When I first came across Oxfam’s ‘Food for All’ campaign, it did what any campaign should do upon first acquaintance; it captured my attention. This is quite something considering we are constantly bombarded by advertisements for films, dating websites, nose sprays and box springs in or on trains, tubes, buses, taxis and cycle rickshaws as well as TV and the Internet. Somewhere among all of these are charity appeals. I usually can’t see the wood (good cause) for the trees (consumerism galore). 

Over the last decade a slow motion drama has unfolded between fundraisers and the public from whom they want to fundraise. As fundraisers have had to raise ever more amounts to fund the work of their organisations, they have blocked their ears to the voices of donors who have tried to tell them that they don’t like the techniques they now deploy.

We have told ourselves that a mild irritation is a small price to pay for raising the money that changes lives. We have kidded ourselves that the end justifies the means. 

When I started my internship here last July, I didn't know much about the charity sector. Aside from a newspaper story I wrote for the British Heart Foundation and a week’s work experience there, I scarcely knew my Band Aid from my Gift Aid. It's been a fascinating learning curve over the last six months and although we are not a charity, we work solely for non-profits. So I thought while many of our bloggers reel off their last Auld Lang Syne at home, I’d muse on five things I learned about the charity sector in 2012.

1. A Hidden Gem - Resilience report from the Clore Social Leadership Programme

We took part in an online debate on giving for the Guardian recently and among the many interesting points raised, someone argued that the day of standing on street corners collecting for charities had passed. He proposed, quite well, that charities should focus on other methods. True, street collections have their drawbacks, not least that the vast majority of people undoubtedly walk straight past without dipping into their pockets. But even among the myriad of donation methods these days, I just can't agree that street collections have anything less than a crucial role to play.

Is it just too big? Are we all, from the individual, to the corporation, to the country, simply unwilling to let go of the luxury, comfort and choice that we have enjoyed for so long?

There are certain words which in the charity world have gained a completely different meaning from the one they do in the rest of the world. Independence is one of them.

Working with our Charity Parliamentary Monitor, I’ve been struck by just how much harder it has become for charities to get through to MPs since the 2010 general election. With issues surrounding the economy dominating the agenda and a deluge of legislation and policies, not to mention the internal battles among the coalition parties, many charities are struggling to be heard. But how did this happen? And what can charities do about it?

As a researcher on Parliamentary matters, I am only too aware of the importance of the relationship between charities and MPs. But three separate events suggest a worrying new direction in the way MPs view charity lobbying.

Someone once said to me Bill Gates should actually give some money to charity. I politely pointed them in the direction of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; it’s now given $23.6 billion in grants. But on a more serious note, many charities have links with celebrities, be it as a patron or having been set up by one. But what are the benefits? And do they outweigh the risks?