Sunday, May 27, 2007

A difficult choice

You know when you get to that stage where you loathe so many groups of people that you have a hard time choosing which one it is that you despise the most? No? Oh. Well, I am having a problem working out whether I am more enraged at fucking corrupt politicians or the bastard charities that spend the millions lobbying them.

Today's Charity of Contempt Award goes to Save The Children, who have kicked off a campaign to persuade Gordon Brown to use our tax money to pay eliminate medical care fees in Africa.
LONDON (Reuters) - Gordon Browns across Britain are calling for leaders of rich nations to help African countries abolish healthcare fees when the G8 meets in Germany next month.

In a publicity stunt, charity Save the Children has dispatched a car to travel round the country and find 840 people with the same name as the next prime minister.

Save the Children is campaigning for the G8 to pay for the abolition of healthcare fees in Africa and hopes by getting all the Gordon Browns in Britain to sign up, it might influence the Brown in government.

Just what the fucking fuck is going on? Get your grubby little hands off our money, you robbing bastards. If you want to try to persuade individuals that your cause is worth fighting for, then persuade them to voluntarily donate cash to it; do not lobby the Cyclops King to give even more of the money which he has extorted from the people of this country to the economic black hole that is Africa.

Do you see the difference between "voluntary contributions" and "money extorted with menaces from the taxpayers of this country to pay for our public services", you evil fucks?

Furthermore, it isn't even a decent cause. Matt Sinclair sums up the reason for this very nicely, in fact.
Brilliant, let's reinforce in African leaders minds that their budget is purely there for the purpose of enslaving or massacring their people. Replicate the dependency of poor regions in rich countries on an international scale. Create yet more corruption that ruins the chances of poor nations building decent states.

I'm not saying there's necessarily no role for international aid. Clearly at times, during disasters in particular, considerations about incentives and corruption need to go out of the window. However, institutionalising global healthcare provision is a dismal idea.

Quite. So don't lobby an unelected leader to spend extorted cash on a fucking stupid project. Save The Children join the NSPCC (amongst others) on my list of charities that I will never give to. Ever again.

God, I hate these people so very, very, very much.


Chuck Unsworth said...

Look, let's get sensible here. Charidee is a global industry now. The cash paid into most of these marketing organisations is largely swallowed up in 'overheads' and 'promotion' and, of course, offices, salaries, pensions etc.

There are a few such outfits who actually do deliver, but it is gross for the cowboys at Save The Children to attempt to interfere politically. Who the hell are they? Some sort of political party?

Spent Copper said...

Quite so Chuck. I have long since stopped seeing many of these charities, at least those based in this country, as little more than 'creshes' for aspirant Labour and Lib Dem MPs. Add to the list the BBC, the wider Labour movement, and it is quite a career structure, all paid for by us of course

Anonymous said...

Exactly how does it help any children by sending a car round pointlessly burning petrol?

If you wanted some spare Gordon Browns, why not just google the name, or check the electoral register or pay to put up an advert on one of those popular blog-thingies?

Or, since there are plenty of nitwits at Save the Children, why don't they just all change their name by deed poll to Gordon Brown?

It turns out there are only about half a dozen people who wish to be publicly ridiculed for being called 'Gordon Brown'. Save the Children have had to resort to photographing people who merely know someone called Gordon Brown.

Why don't we donate the Gordon Brown we have got to Africa? It would be at least as much help.

Roger Thornhill said...

Right there with you, DK.

Such "charities" are already elbowing their way towards the trough to become part of the 'fifth sector'.

What these people forget is that what they call "abolish healthcare fees" is to just transfer healthcare fees from one group to another. You abolish healthcare fees by making Doctors and Nurses work for free and drug companies give consumables for free.

You and I and the NSPCC know that such a request would result in a curt reply, so they go to their favourite rent-a-mob and do a deal along these lines:

"You beat up the taxpayers to get more dosh for our delusional fetish and in return you get to look like a hero"

If you want Africa to improve you need Rule of Law. No Kleptocracies, sound property rights and no more noise, I mean war.

If people were not subsistence farmers then famines would be few and far between, too, but oh no! that is not quaint photo-op agrarianism.

verity said...

I'm right with you, DK, and I disapprove of nation states being involved in any way in the charity business. If taxpayers/salary-earners want to donate to Africa or the jungle (now known romantically as "the rain forest"), they're capable of figuring out how to to it.

Africa is the richest, by far, continent on the planet Earth. How is it they are also the poorest? Something tells me it is not our fault. Indeed, something tells me it's their own fault,and they should fix it.

Africa is well able, with its abundance of natural resources,to finance itself. I don't know how they're going to be able to get the willpower together to kick start the entire continent if they can't even organise some well-place bullets to be embedded in some brains, and figure out a way to recover billions in illegal accounts from Swiss banks.

I don't even believe in "disaster relief" - a feelgood term that means lining local pockets on the back of a disaster.

Well said, Roger Thornhill.

Anonymous said...

One of the charity stunts I have come to bitterly resent is Jeans for Genes Day. The charity has persuaded too many schools to do the equivalence of 'sale of indulgences' whereby children are allowed to wear ordinary clothes rather than school uniform in return for a specified - note, not a discretionary - donation.

OK, it's not a lot of money but it's my money but the threat is 'your child will be marked out' if I fail to contribute.

I become increasingly annoyed for the parents who are on benefits, a sizeable number of whom are on very tight budgets. A pound to them really is a loaf of bread or 3 pints of milk. Their money is tax money which my family has paid to support them, not to have it gyrated to heaven knows where and for goodness knows what.

The attempts to bully parents in to supporting charities is wrong. Charity is a matter for individual parents to decide about - nobody else.

Anonymous said...

What a bunch of over priviliged bollitic spewing fuckwits the majority of responders to this post seem.

As though the general cloud of fuckwittery that had emanted from DK's arse wasn't enough, you had to add your own.

why not start with some basic background reading before you start talking crap about stuff you clearly picked up from the guardian.

try this:

Mark Wadsworth said...

I quote "Sphere is three things; a handbook, a broad process of collaboration, and an expression of commitment to quality and accountability."

Well that's going to help the situation in Darfur no end, isn't it?

Oh yeah? So what has happened for the last ten years, exactly?

Over at the ASI, they are posting some of the winning entries of the Young Writers on Liberty. One does not want to put such keen minds off,...