David Miliband has snagged a $1.25 million (£1 million) annual pay package from a taxpayer-funded aid charity that’s slashing jobs and programmes as it dives into the red. The Mail has more.
The ex-Labour Foreign Secretary’s salary from the International Rescue Committee (IRC) – given at least £33 million last year by the Government to alleviate poverty and assist refugees – is disclosed in data sent to U.S. tax authorities.
It reveals that Mr. Miliband – who hit out at “immoral” fat-cats during his failed bid for the Labour leadership – collected $1,253,728 in 2022 as President and Chief Executive: almost six times more than Sir Keir Starmer is paid to run the country.
Although Mr. Miliband’s mega pay package included a $150,000 bonus, he has had to warn staff about the need for “rigorous prioritisation of spending” after the charity suffered a $50 million deficit this year due to accounting failures and overspending.
MPs have condemned his salary, with Shadow Security Minister Tom Tugendhat saying: “The IRC is meant to be there for people suffering from the impact of humanitarian crises, not enriching its boss. This is why successive U.K. governments have supported its work with millions from the aid budget.”
The Tory leadership contender said this “outrageously large wage” was “shocking”, considering the IRC’s financial woes. “It needs to re-evaluate its choices and prioritise helping those in need rather than lining the pockets of its CEO.”
The tax data shows Mr. Miliband’s pay soared $111,314 over the previous year – with a housing allowance of $50,000. …
The charity’s second highest paid staff member was Chief Operating Officer Madlin Sadler, Mr. Miliband’s former special adviser in government who ran his botched leadership bid in 2010. Her salary package surged by $31,105 to $528,466.
Total cash pocketed by the ten top IRC executives was $5,209,634, fuelling fears that some charity chiefs are milking aid budgets while pleading for more funds from the public purse.
One senior IRC figure told the MoS it was “demoralising” for staff to be led by someone earning “a millionaire’s salary” at a time when they face humanitarian pressures around the planet.
“This disparity is troubling as the organisation faces significant financial challenges and staff are at imminent risk of losing their jobs,” said the source.
Documents seen by this newspaper show the IRC – which the physicist Albert Einstein helped found in 1933 to support refugees fleeing Nazi Germany – faced a $50 million deficit this year due to fund-raising shortfalls and cost over-runs, despite a $16.5 million bequest.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“One of the issues which should have been picked up is these tests work a lot less well in people who are asymptomatic … “
And yet no such fuss has been made about PCR testing and its inaccuracies.
Isn’t there a massive illogicality here regarding broader issue of the general futility of mass testing and ‘asymptomatic’ positives? Or am I missing something.
What you’re seeing is a lot of confirmation bias which happens when the “gold standard” test is flawed.
As in: “The positive result on lateral flow has to be correct because it was confirmed as positive by PCR”
I read somewhere that in the actual design of lateral flow they use PCR to confirm its validity. So in tbe manufacturing of it, PCR is used as a control.
If that is true it adds another layer of fog
Yes, its the PCR test validity that has to be destroyed, its keeping this shit-show alive.
Check out Dr Reiner Feullmich Crimes Against Humanity.
One gets the impression that the author would like to promote PCR over Lateral Flow testing. The claims around asymptomatic transmission are the basis for lockdown. The belief that 33% of the population is walking around feeling perfectly healthy but spreading the disease is outrageous. It must be debunked.
Likely because the lateral flow process cannot be as easily scammed as the PCR process and its made up diagnostic criteria.
I refer to Will Jones’s article above – item 2. The whole lot is a massive scam, operating as a source of cash for some.
I think the answers to my rhetorical question show that we’ve all clocked the scam: PCR testing is more likely to allow manipulation for the next panic, where as LFT might damp it down.
The strategy is childishly transparent, and yet people will fall for it.
Of course, the next casedemic will blow the story of vaccine efficacy out of the water – but 2+2=1 will be the public conclusion.
Of course the truth is that it is the PCR tests that are wildly inaccurate, not the lateral flow tests.
The response from Dr Hopkins sums up the mindset of this government. Referring to highly infectious asymptomatic people, it’s the same tired discredited nonsense every day. I just don’t understand why?
I watched a panel of scientists at Birminghan Uni in ‘Mapping the Virus.’ One of them expressed confidence in LF tests because there were fewer infections among people having them regularly than those testing for the first time. I’m sure the Uni will post this hour and a quarter seminar. It’s worth watching as these are research scientists superior to Whitty & Vallance. They also seem obsessed by variants-as were questioners, and oblivious to the cots of NPI’s or their (in)effectiveness.
Worth reading Richard Tice’s article in the Conservative Woman
https://conservativewoman.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=6378530ea3dde9537bada99f7&id=6ca47b21d4&e=b567db0fed
Did Mike Yeadon not say months ago that the only way out of this whole thing is to stop mass testing?