|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Political statements of UK charities
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Ooh look at me! All big and hard in the security and anonymity of the internet.
Your size and tumescence is duly noted, "deano".
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
PS. Re the Dignity project lot - I just looked up their twitter account, it comes across as super immature, clueless and unprofessional, also last year they do claim at least twice to have been hacked, lost password etc. They seem to be a husband and wife team with the husband tweeting. The charity also seems to have a tiny income (according to The Guardian)- so no staff I'd guess. So possibly a lone numpty or possibly daft enough to be careless with passwords, but looking at some of the stuff tweeted - some gendered insults and crass Scottish exceptionalism, I think I'd lean towards the numpty theory. They may have registered as a charity, but I think they don't really tell you much about charities beyond the fact that there's a low-end eccentric fringe out there which can get a bit unsavoury.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
It is odd that charities may not speak of politics but corporations may do so. But then a charity never ran a government, while corporations routinely do.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
It now appears from the update on the New Statesman article on the Dignity Project that "chairman Bill Wood may have posted the comment on his Facebook, which was linked to the Twitter account." So that would appear to be numpty then.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Did I miss the memo that said they were into ending poverty in Africa but not the UK?
I possibly did. I'm sure I knew that they did some work in the UK but always thought the bulk of their stuff was done in Africa (possibly influenced by their TV adverts featuring children frolicking under a newly-installed well).
So, what's the underlying message here? That you're perfectly happy for a charity to suggest in some way that one of the reasons for poverty is a government not doing a very good job at helping its citizenry, so long as the government in question and the citizenry in question are not your own?
That's certainly the impression I'm getting from the accumulation of your posts.
"They" live in a ramshackle country plagued by inefficiency and bad policy decisions. "We" live in some kind of perfect system.
[ 12. June 2014, 03:29: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
On the whole question of charities being 'political'.
Governments of all stripes occasionally like to whip out this criticism. Basically it comes down to 'you dared to express an opinion on a relevant matter of public interest that is different from our opinion'.
It's simply nonsense to suggest that charities must confine themselves to what you might call the 'administration' of poverty - dealing with the need - and never consider the 'policy' of poverty - how to reduce the need.**
In fact, most charities are doing what they can to work themselves out of a job. Most people who are involved in charities would love nothing better than to actually eliminate whatever problem they are trying to address.
Telling charities to keep out of politics is telling them that their job is solely confined to treating symptoms and not commenting on underlying causes. It's a ludicrous idea. And in fact one of the biggest possible criticisms of governments generally*** is that they can all too easily invent policies in some sort of abstract space without talking to anyone who deals with the reality, on the ground, of those tasked in whatever way with the 'administration' side of things.
**Within government (or certainly within the one I'm most familiar with), it's very common indeed for responsibility for policy to be separated from responsibility for administration/implementation. Hence the source of this language. I'm sure it's common in the private sector too - you have 'management' that decides policy and workers who actually do the work.
***And indeed all policy makers generally.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
It is odd that charities may not speak of politics but corporations may do so. But then a charity never ran a government, while corporations routinely do.
Well, exactly.
This is not new - nor should anyone be surprised. It's happened for centuries across the globe: politicians & corporations have wanted religions and their charitable activities to confine themselves to caring for the "Worthy Poor" and not dare to criticise the politicians or corporations themselves.
As William Blackstone put it;
quote:
A corporation cannot commit treason, or felony, or other crime, in its corporate capacity: though its members may, in their distinct individual capacities. Neither is it capable of suffering a traitor's, or felon's punishment, for it is not liable to corporal penalties, nor to attainder, forfeiture, or corruption of blood. It cannot be executor or administrator, or perform any personal duties; for it cannot take an oath for the due execution of the office. It cannot be seized of lands to the use of another; for such kind of confidence is foreign to the ends of its institution: neither can it be compelled to perform such trust, because it cannot be committed to prison; for its existence being ideal, no man can apprehend or arrest it. And therefore also it cannot be outlawed; for outlawry always supposes a precedent right of arresting, which has been defeated by the parties absconding, and that also a corporation cannot do: for which reasons the proceedings to compel a corporation to appear to any suit by attorney are always by distress on their lands and goods. Neither can a corporation be excommunicated; for it has no soul.
--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke
Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
orfeo: quote:
Governments of all stripes occasionally like to whip out this criticism. Basically it comes down to 'you dared to express an opinion on a relevant matter of public interest that is different from our opinion'.
This.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
orfeo: quote:
Governments of all stripes occasionally like to whip out this criticism. Basically it comes down to 'you dared to express an opinion on a relevant matter of public interest that is different from our opinion'.
This.
And makes us look bad. I'm sure the government's "robust" response has nothing to do with the fact that when people become more aware of the impact of their policies, the way they've wreaked the benefits system and IDS general vileness they start becoming uneasy.
Of course this government and their pals at the Daily Mail aren't going to want all of that discussed publically. If you've put that mucn energy into demonizing the poor and needy, you're not going to want people noticing who the real demons are.
It was extremely gratifying that the public's response to the DM's attempt to portray foodbanks as somewhere anyone with a convincing sob story can get free food was an arse kicking on social media and an increase in donations.
All credit to Oxfam for raising this. And no credit to the government for, yet again, refusing to engage in a much needed debate. But what would you expect from a Minister who couldn't be bothered to attend the recent debate on food bank use and sent his deputy instead. And she couldn't be bothered to stay for the whole thing - as no doubt she had something better to do. Like eat cake. Fuckers. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Tubbs
[ 12. June 2014, 13:01: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Brioche, I think you'll find.
I'm having a hard time recalling an occasion when the complaint about some group outside the parliamentary bubble being political when it really has no right to be has arisen from the left.
Where I have come across the left - and it was the far, far left - accusing people who disagreed with them of doing wrong, their stance was something like shouting "who elected you?" which is a different sort of complaint.
It always seems to be the right which thinks being political is wrong. What do they teach them in PPE? And why couldn't the Revolutionary French have sat the other way round, so the ideas now found on the left could be called right? The right doesn't half trade on homonym.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I forgot the other objection to objectors, though for this one I'm not sure about the bias of those who use it. "Is your group properly constituted?"
Now this, unless registered as a company or a charity, is none of their business. Unless what they have in their mind is using said constitution and standing orders to effect a take over.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
"Is your group properly constituted?"
This is a very valid challenge to any charity.
Charities are vulnerable, in a way that companies and government agencies are not, to domination and subjugation by those who have the most time. (They are very similar to Internet forums in that respect: the tone and acceptable content of a forum is often decided by the people who spend the most time there - unless there is an equally diligent moderation team.)
A properly constituted charity can be held to account.
--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke
Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Ah, but I did except charities. vital for them. If it's just a group of like minded people with a shared purpose, that's different, surely. I put the post in because I couldn't think of any left wing criticism which was used in the way that charities are criticised for being political. Sort of thinking aloud, I suppose.
The other one the left has used was "You can't start a group without the permission of other groups in the same area", which they applied even when the purposes were different.
[ 13. June 2014, 17:55: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:
Charities are vulnerable, in a way that companies and government agencies are not, to domination and subjugation by those who have the most time.
Companies aren't? Really? So executive directors, 'professional' non-execs, and corporate shareholders, don't tend to dominate?
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
In the process of reading the books I have collected over the years preparatory to giving them to Oxfam, I have started on one by John Verney (1973) in which the family's father gets involved in a local council issue. And it is the Conservatives who accuse him of being political as though it is wronger than a wrong thing.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
With very few exceptions, when people talk about being 'political' as a wrong thing they are always Conservatives at heart.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Yes, I was posting that as evidence that my previously posted impression was shared by someone else, and that it was noticed some time ago.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
As Michael Flanders said - "Of course, our council is strictly non-political. They're all conservatives!"
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
It's anal when applied to bodily functioning isn't it? Rx: high colonics.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I hadn't heard that one!
It's in the spoken intro to the gnu song on "At the Drop of A Hat" (I will now go and get out more...)
[ 17. June 2014, 08:48: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I'm having a hard time recalling an occasion when the complaint about some group outside the parliamentary bubble being political when it really has no right to be has arisen from the left.
It's a common complaint against religious bodies who try to use their clout to influence the political debates about the various dead horse subjects.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I'm having a hard time recalling an occasion when the complaint about some group outside the parliamentary bubble being political when it really has no right to be has arisen from the left.
It's a common complaint against religious bodies who try to use their clout to influence the political debates about the various dead horse subjects.
Show me a government policy and I'll show you non-political body seeking to influence the outcome. When we have a right-ish government, left-ish bodies make more noise and vice-versa.
Some of these do so through statements and debate, some behind closed doors and some through the use of fat brown envelopes.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I wasn't saying the left did not complain abiout opposition. I just couldn't recall them using that particular complaint.
I did learn that if trying to reach a Conservative group, it was necessary to use many individual letters, not cloned, and not a petition, or they would assume that the objectors were tools of some left wing militant group, and could therefore be ignored. While if trying to reach a Labour group, it was necessary to have a petition from an identifiable group, or they would assume that the objectors were a few misled and anti-democratic individuals, and could therefore be ignored.
[ 17. June 2014, 12:43: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I wasn't saying the left did not complain abiout opposition. I just couldn't recall them using that particular complaint.
I did learn that if trying to reach a Conservative group, it was necessary to use many individual letters, not cloned, and not a petition, or they would assume that the objectors were tools of some left wing militant group, and could therefore be ignored. While if trying to reach a Labour group, it was necessary to have a petition from an identifiable group, or they would assume that the objectors were a few misled and anti-democratic individuals, and could therefore be ignored.
I see what you mean more clearly now. They are the traditional characteristics of the Conservative and Labour parties. The other route to the parties, especially ruling groups on councils, is to get at someone who is not of the ruling group. In Wales, even where no party has overall control, we usually have at least two such groups to choose from.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
That hasn't been possible in the things I've been involved with.
And I have to add that both sides had a tendency to write off groups as being "Spring Heeled Jack's little group of friends". (Obviously not the real name, to protect the activist.) The implication being that the people concerned were all just parrots. And so could be ignored.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I wasn't saying the left did not complain abiout opposition. I just couldn't recall them using that particular complaint.
Agreed. Conservative churches trying to influence politics aren't being 'political', they're trying to impose their religion on secular society/non-believers.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Did I miss the memo that said they were into ending poverty in Africa but not the UK?
I possibly did. I'm sure I knew that they did some work in the UK but always thought the bulk of their stuff was done in Africa (possibly influenced by their TV adverts featuring children frolicking under a newly-installed well).
So, what's the underlying message here? That you're perfectly happy for a charity to suggest in some way that one of the reasons for poverty is a government not doing a very good job at helping its citizenry, so long as the government in question and the citizenry in question are not your own?
No, that wasn't my point, I'm afraid. Rather that I thought the charity was more focused on doing practical things (like building wells).
But you raise a good point: I don't recall Oxfam ever criticising African leaders, say, for poverty in their countries in the way that they've attacked the present government here.
Similarly, I don't recall Oxfam attacking the previous Labour government over poverty in a similar way.
One almost gets the impression that Oxfam is moved to launch a high-profile campaign against poverty they think is caused by the Conservatives, but otherwise they won't bother.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
.. I don't recall Oxfam attacking the previous Labour government over poverty in a similar way.
This ring any bells?
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Undercover Christian
Apprentice
# 17875
|
Posted
quote:
Indeed they are. Would you be willing to help save jobs in the second-hand book trade by calling on Oxfam to close its bookshops, which undercut them?
I see this accusation thrown around a lot on the internet, and it doesn't stand up to a bit of intellectual rigour.
(A) I've seen no evidence that Oxfam Books played a greater role in the decline of British second-hand bookshops than Amazon, or the changing tastes of British consumers (who says that buying second-hand books isn't dying out with the baby-boomers? I don't see many young people into it). I strongly suspect it's Amazon that's done it, unless you have any studies to back up this point?
(B) No business has a right to exist. Business is business. At least the 'profits' (if that's the right word) of Oxfam Books are going to a worthy cause. If half the effort being put into complaining about the success of a competitor was put into finding alternative business models there would be a lot more success about.
Phew.
That felt good.
TUC.
--------------------
http://www.theundercoverchristian.com
Posts: 26 | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
