Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Devil's in the Telegraph

Many cheers to Boy Hannan for mentioning your humble Devil in his Telegraph column.
Well, well. It turns out that every one of the NGOs cited by David Miliband as a supporter of the European Constitution Lisbon Treaty is in receipt of Brussels money. This information comes courtesy of the brilliant blog Devil’s Kitchen (not advised for readers who are squeamish about language).

So, to repeat the question: is there anyone at all out there who genuinely supports the European Constitution Lisbon Treaty without being directly or indirectly paid to say so?

The answer is still, "no." Except, of course, for our politicians who wish to keep their snouts very firmly in the trough.
The EU has ceased to be an ideological project and become a racket. Fifty years ago, it drew support from idealists who genuinely believed that they were ending wars and bringing nations together. Now, it simply sustains an apparat—an apparat made up, not only of Eurocrats, but of local councillors, civil servants, big farmers, multinational corporations, contractors, quangos and, as Miliband inadvertently makes clear, “voluntary” organisations. It’s not about federalism or peace any more; it’s about mortgages and school fees.

Quite so. Let's hang them all. Better, let's let them know that we wish to hang them all. Send a letter to your MP, to your Councillor, to any representative that you have, and let them know that you believe them to be so corrupted that nothing would make you vote for them. I have received, finally, a letter from my MP (which I shall publish tomorrow) which shows how very touchy they are: they absolutely loathe the idea that they are not universally loved.
They are making a mistake, these NGOs: the NSPCC, Oxfam and the rest. Their support for the European Constitution Lisbon Treaty won’t make anyone think better of the treaty; but it will make a lot of people think worse of them.

I should say! They are willingly complicit in a scheme to enslave all of those whom they claim to protect. They shall receive not a penny from me, and I recommend that you act the same way. These NGOs are absolutely helping, or at least complicit, in letting our government sell our ancient rights down the river. You know what to do: deny them your money.

In the coming weeks, I would like to compile a dossier of all those "NGOs" who receive money from the state and from the EU: I would like your help. You can find the accounts for most of them on the Charity Commission website.

So, if any of you would like to participate, I would like the name of the "charity", and their income from the UK state and the European Union through the last year. Help me out: I don't want your money: just a few minutes of your spare time.




Newmania said...

There is a hilarious bit in Private Eye on this very subject which I was thinking of typing and forwarding....

DocBud said...

I already make a point of not giving any money to charities what advocate on global warming, eg World Vision, Oxfam (on the basis that actions to solve this non-problem will mostly harm the world's poor they avowedly care about), I don't give to the NSPCC because they are of the "all parents are evil abusers" brigade, but I shall also make a point of not giving to charities who are funded by the EU. Friends of the Earth won't be seeing any reduction in support as a result of this policy.

Prodicus said...

Excellent stuff. I wish I had more time to help you.
I have long made a point of giving only to small, hands-on charities with no access to the public trough. The moment any of them gains NGO status or quangocracy support they get crossed off my list because it means they have become corrupt.
For every genuinely good cause apparently served by a megacharity there are ten tiny uncorrupt groups making a real difference to helpless people and they make good use of even the smallest financial help.
Sod Oxfam.

The Great Simpleton said...

I know I'm beieng a bit naive but shouldn't the EU have a register which shows who they give OUR money to?

GCooper said...

Excellent stuff, DK!

The power of the large quasi-charities in this country has got out of control. Not only do they exert a wholly disproportionate influence on government but they out-Campbell Campbell in their media manipulation (of the BBC in particular).

Tomrat247 said...

I've always believed in that classic principle of charity beginning in the home - as such I help run a small church youth group for disadvantaged kids, give to small christian charities that are hands on and some of the larger ones such as teen challenge (as far as I'm aware this still receives NO UK government funding and boasts a 65-75% success rate for getting drug users off drugs). My wife supports a charity dedicated to bringing to light the plight of China's various persecuted religious minorities (including Christianity) and supporting their families.

DK is absolutely right on this note - there is something extremely unethical about the way "big charity" is funded and the downright vicious way in which it is insulated from public account or attack - a bunch of rich men hiding behind poor kids/dishevelled minorities/a lot of hot air, using these are human shields.

Downing Street is slowly sinking - with it comes the choice of full subservience to the EU, or redemption from the madness of the last 10years. The only way we will be able to push for the latter will be by using the tools they have given us as its "faux" electorate; the e-petitions website gives a perfect forum for this as it can demand answers but only if people use it:

Above is am e-petition I set up calling for the abolition of government funding to charity - I dont post regularly enough (primarily because I cant write for toffee) but I will try to write on the tax burden created by this funding - if we take 33% efficiency on all tax receipts then we would get a 3 fold increase in charitable funding out of our own pockets; and no snouts in the trough unless we want them there.
I'm not expecting this to be an epoch-making petition - in fact, I suspect I will get the same civil servant evasi-English that we see answering a lot of these - but it will be difficult to provide a coherent answer that addresses the ethics of charitable giving and how Labour are in direct violation.

All of which is academic if noone signs it! (4 people, including myself, at the last count!)

Matthew Revell said...

"You know what to do: deny them your money."

I wish we could but, as you rightly say, we're denied the choice.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Congrat's on the mention in the MSM. God bless Dan Hannan and all who sail in him.

Prodicus said...

tomrat247 -

Whaddya mean, you can't write?

(Word verification exactly the same as last time I was here - sqpbl. What are the chances?)

Witchibus said...

Near enough any charity in the UK that provides care services (day care, hospices etc) will recive state funding due to it fulfilling statuatory care requirements in the community. It becoems a bit of a vicious circle whereby local government requires the care to be provided and the charity requires the money to provide the care.

In addition, many health-related charities receive government funding to publicise specific health issues and the means by which people might reduce their risk of developing them ('risk reduction' has been the key theme of government funding of health charities for the past few years). There's also a lot of funding focussed on dealing with mental health issues in Scotland.

witchibus said...

On the other hand, policy work/campaigning by charities is supposed to be very much non-government funded (and it should be made clear to other donors when their donation is likely to be used for campaigning). However, a lot of charities have ways and means of getting round this.

Bag said...

DK, I've been thinking for a while now you should get funded by UKIP for this work. Your search skills are second to none. You working full time on this sort of thing is of massive benefit to them especially if you wrote articles in the mainstream as well. Obviously toned down but you can do that.

Trixy said...

I reported these charities to the Charities Commission on Monday.

Budgie said...

Is the Salvation Army in this cesspool? It doesn't seem to be.

curly15 said...

I'm glad to note that another DEVIL has just left Brown's Bunker.

Will it precipitate a house of cards amongst those involved in the sleazy "donorgate" affair. Your opinions would be much welcomed.

JuliaM said...

"I'm glad to note that another DEVIL has just left Brown's Bunker."

Yes, finally:

"Mr Hain, work and pensions secretary and Wales secretary, said he had stood down so he could "clear my name"."

Rings a bell, that. I suspect he'll be about as good at it as OJ was in finding the real killers...

Anonymous said...

I think you should all read EUReferendum - they seem rather annoyed

Bretwalda Edwin-Higham said...

This goes into tomorrow morning's suicidal post.

assegai mike said...

DK, you may remember an email I sent you a few months ago regarding ASH, the anti-smoking lobby, registered as a charity. I had checked their accounts at Companies House, not sure how much detail I furnished. I also expressed the need for "our" own pressure group, called Group for Charity Reform (or similar) to do precisely this type of work. Charities Commission is part of the problem not the solution cos they sanction all this corruption, so I think, Trixy, you're pissing in the wind there, but well done for having a go. Cheers, Mike

mister_choos said...

Shelter gets 2.8m in government grants, and 870k of grants from other sources.

FoE get 294k of grants, but don't specify the source.

ASH receive 210k from DoH, 110k from the Welsh Assembly and 185k from supporting charities.

The EUROPEAN TAX POLICY FORUM hasn't posted accounts yet, but the name and goals look worrying. I would expect a good chunk of their money coming from the EU.

Any suggestions of other ones to check?

Hope this helps DK

Tomrat247 said...


All this is very new to me; having been going down the career path of a chemist for the past decade has meant that the last really decent work of fiction I wrote was my masters thesis ( ;-)) and before that a creative writing exercise in secondary school that got read out in assembly.
Still, I can see what is right and what is wrong; and the particular shower that modern "charities" represent are a particular disgrace.

Matthew Revell,

Good idea - the problem is that the state and the EU continues to feed these charities tax payer money via the most convoluted feedback loop imaginable. This makes it impossible to "kill" charities we dont worth supporting (as would happen in any normal civilised society)


I can think of a few good (and encouraging) reasons why they dont appear as a charity - churches tend to function almost as businesses, with their own outgoings, human resource constraints and taxation; my church for example has just begun to pay a small stipend to one of its members so that they can work full time with kids from our youth group, and attract new members - it's not much but considering they did it for free before it is a godsend. All of the monies of the church are raised by tithes and offerings.
Be very wary of churches and religious organisations that seek charity status; accepting government curbs on behaviour in excess of what is allowable under the law (I doubt any minister or church worker would actively/knowingly be breaking these!) is very bizarre indeed.

Anonymous said...

Here's one for you.
A charity that gets involved in politics and everything in between. Read their own mission statements and you decide. Scary stuff I think..

Now I'm sure that a charity getting involved in politics is illegal, but hey anything goes in this day and age.

Ever heard of Common Purpose?

Main Charity 1056573
Financial Year Start Financial Year End Gross Income Total Expenditure
01 Aug 1999 31 Jul 2000 £5,115,835 £5,313,701
01 Aug 2000 31 Jul 2001 £5,482,936 £5,484,387
01 Aug 2001 31 Jul 2002 £5,750,511 £5,595,912
01 Aug 2002 31 Jul 2003 £6,500,277 £6,193,633
01 Aug 2003 31 Jul 2004 £6,188,310 £6,007,372
01 Aug 2004 31 Jul 2005 £6,326,478 £6,362,620
01 Aug 2005 31 Jul 2006 £6,417,558 £6,494,064

You will surprised if you dig around how many "Graduates" common purpose has in our "European Regional Everything"