The -ve narrative about charities such as from @bubbceo in @thetimes is unhelpful & misleading. The crisis has hit many charities & does not discriminate between them particularly based on how well run they are. Making the point that some have weaknesses is a non sequitur. 1/6

The more relevant story now is how charities have responded extraordinarily in terms of volunteering, feeding people, helping with vulnerable groups etc. In London, eg, many people would have gone hungry but for charities, whose hard work and responsiveness was crucial. 2/6

Other London charities have helped mobilise volunteers, gearing up their work 30, 40 or even 50-fold. Volunteers are supported, isolated people are fed, befriended & helped by orgs, working with & alongside government. Often, this is despite years of under-investment. 3/6

More London charities still have shifted services online, helping with, inter among other things, growing isolation, mental health problems and the profound impact of the crisis on many of the weakest and most vulnerable in society. All despite huge financial difficulties. 4/6

There are problems with how gov’t perceives charities, & how charities themselves have worked with gov’t over yrs. These have influence & hit the gov’t’s small bailout for the sector, which will hurt. The sector does need to reflect on this in time, and change things. 5/6

Right now, though, these criticisms of charities are a tired, misleading & unhelpful trope. Charities need support & championing. Many are far from perfect (&, also, the sector as a whole is not as exceptional as many suppose & say), but huge no's are doing a remarkable job. 6/6