|
|
Post by Tinculin on Feb 2, 2024 22:08:10 GMT
Jonksy - Please give the thread a title - keep the FFS in it for all I care, but come on man, you can be more imaginative and do better....
Also, when a moderator is asking you to rename a thread title because it's inappropriate, please don't ignore them or argue..... just do it.
If you think a mod is being unreasonable, PM's to other mods / myself, are the way to go
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Feb 2, 2024 22:37:57 GMT
The title still doesn't address the topic and is not conducive to productive debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 3, 2024 9:14:43 GMT
Where are these so called fucking charities when our own homeless only have a shop doorway whilst this filth thrust up on us by the EUSSR are given 4 star accomodation? Charity starts at home FFS.
Charities lobbying against Rwanda Bill given £209m of taxpayer money.
Members of the House of Lords expressed their concerns about Rwanda legislation but voted against a Liberal Democrat attempt to kill the Bill entirely
The Government has given £209 million to charities that have lobbied the House of Lords to vote against the Rwanda Bill and have described the policy as “deeply harmful” and setting a “dangerous precedent”.
On Monday, a group of 265 charities, focused largely on helping refugees and migrants, criticised the legislation, designed to stop the small boat Channel crossings. They said it represented “a threat to the universality of human rights”.
Do we know what percent of the money given to human rights charities was spent opposing the government's Rwanda bill? The way it is worded in the Torygraph article is misleading as it suggest all £209 million was used for that purpose when in fact it will only be a small fraction of the total. As a taxpayer I'd be more upset by the nearly half a billion spent on achieving zero deportations to Rwanda myself. Especially as it is just electioneering and will have next to no benefit in terms of reducing immigration. Governments typically do waste money and fail. However, they shouldn't try to do this by giving money to borderline criminal organisations engaging in dubious politically controversial activity. The other problem is the potential corruption that occurs when the government hands out money for something very vague and ill defined. Government support of charities may be large part of the reason they have turned rancid. They money attracts the wrong personality type and creates bad incentives. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Feb 3, 2024 9:21:54 GMT
If you saw the houses (one of their houses) that these 'charity' bosses own you wouldn't give them the steam off your shit, by the time these charities help themselves to salaries, bonuses not to mention fraud, there is basically nothing left for the said charity.
I'll take a guess that if these charities have been handed £200 million of tax payers cash, by the time the charity has helped itself, the people who are meant to benefit from it will be lucky to see, and I mean lucky to see £20 million of it, it will have dropped a zero 0
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Feb 3, 2024 9:27:11 GMT
The title still doesn't address the topic and is not conducive to productive debate.
Any good journalist will use headline grabbing titles, (even if it's not clear what the story is going to be about) you need titles to grab people's attention, which in this case it's clearly worked, because it's gabbed yours. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 3, 2024 9:31:03 GMT
If you saw the houses (one of their houses) that these 'charity' bosses own you wouldn't give them the steam off your shit, by the time these charities help themselves to salaries, bonuses not to mention fraud, there is basically nothing left for the said charity. I'll take a guess that if these charities have been handed £200 million of tax payers cash, by the time the charity has helped itself, the people who are meant to benefit from it will be lucky to see, and I mean lucky to see £20 million of it, it will have dropped a zero 0 It seems evey one and their dog wants to become a charity these days mate. Take Major Toms valiant effort which was raided and abused by his own fucking daughter...
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 3, 2024 9:35:22 GMT
If you saw the houses (one of their houses) that these 'charity' bosses own you wouldn't give them the steam off your shit, by the time these charities help themselves to salaries, bonuses not to mention fraud, there is basically nothing left for the said charity. I'll take a guess that if these charities have been handed £200 million of tax payers cash, by the time the charity has helped itself, the people who are meant to benefit from it will be lucky to see, and I mean lucky to see £20 million of it, it will have dropped a zero 0 I'm not an expert on the legal limitations and requirements of a charity, but it seems to me they are way too lax. The limitations that exist probably concern issues like gender balance and pronoun use - ie they force the charity to waste money on parasitism. This is another thing the Tories should have sorted out a decade ago, but didn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Feb 3, 2024 9:38:25 GMT
If you saw the houses (one of their houses) that these 'charity' bosses own you wouldn't give them the steam off your shit, by the time these charities help themselves to salaries, bonuses not to mention fraud, there is basically nothing left for the said charity. I'll take a guess that if these charities have been handed £200 million of tax payers cash, by the time the charity has helped itself, the people who are meant to benefit from it will be lucky to see, and I mean lucky to see £20 million of it, it will have dropped a zero 0 It seems evey one and their dog wants to become a charity these days mate. Take Major Toms valiant effort which was raided and abused by his own fucking daughter...
Exactly, this is a prime example of taking advantage of people's kind generosity, his daughter has absolutely trashed the reputation of this charity and the sad part that she's also trashed the good name of her father, but she's typical of greedy, self serving, charity fraudsters, I bet Uncle Tom will be turning over in his grave, and I hope that bitch can't sleep at night after destroying her father's legacy. |
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on Feb 3, 2024 10:01:44 GMT
The title still doesn't address the topic and is not conducive to productive debate.
It never bothers me to be called "woke". Definition: "woke adjective UK /wəʊk/ US /woʊk/ aware, especially of social problems such as racism and inequality" I don't see that as in any way being a negative. I'm more confused by the simplistic assumption that people who subscribe to such charities do so at the expense of others, which may meet with more "approval" from many here. Example - I support our town's "refugee welcome" group (a charity): and I ALSO support a couple of local homelessness charities. One, I'm sure some here would condemn, the others would get their blessing. Gosh - isn't it confusing to live in a non-binary world? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 3, 2024 10:05:47 GMT
The government should be quite careful about the activities of groups it supports. A charity is , by its very nature, not supplying a service to those funding it. Because such vague relationships are easily able to become corrupt and unaccountable, the best policy may be that government simply not do it at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Feb 3, 2024 10:16:30 GMT
The government should be quite careful about the activities of groups it supports. A charity is , by its very nature, not supplying a service to those funding it. Because such vague relationships are easily able to become corrupt and unaccountable, the best policy may be that government simply not do it at all. I agree. I think it's clear that many charities have become quasi-political bodies and government should perhaps not be contributing public money to them. Or at least not without more stringent controls in place. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Feb 3, 2024 10:21:36 GMT
It never bothers me to be called "woke". Definition: "woke adjective UK /wəʊk/ US /woʊk/ aware, especially of social problems such as racism and inequality" I don't see that as in any way being a negative... The problem comes when it's makey-uppy "social problems" and "inequality". In the same way that many on the left shout "Racist" at anyone that they disagree with, many so-called social problems and inequalities are largely in the eye of the beholder. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Feb 3, 2024 10:23:15 GMT
No prizes for guessing when and if the lefty loons get in power what charities they will be supporting and contributing to.
|
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on Feb 3, 2024 10:30:11 GMT
The problem comes when it's makey-uppy "social problems" and "inequality". In the same way that many on the left shout "Racist" at anyone that they disagree with, many so-called social problems and inequalities are largely in the eye of the beholder. The other side of the coin being those who dismiss social problems and racism, etc, as "makey-uppy" because they either don't believe they're real, or don't care if they are or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Feb 3, 2024 10:34:25 GMT
The government should be quite careful about the activities of groups it supports. A charity is , by its very nature, not supplying a service to those funding it. Because such vague relationships are easily able to become corrupt and unaccountable, the best policy may be that government simply not do it at all. Yes Charity's get most of there Money from. Public Donations. So surely them that Donate to these Charity's that Support Asylum seekers rights are doing the Function they Donate for. |
|
