ARmy Rumour SErvice

**OldSnowy** · 12-06-2012, 07:42

A fascinating report (found via Guido Fawkes) has been released on how many Charideees are paid for from our taxes. It seems to be a simple equation:

1. The Government/Whitehall/Clever People want something to happen. It’s usually something that they consider ‘self evidently’ correct, like banning smoking, or more expensive beer and fags, or a federal Europe.

2. They fund a charity to press their case.

3. Said charity is listened to (especially by the media) as it is ‘independent’.

This stinks. If I want to support a charity I will give them money. Many, many charities are really nothing of the sort. An example from the report:

“The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) was founded in 1965 by a group of social workers and sociologists who were disturbed that - as they declared in a letter to Harold Wilson – ‘at least half a million children in this country are in homes where there is hardship due to poverty.’ A registered charity since 1986, CPAG now uses a very different measure of deprivation to campaign on behalf of the ‘3.8 million children living in poverty’ - not so much a case of mission creeping as goalpost shifting. CPAG’s work is dominated by calls for progressively larger welfare payments and launching occasionally successful legal test cases. Its policy proposals include increasing the top rate of tax, increasing inheritance tax and giving benefits to illegal immigrants. By the end of the Blair years, it was receiving close to half a million pounds a year from statutory sources, notably HM Revenue and Customs and the Scottish Executive, to provide ‘tax credits publications, advice and training’. This far exceeded the £76,000 it received in donations and legacies”

And don’t even get me started on the Foreign Aid charities, let alone those paid for by the EU, campaigning for the EU. There’s also a good section on why there are so many charities (paid for by us in taxes) who campaign for things that the vast, vast majority of the population do not want. If that’s democracy, it’s not as I understand it.

Of more interest to most ARRSERs, though, is that:
“ ...Amongst the numerous other activist groups which have received significant funding from the state in recent years are Sustain, the Green Alliance, Alcohol Concern, the Women’s Environmental Network, Action on Smoking and Health, the London Sustainability Exchange, Forum for the Future, Consensus Action on Salt and Health, the Fatherhood Institute, the Pesticide Action Network, the Climate Group and the Children’s Rights Alliance for England. A non-exhaustive list of the causes championed by such groups include universal free school meals, flexible working hours, ‘traffic light’ labelling on food, ‘environmental justice’, lowering the voting age to 16 and minimum pricing for alcohol, as well as bans on battery farmed chickens, ‘junk food’ advertising, numerous pesticides, incandescent light bulbs, alcohol advertising, and smoking in private vehicles.”

- What strikes me in that list is the fact that most of them are ‘progressive’, i.e. something that most sensible people in the UK either dislike, actively hate, or don’t give a toss about. I don’t see any there campaigning for cheaper booze and tabs, more lap dancing clubs, cheaper petrol, and relaxed gun control.

Why, in these times of no money, pressures on budgets, and defence cuts, does the public sector give money to charities at all?

How the government uses charities to lobby itself | Institute of Economic Affairs

**vvaannmmaann** · 12-06-2012, 07:50

How are the charities you mention "fake"?

**bokkatankie** · 12-06-2012, 08:26

Gift Aid, which was discussed in the last budget, means that every charity, like it or not, so long as they fill in the forms is funded by the Tax Payer.

The talk that it may be restricted, did not go down well with the .........Charity Industry.

**Micawber** · 12-06-2012, 08:38

Originally Posted by bokkatankie

Gift Aid, which was discussed in the last budget, means that every charity, like it or not, so long as they fill in the forms is funded by the Tax Payer.

The talk that it may be restricted, did not go down well with the .........Charity Industry.

Including, presumably, H4H and the RNLI - the bleeding heart, money grubbing, gravy train riding charidee bastards.

**Pigshyt_Freeman** · 12-06-2012, 08:43

Originally Posted by vvaannmmaann

How are the charities you mention "fake"?

Because, he alleges, they are simply or largely a front for govt. policy rather than the doing of active, concerned citizens. A phantom demand is thus created for something which the govt can provide, thereby extending its power and influence further into the daily lives of common citizens.

**bokkatankie** · 12-06-2012, 08:45

Originally Posted by Micawber

Including, presumably, H4H and the RNLI - the bleeding heart, money grubbing, gravy train riding charidee bastards.

And BLESMA and every other service charity and every other charity, so long as it is registered, regardless of cause.

There 162,000 registered charities in England and Wales, gross income over GBP52 Billion.

By way of Gift Aid, like it or not, you are supporting them all, that is assuming you pay tax, good cause or not (in your or my opinion).

**OldSnowy** · 12-06-2012, 08:58

How are they 'fake'? Because they do not rely on the goodwill of people, or the skill of their interlocutors, to raise their funds. They rely on a forced tax paid by every taxpayer, whether they like it or not.

And - heresy though it might be to somehere - we should include some Service charities in this. There are two things to think about here. Firstly, if you take Govt money you are beholden to them - there is no doubt about that. Secondly, it gets the Government off the hook from doing stuff that they should do - if there was sufficient welfare and medical provision for injured ex-Service personnel, there would be no need for BLESMA, etc, other than to provide things that the Government should not provide. Think of it as the difference, in Service terms, between Public and non-Public funds. Any J1 bod will know that there are essentials - got through the system, and nice-to-haves - got through Welfare.

The Government (starting in T Blair's time, of course, and continuing today) pays your money to pressure groups to influence youto do things their way. It's not democratic, it's not a sensible use of funds, and it's certainly not efficient.

**HE117** · 12-06-2012, 09:06

Originally Posted by vvaannmmaann

How are the charities you mention "fake"?

Well... it depends on what you mean by the word "Charity" dunnit!

If you use the dictionary defintion "Love of one's fellow" (CED) - that could cover a number of (ahem..) sins! Charity is "one of the theological virtues" and is generally used to describe activities which "assist the poor, sick, or helpless"..

There is however a popular interpretation of the definition that implies "not for profit" and "non political" organised behaviour.

The muddying factor is the tax relief that has been granted to these activities, and also the funds that have been granted to these bodies directly form the public purse..

I think the accusation of "Fake" does stand in cases where "Charities" have been set up to further and influence organised political groupings where the purpose is less to do with the direct relief or support of a needy cause, and more to do with political manoevering and/or funding and employing client organisations. In some cases these seem to be "front" organisations which are able to achieve public funding for what is purely political activity which, in reality, are not what they seem..

...but I agree, there is a very blurred line between "genuine" organisations doing good works, and something that could be much more devious and potentially corrupt!

**jarrod248** · 12-06-2012, 09:10

I know a lot of 'charities' within drug services, they are almost always given tenders instead of the NHS because they just don't follow any national guidelines.
These fake charities feed off public money starting always with vulnerable patients.
Clinical governance doesn't apply to these companies and they just take a chance that they'll never be inspected.

**sunnoficarus** · 12-06-2012, 09:19

Originally Posted by OldSnowy

- What strikes me in that list is the fact that most of them are ‘progressive’, i.e. something that most sensible people in the UK either dislike, actively hate, or don’t give a toss about. I don’t see any there campaigning for cheaper booze and tabs, more lap dancing clubs, cheaper petrol, and relaxed gun control.

The much vaunted 'Gun Control Network' was known to be a creation of ACPO, the Home Office and a couple of conniving MP's. It never had any 'membership' yet was given unfettered access to the media and Parliament as 'the voice of the people' on gun control post Dunblane. It had I am reliably informed, just 7 'members' and operated from a PO box.