comment_571491</link>
<description>The development of Mental Health Charities deserves far more public scrutiny. How they use money and ply large grants from the public purse or other sources which in turn influence Govt policy (creating the mis-shaped NIMHE) whilst they simultaneously sit as &amp;quot;advisors&amp;quot; on Govt (Dept of Health and DWP) &amp;quot;Advisory Boards&amp;quot; is a real cause for concern . As is the Mental Health Charities slick ability to create Top Down roll-outs of projects which end up having little longevity and  dubious effectiveness, but maximum cash advantages for those administering them.

The overfunded trend of &amp;quot;Top-Down&amp;quot; knows best creates lost opportunities for local groups and innovation and monopolises funding streams ....</description>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.pledgebank.com/CharityReform#comment_570205">
<title>Comment by miranda morland</title>
<link>http://www.pledgebank.com/CharityReform#comment_570205</link>
<description>Congratulations about time the Commission and the Charities have been told that they need to take responsiblity for the people they are there to serve
I made a complaint to the Commission sometime ago about a Charity and backed it up with evidence only to be told by the Commission that it was basically small fry and that they would not be doing anything about my complaint 
Within a very short period of time many staff left and the things I had objected to were miraculously rectified I felt it was done in a tip off fashion and behind closed doors 
I should never have had to complain in the first place if these guy's had been delivering what they say they deliver on the label
We must make these charities accountable for their actions as they are public servants
I fully support this pledge
miranda morland
bruised uk
http://www.freewebs.com/bruiseduk/</description>
</item>
</rdf:RDF>