The Traitors charity conundrum

I watched The Traitors for the first time last year, when the fabulous Alan Carr was victorious. This year, I again tuned into Celebrity Traitors, gulping down each episode until Romesh Ranganathan and Sebastian (Bash) Croft emerged victorious.

As with other celebrity TV series, the winners do not pocket the prize money (in this case, £83,000) but choose charities to receive it.

I hadn't anticipated the backlash from some commentators about the winners' choices, nor the resulting criticism of the show and BBC. That is not because I want to defend a particular priority (although I consider refugee charities worthy causes), but because, as a charity lawyer, I regularly encounter the challenge of deciding how to distribute funds across our wonderfully diverse charitable sector.

Romesh Ranganathan chose the Refugee Council and Sebastian Croft chose Choose Love.

I have several concerns about the criticism that followed.

Firstly, a practical point; the complaints unnecessarily politicise the outcome. I understand the contestants collectively selected a much wider range of causes, from children's hospices and cancer support to theatre and marine conservation. That the two eventual winners supported the same broad area was simply a consequence of who made it to the final. It says nothing about the full range of charitable choices.

Secondly, charitable status is subject to careful legal regulation. In England and Wales, an organisation must be established exclusively for charitable purposes (recognised by the Charities Act 2011) and satisfy the public benefit requirement. Broadly, there must be an identifiable benefit, not outweighed by harm, for the public/a sufficient section of it, with no more than incidental private benefit. The Charity Commission applies these tests at registration and regulates continuing compliance. Charities must also follow rules governing their activities, campaigning, political engagement and expenditure. Charitable status is a carefully regulated legal test, not a popularity contest.

Thirdly, within those boundaries, people inevitably have different priorities. And that is both healthy and necessary. Choosing between animal welfare and medical research, or a local community organisation and an international charity, can be deeply personal. Preferring one cause does not diminish another's charitable value. Someone's need for medical treatment does not negate another person's need for a hot meal. Need takes many forms.

There is an important distinction between deciding whether an organisation deserves charitable status, with its associated legal protections and tax reliefs, and deciding whether it is a cause we personally wish to support. If individuals or majorities dictated which causes to support, the sector might not be able to serve the many needs which it exists to meet.

Finally, excluding certain areas creates challenges. The BBC has criteria for charities it endorses in its campaigns, although I am unsure whether these apply to celebrities' choices on this show. Many grant-makers with broad charitable objects must decide how limited resources should be allocated across so many legitimate demands. Some establish strategic priorities around geography, beneficiaries or themes; others expressly exclude particular areas. Having a clear funding strategy helps explain decisions and recognises a reality: neither a charity nor an individual can support everything.

The sector's diversity is not something to apologise for or resent. It is one of its greatest strengths. We do not all have to support the same causes – and if we did, the charitable sector would be much poorer for it.