Wednesday, December 02, 2009

Christmas charity appeal

(nb. I am not the Devil's Kitchen)

The TaxPayers' Alliance has published a list of the top 25 parasitic quangos and so-called charities that the country could well do without. Not only would this save £33 million a year but - better still - Don Shenker and Deborah Arnott would have their mouths ripped from the teat of the state and be forced to get a real job. 

As Ed West says at The Telegraph:
By its very nature, a system where the state funds various pressure groups, think tanks and charities is going to be corrupting, especially when these groups advocate within the cosy surrounds of state television.

Let’s hope that when the cuts come next year, the first savings will be from taxpayer-funded “charities”.

According to West, the Tories are "now serious about dealing with this hydra-headed monster". Nick Cohen, on the other hand, thinks a Conservative government will make things worse:
The state does not wither or even shrink when it pays charities to do its work. It merely decentralises the provision of services while expanding the centre's command and control into new areas of public life...

Can a charity that relies on the state remain a charity?

In 2007, thinktank Civitas produced a report which revealed the growing dependency of apparently independent institutions. Save the Children, Oxfam, Shelter and the British Red Cross received between 30% and 70% of their money from government. Barnardo's was 78% state funded, Action for Children 88%, while the National Family and Parenting Institute was almost a fully owned subsidiary.

The election of a Cameron government will accelerate the process.


Meanwhile, our own rogue's gallery of Third Sector tape-worms continues to grow, with the Institute for Public Policy Research, Climate Outreach and Information Network and Global Action Plan UK amongst the recently-added.

But there are more of the ball-lickers out there and, as always, we rely on you to tell us about them at http://fakecharities.org. The only criteria are that they (a) take government money and (b) lobby the government. If you've submitted a suspect organisation to us and it hasn't appeared on the site, the chances are that you haven't given us at least one example of (b).

Unlike the scum we monitor, we don't get paid for our work and we haven't got a lot of time to dick around on Google searching for evidence to back up someone's hunch. So if you submitted one of the following charities in the last six months, why not get back in touch and tell us exactly what it is you reckon they're lobbying for?
The Sutton Trust

The British Council

Nacro Community Enterprises

Centre for Maternal & Child Enquiries

Children's Legal Centre

National Energy Action

Shelter

Turning Point

The Global Witness Trust

Citizenship Foundation

Women's Sport & Fitness Foundation

Personal Finance Education Group

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Global Witness mostly produce reports about things like illegal logging and resource exploitation: people extracting resources from third world countries which they acquired rights to under dubious circumstances or without paying a reasonable amount for them. Good stuff.

HOWEVER, they also recently released a report called "Undue Diligence: How banks do business with corrupt regimes". It's about, for example, an African dictator's son having an account with Barclay's in the UK, and filling it with ill-gotten gains which he then spent on fast cars in the UK. And banks which don't apply safeguards they say they will. http://www.globalwitness.org/pages/en/the_role_of_financial_institutions.html
They have testified to the US Gov. They haven't testified to HMG as far as I know, but the report contains policy proposals and is funded in part by HMG, so I think that counts as lobbying of HMG. They get most of their income from a variety of governments, not just HMG. I'm not sure if they get a big enough percentage from HMG on its own to qualify for fakecharities.org, but they certainly qualify if you count the money they get from other governments.

They propose the abolition of banking secrecy everywhere, and they like anti-money-laundering laws. They think there should be more regulation and more big government databases.

Stopping African dictators is a useful pretext for Western governments to abolish tax havens and increase taxes, basically.

Stop Common Purpose said...

Don't forget the biggest crooks of all - Common Purpose.

Richard Allan said...

Does the LPUK plan to abolish the charitable status of independent schools?

mister_choos said...

Independent schools take no money from the government that I'm aware of. Charitable status for them is effectively a tax break, and not a drain on the taxpayer. Quite the opposite really as the parents who pay the fees are usually taxpayers who aren't using taxpayer funded schools, and have paid tax on their incomes.

Anonymous said...

Give these Guys a Christmas present with a BlogBurst:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHtW9syGw68

neil craig said...

I blogged recently on getting rid of the Natural Environment Research Council (£400 million on eco-fascism) & cutting the the Higherv Education funding Council for England. They gave £2.7 & £6.6 million to Prof Jones of the CRU respectively which does not seem a good use of public money.
http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2009/11/paying-for-climate-fraud-when-175.html

Janum Moondi said...

The Devil pretends to firm but fair methodology.

a) takes public money
b) lobbies government

Why is Shelter still not on the site then? I got entered by more than one person I heard of.

It ain't just global warming babies and donkey sanctuaries mates. This shit happens everywhere.

But you'all keep bitching to the converted via the internet. You're good at it!