Charities must stick to good causes and not play at politics Christmas is for giving. But to whom, and for what? I wonder if the animal lovers whose legacies sustain the RSPCA would have left their money to that charity if they had known it would be spent on a £300,000-plus court case against the Heythrop hunt? Similarly, the Amnesty International supporters, for whom the name is synonymous with campaigning to free political prisoners - do they know that their money is funding abortion-rights campaigns? I put money in the collecting tin now only for charities that fulfil their core mission: writers in places like Iran imprisoned because of their "subversive" work (PEN) or beleaguered Christians (Aid to the Church in Need). Charities used to channel our money to a specific "good" cause. But now too many have morphed into pressure groups that pick and choose campaigns that may be only vaguely related to their original mission. They shed the tiresome tasks of looking after the needy - whether disabled, poor, ill or abandoned. Instead, they campaign against the "system," meaning, usually, they want more government spending on their cause. The only constant is that they still use our money to do so. I may or may not support pro-choice legislation in Ireland, or protests against "cuts" in government spending. But that is political campaigning, not the charity's business. I detect a sleight of hand: the nabobs of the charity industry raise money for good works, but spend it on the enjoyable business of lobbying. Some of their contributors are rebelling: I know a few who cancelled their direct debit donations to Save the Children last September when the charity, founded to help children in dire straits in poor countries, decided to tackle poverty in the UK. The campaign seemed politically motivated: CEO Justin Forsyth had worked with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, and his veiled attacks on the Coalition sounded partisan to many - and ironic to some. As the Tory MP Philip Davies put it, Save the Children for years had been urging Britons to send abroad as much money as possible - "so it's no good now telling us there's no money left to go round to British children." Forsyth has written to me recently to rebut my criticism of his politicised charity. I was impressed with his PR skills, but remain wary. Yes, perhaps we need a campaign - for real charities. Most people's do-gooding goes only so far. Asked to spend Christmas with their mother-in-law, they'd think up a million lame excuses. Not so the Duke of Cambridge. He plans to spend the forthcoming holiday not in one of the many palaces he calls home, but with the in-laws in their manor in Berkshire. It is a great tribute to the Middletons" amiable charm that their son-in-law chooses to spend his precious leave with them. I suppose, though, given Prince of Wales's organic fare, Prince Philip's jokes and Camilla's nicotine withdrawal, that Carole Middleton's mince pies, her husband's excellent wine cellar, not to mention Pippa's party tricks, will seem incredibly welcoming. In fact, I wouldn't put it past Prince Harry to cadge an invitation. It could only happen in Iowa - I hope. The Supreme Court there has judged that a dentist could fire his assistant for being too sexy. James Knight admitted that Melissa Nelson had worked devotedly for him for 10 years; but he found her too tempting at close range. He, his wife and his pastor therefore agreed that, to protect his marriage, poor old Nelson must go. Why should Knight need help to control himself when in the proximity of the mother of two? If his libido is so inflamed by a woman in scrubs who teaches flossing technique and murmurs "now spit," how will he restrain himself when he sees a vamp dressed in a plunging, tight‑fitting dress?