|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Feb 3, 2024 10:35:44 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. Possibly. However, you talk about these things as if they're absolutes. And because you say so does not make them so. |
|
|
|
Post by Dogburger on Feb 3, 2024 10:38:53 GMT
No prizes for guessing when and if the lefty loons get in power what charities they will be supporting and contributing to. Well I know my sons private school wont be one of them  |
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on Feb 3, 2024 10:41:50 GMT
you talk about these things as if they're absolutes. And because you say so does not make them so. And there are those who deny their existence. Sometimes it's best just to agree to differ. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Feb 3, 2024 10:45:26 GMT
you talk about these things as if they're absolutes. And because you say so does not make them so. And there are those who deny their existence. Sometimes it's best just to agree to differ. Who denies these problems exist? from what I can see the only argument is over who creates them and who pretends they are nonexistent, which always leads back to one place, those who have and had the power not to let them be created in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on Feb 3, 2024 10:45:50 GMT
Well I know my sons private school wont be one of them It's not exactly controversial to propose that outfits like private schools and religions should be cut off from taxpayer largesse. (And if either want to pass the hat for private donations, that's between them and their donors.) |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 3, 2024 10:56:20 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. This is very likely false.
I don't know of any charity that focuses on migrants rights, or asylum seekers rights for that matter, which relies on public donations for their funding. I have looked at dozens and have never found one yet.
Funding sources for such causes are typically other charities, usually charitable trusts, public bodies such as the National Lottery and the BBC, and local and national government. Occasionally also the EU.
|
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Feb 3, 2024 10:58:53 GMT
No prizes for guessing when and if the lefty loons get in power what charities they will be supporting and contributing to. Well I know my sons private school wont be one of them You Do know that private Schools while having a Chairty Status and having income of 6 Billion pounds have received Govenment Grant/Subs .and Have hardly net the Commitment what the Government hand outs was for |
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Feb 3, 2024 11:27:30 GMT
I always do my homework before contributing to a debate I know little about
So I looked at homelessness as a good example of charitable work, and of course there are numerous charities which help and support homeless people, including Shelter, the Salvation Army, the Royal British Legion and dozens of others.
I found that many of these charities recieve government support, including funding, including government contracts.
The moral question here is, should these charities keep quiet and say nothing if they believe that government policy is detremental to homeless people. ?
My very strong opinion on that question is a resounding NO, it would be a kind of blackmail.
I have a kind of indifferent view of asylum seekers, refugees and small boat crossings, because there are so many unanswered questions. I totally accept that we cannot take in everyone, but my default starting point in all this is that first and foremost these people are Human Beings.
The other thing that I cannot get my head around, is the fact that a refugee or asylum seeker ( who could be merely an economic migrant ) decides that the UK is for some reason the place of his or her choosing, but then we send them to a different country on a different continent, sorry but I just dont understand the logic.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 3, 2024 11:31:01 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. We are on about the fact that this shower of shit have given these parasites 200 odd million lefty old bean. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 3, 2024 11:38:14 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. If a charity becomes reliant on government funding can it still be a charity? - is it any different to the NHS or the Railways? |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 3, 2024 11:41:47 GMT
...The other thing that I cannot get my head around, is the fact that a refugee or asylum seeker ( who could be merely an economic migrant ) decides that the UK is for some reason the place of his or her choosing, but then we send them to a different country on a different continent, sorry but I just dont understand the logic. What do you believe would be the logical approach to dealing with failed asylum seekers or other illegal migrants who can't be returned to their home country for one reason or another?
You also mentioned refugees, but of course anyone granted refugee status cannot be removed unless they have commited particularly serious crimes.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Feb 3, 2024 11:45:47 GMT
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. If a charity becomes reliant on government funding can it still be a charity? - is it any different to the NHS or the Railways? Quite so. I'd be happy if no charity received government funding. |
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Feb 3, 2024 11:56:54 GMT
Shouldn't a failed asylum seeker from Syria be returned to a refugee camp in Syria, or close to the Syrian border. There are refugee camps for virtually every conflict, every war, for every nationality on all continents.
Why did our government cut staff within the UK border and immigration authority ?
Why does it take so long to process applicants ?
I cant help but think we need much more co-operation between Europe, the UNCHR and others on this, there does not seem to be a lot of joined up thinking between nations. Some of the millions we spend could instead be diverted to Turkey, which has the largest refugee camps in Europe, in return for agreements in sending people to these managed camps.
|
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Feb 3, 2024 11:59:14 GMT
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. This is very likely false.
I don't know of any charity that focuses on migrants rights, or asylum seekers rights for that matter, which relies on public donations for their funding. I have looked at dozens and have never found one yet.
Funding sources for such causes are typically other charities, usually charitable trusts, public bodies such as the National Lottery and the BBC, and local and national government. Occasionally also the EU.
This is very likely false. I don't know of any charity that focuses on migrants rights, or asylum seekers rights for that matter, which relies on public donations for their funding. I have looked at dozens and have never found one yet. This is Very likely False . British Red Cross How we spend your money Here's the breakdown of our spending in 2022, which was £366.7 million: 72.9% was spent helping people in crisis (excludes support costs). For example, crisis response, refugee support and international work. Action Aid You can help support refugees with a monthly gift. £ Specify amount 7.00 per month Our Privacy Policy will tell you all you need to know about how we handle, store and process your data. Asignificant number of people who are forced to flee their homes and seek refuge in other countries or regions due to various factors, such as armed conflicts, persecution, human rights abuses, disasters, or other humanitarian emergencies can lead to a refugee crisis. .there Many more i Can find. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Feb 3, 2024 11:59:51 GMT
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. If a charity becomes reliant on government funding can it still be a charity? - is it any different to the NHS or the Railways? A case in point would be Migrant Help, a tax-exempt charity whose main focus is on providing support to asylum seekers and victims of modern slavery. In 2023 it received £42 million in government funding and had 364 employees.
It could almost be a department within the Home Office, in fact most of the 'services' it offers were provided by the HO or other government agencies in earlier times before outsourcing became the fashion.
Receiving so much public largesse has not muzzled the charity's criticism of government policy; the Rwanda scheme has come in for particular criticism. Migrant Help's key objectives include working "... in equal partnership with our clients to inform and influence public perceptions and better decision making."
Their clients are of course not the taxpayers who are the ultimate source of their funding.
|
|
