Perhaps I read the post differently?
I thought the guy meant that we shouldn't need charities, and that governments should be stepping in instead. If that is what he meant then I have to agree.
Charities are fantastic, much good is done by organisations and individuals alike. Fact is charities save lives and help those unable to help themselves.
People like Sir Bob stood up and said 'No more' and did something about it.
But...there is a bigger issue, at least there is to me. We shouldn't need charities in the 21st century. Forget the recession, we in the west are wealthy people and we have easy lives. There are those elsewhere that suffer on a daily basis. I'm not a politician and probably don't know what I'm talking about, but I am sure that western governments have the power to stop this unfair balance. It sickens me when I hear of Super Bonuses and abused privileges.
We shouldn't have to support charities but today we must and we do. I'm going to a charity event tonight to support a charity close to my heart, MAG, that deals with all the unexploded ordinance that kills/maims innocent people. But I feel that this group should be funded by a government(s), not through charity fund raising. Someone is responsible for dropping it in the first place, after all.
Ok, I'm rambling. To sum up, I agree we need charities now but as a world there is enough to go round for everyone and it those we voted for that need to act, and fast.