It reminds me of people who think "If they're so poor, why do they have iPhones and flatscreen TVs"? is check and mate in any argument about welfare over here. You're poor, you can't have nice things to make your existence a tiny bit less miserable.I could never get my head round that (and felt mean criticising it) but it made me uncomfortable seeing all the 'pamper packages' with stuff like Charlotte Tilbury, Clarins for NHS staff, while refuges etc got LIDL and Dove.
In the bag reveal when describing the charity aims Sali did not mention the NHS. It was only for people in hygiene poverty.
Would they say that all the money raised goes to hygiene poverty, while prestige donations go where they see fit? I presume Beauty Banks didn't pay for the 'pamper parcels'?
I've worked for a few charities (no doubt in those files - 'charity workers amongst them') and they are all so clear in their aims and objectives, no matter how tempting to change horses mid stream to follow 'fashionable' causes. Plus somewhere it really should have been explained their reasoning for this.