February 5th, 2014

How Charities Spend Taxpayer Millions on Political Lobbying

The Institute of Economic Affairs has done the leg work to expose how charities spend millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on political campaigns and lobbying. As Guido mentioned earlier in the week, several leading charities are now run by ex-Labour advisers. This is clearly reflected in their work:

  • Save the Children: Receives 16.3% of total income from taxpayer. Run by Justin Forsyth, former No. 10 spinner for Gordon Brown, who has ramped up attacks on domestic government “cuts” since 2010.
  • National Children’s Bureau: Receives more than 50% of income from taxpayer. Current campaigns include minimum pricing for alcohol, votes at 16 and a ban on smacking children.
  • Sustain: Receives 24.8% of income from taxpayer. Campaign for bans on junk food at supermarket checkouts and on children’s television.
  • Balance North East: Receives 100% of funding from taxpayer. Campaigns for minimum pricing of alcohol.
  • War on Want: Receives 8.7% of income from taxpayer. Opposed campaign to spend 0.7% of GDP on foreign aid, because if they joined they ‘couldn’t be critical of government.’

Worth reading some further work done on this by City AM this morning. A charity that relies in the main part on taxes is no more a charity than a prostitute is your girlfriend…


  1. 1
    Fish says:

    The report says;

    Written assurances should be required of ministers, departmental managers and trustees to ensure that the taxpayer does not subsidise political activism.

    That’s the BBC fucked then


    • 18
      Anonymous says:

      The ROYAL TOWN PLANNING INSTITUTE is a registered charity.

      Unlike the RNLI, comprised of brave men, and sometimes courageous women too, who put to sea risking their own lives, in treacherous seas so save those in peril, it is hard to contrast the risks of those select few in local government like planning officers and perhaps those who became consultants in the private sector who reap the rewards of lucrative property deals while double-acting as lobbyists in Wesminster successfully tweaking policy and granting permission for privileged clients. And firms associated with the Professional Advisory Group and NPPF come to mind.

      Do you really need me to provide links as evidence?


      • 24
        Strike the RNLI says:

        Even the RNLI has been infiltrated these days. Many beaches are now patrolled by well paid Bronzed posers wearing RNLI togs and driving brand spanking new 4 x 4s.


        • 33
          Anonymous says:

          I didn’t know spanking goes on in lobbying too


        • 89
          JH348324-03258 says:

          Yeah, I got ensnared by a couple of them in Devon last year trying to sell me a wrist band and get donations, having cynically putting a pretty blonde on ‘point’ and then having a quick talking posho do the actual hard sell.

          To be fair, a couple of others did sit on the beach all day and co-ordinated the rescue of a child who was being blown out to sea on a lylo, thanks to the moronic mother letting them go on one with a strong offshore breeze.


          • They have Croseed the line says:

            Fine. But they have moved from Local seafarers giving their time and sometimes lives for free to a Local authority lifeguard service.


      • 50
        Psyche the Dog says:

        So are schools like Eton, Rugby, Harrow, Charterhouse, the charities Act/s are is very, very loosely worded so some truely strange organisations are registered as charities, as Fawkes has from time to time mentioned on this blog. It is time that these “charities” were sorted out, not just the above, but including certain politicians “charities”, if Fawkes & Co. and the Sun did a deep investigation in who or what were registered as charities, they would win the acclaim of the whole population of the UK, there are hundreds or thousands of charities registered, forget sleezy footballers and tit and bum.


        • 138
          Grrr says:

          They are charities

          Without them the school system would collapse, as it tried to educate thousands of children – many of them the kids of Socialist wankers


    • 21
      Don't Eat, Smoke, Fart, Drink, Speak, Think and Breath unless we say so. says:

      A lot of these are not Charities in the Biblical sense. They are just pressure groups who want to impose their vision of society on the rest of us.

      The Whole charity sector needs re-visiting and re-defining. As far as I can tell most should not be given charity and all the privileges that come with it.


    • 28
      Hard (of thinking) Socialist says:

      Charidee begins at someone else’s bank account


    • 127
      john in cheshire says:

      I think we should stop using the word ‘Activist’ where ‘Agitator’ or ‘Trouble-maker’ best describes what these people do.


      • 139
        Grrr says:

        Isn’t easier to replace ‘Human rights campaigner’ with anti-Israel, anti-Capitalist university graduate who wouldn’t last 5 minutes in the private sector’


  2. 2
    Tony Balir says:

    Charity begins at home


    • 23
      Psyche the Dog says:

      Not in your pocket Tone. “A charity that relies in the main part on taxes is no more a charity than a prostitute is your girlfriend…” hmmm the Cons seem to know a lot about prostitutes by by the way Mandy Rice Davis was on mid week R4 she got to to know some leading Cons


      • 108
        Mr Speaker Bercow says:

        Are you saying that prostitutes can’t have boyfriends? Do you not see them as proper human beings?


    • 87
      Tony Bliar - multi millionaire says:

      So I put two of my advisors into key jobs at Children in Need.
      Just what Stalin would have done – strategic thinking.


  3. 3
    Brent Fraser says:

    Based on the performance of Oxfam’s representative on Newsnight last night, it would be interesting to see if they are tainted by this sort of activity as well?


    • 9
      Mitch says:

      That was a real eye-opener. I thought the Sodastream guy was fairly reasonable, actually. He genuinely seemed to want to help the Palestinians. What else can he do but give them jobs?

      The Oxfam guy was un-reasonable and rigid. He got all formal when the logic of his argument (sacking the Palestinians) was pointed out to him. His position was pure dogma. Oxfam have lost some of my support as a result of this.


      • 32
        Whippersnapper2 says:

        Oxfam and Amnesty have always been anti-Semitic organisations. Did you not know that?


        • 52
          smoke and mirrors says:

          Oxfam are pro 3rd runway after entering into partnership with Heathrow Airport Ltd.
          Oxsham bleat for the poor in Asia suffering due to climate change while supporting one of the biggest polluting industries on Earth.
          Oxsham beg for misplaced Africans while agreeing with the destruction of Heathrow Villages.


          • ReefKnot says:

            Oxfam should confine themselves to providing famine relief, which is what they were originally established for.

            No Charity should receive any Taxpayer funding. If they can’t survive on private donations then they should disband.


      • 69
        Just appalling says:

        Lost ‘some’ of your support?

        Why the fuck only ‘some’? Are you thick?


    • 12
      Anonymous says:

      My understanding is that charities infringe rules regarding Gift Aid if they venture into politics. I would have thought that Oxfam’s taxpayer subsidy should end.


      • 80
        Psyche the Dog says:

        I thought political parties registered themselves as charities, I think that nearly 20 years ago there were odd structures in the Cons as far as how they were financed, the local parties separte entities, the national party operated as a separate entity, but local parties got very rattled with demands for money by central office.


        • 93
          Charity Watcher says:

          Problem is the UK Charities Commission was a totally busted flush under Dame Suzi Leather who let socialist dogma rule the charities.
          Jury still out on the new guy in charge but I am not holding my breath.


          • was it something I said? says:

            Suzi Leather was a political appointee who was given the sole task of scape-goating private schools to the exclusion of investigating what the fuck was going on with the likes of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown’s fake charities.

            It was all part of the Nu Labour class war which saw them devote years of parliamentary time to b*a*n*n*ing fox-hunting while organising an Iraq war based on a pack of lies and a quick show of hands.


    • 14
      Peter Martin says:

      My first thought having seen the clip. Actually a rare example of Newsnight actually placing two sides equally and letting their own words make, or damn their cases.

      If Oxfam wants to be a political activism organisation, fine.

      It can just do it without any of my voluntary funds and, preferably, the faux charity tax breaks and/or bungs taken via government by other means.

      Be interesting to see just how the public responds to those pursuing political agendas in guise of helping the poor, sick or young, and paying PR talking heads vast sums on par with their CEOs, to make such a Horlicks of the whole thing.


      • 61
        Village Idiot says:

        ……Don’t any of these “Charities'” ,have people who have a conscience working in them?….Over years, I have wised up to charities and many other society traps and cons and conners!…Shame really,as I grew up trusting everything ,and everyone,but the brutality of life has knocked that out of me,thank goodness!
        I can see through it all now and it makes observing life, fascinating!


    • 31
      they're 'kin everywhere says:

      Pick an organisation or institution within the UK

      then find out which Common Purpose, or socialist, drones are infesting it

      and see why the UK is so fucked


      • 143
        ReefKnot says:

        Many so-called ‘Charities’ are infested by Common Purpose graduates and Socialist drones as you say. But Quangos are equally poisoned and cost the British taxpayer some £175 Billion a year.

        It is a fact that you, the taxpayer, are unwittingly contributing (under threat of imprisonment) to the likes of Stonewall who lobby and campaign to promote homosexuality as a way of life. They even produce literature for schoolchildren. And you pay for it because Stonewall receive taxpayer funding along with thousands of other so-called ‘Charities’.

        No Charity should receive taxpayer funds – if they can’t survive on private donations like real charities such as Air Ambulance and RNLI have to, then they don’t deserve to survive. But if the public think their cause is sufficiently worthy, they will donate to them.


  4. 4
    Andrew Efiong says:

    Aha, these charities have been flushed out as biased Labour stooges, dependent on the public sector.

    Somehow the children, cripples and paupers are forgotten in the stampede for political activism and a slice of taxpayer money.


    • 67
      Maximus says:

      Not charities any more but, having taken the government’s shilling (see T&Cs), they are now in effect Government Organized NGOs – gongos. With this advantage: why would a government bother to set them up, with the risk of that being seen to want merely to propagandize itself, when it for a small stake it can buy them ready-made off the shelf. But with this difference from buying a company, even an off-the-shelf one: where else could you buy a minority stake in an entity yet control the extent of its operations?


  5. 5
    Anonymous says:

    I once wrote to ‘save the children’ charity and said clearly that I would send them £52 a month (not the £2 they advertise for) IF they could guarantee that it would be spent on condoms of similar approved birth control. It’s funny but I never got any response whatever.


  6. 6
    Iain Duncan Smith says:

    My gripe with the tube strike is that it’s not disruptive enough. Shut down the network properly & keep it shut. That’s the way to strike.


    • 97
      was it something I said? says:

      Yep. Shut it down totally and install underground cycle-paths. Just board over the rails. It could be done overnight in the space of a couple of weeks.

      Everybody would get to work just as quickly and they’d be healthier too. Plus it’d be safer than cycling on the streets above.


    • 110
      Fish says:

      WTF do you keep posting shit like this for?


  7. 7

    Charity begins and ends at home, know what I mean?


  8. 8
    JH8594594359-045 says:

    Lefties need to understand that this thirty year blip where they basically got the run of play is simply over.

    Like all left wing vanity projects it required a constant, ever growing flow of money extorted from productive adults to keep it going. As soon as that runs out, it’s all over.

    The bursting of credit bubbles means that pennies are going to need to be accounted for, and no amount of petulant bluster in front of committees will cut it.


    • 45
      Jen Dobry says:

      but won’t somebody think of the children


      • 78
        JH348324-03258 says:

        They don’t give a fuck about the children.

        They just want to noisily look like they give a fuck, in order that they feel well of themselves as they pocket the hard-earned money people donated to help children.


    • 85
      Village Idiot says:

      ……..Well observed,and,absolutely correct!…The tinterweb has helped expose the pathetic lefty’s,and the damage they have done , is plain to see!


  9. 10
    Whippersnapper2 says:

    I once wrote to ‘Save the Children’ charity and offered to send them £52 a month (not he £2 they advertise for) IF they could guarantee to me that it would be spent on condoms or any similar approved birth control method. It’s funny….I never received any response. I wonder why?


  10. 11
    The Critic says:

    IEA Report 2012:

    It said 27,000 groups rely on the taxpayer for more than 75 per cent of their income – with individual donors providing less than half the funding for the entire voluntary sector

    ‘Government funding of politically active charities, non-governmental organisations and pressure groups is objectionable,’ the study said.

    ‘Firstly, it subverts democracy and debases the concept of charity. Secondly, it is an unnecessary and wasteful use of taxpayers’ money.

    ‘Thirdly, by funding like-minded organisations and ignoring others, genuine civil society is cold-shouldered in the political process.

    Between 1997 and 2005, the combined income of Britain’s charities nearly doubled, from £19.8billion to £37.9billion, with the biggest growth coming in grants and contracts from Whitehall ministries.

    The political elite has an incentive to transmit its message to the public via third parties because voters regard almost anyone as being more trustworthy than politicians.

    ‘If the Government’s message is relayed by “independent” and “objective” citizen’s groups, so much the better.

    ‘When organisations have a primary purpose that is charitable in the commonly accepted sense of helping and raising money for those in need, their lobbying is often incidental to their main purpose of providing charitable relief.

    ‘In many instances, it is difficult to see what services the charity provides beyond policy development, lobbying and enforcement

    Rotten to the core


  11. 13
    Joe Public II says:

    WTF is the Government doing giving any taxpayers’ money to charities? — isn’t the principle supposed to be that they are paid for by the contributions of individuals — freely given.

    Yet more fucking LibLabConning


  12. 15
    Lord Stansted says:

    All charities are now political pressure groups and exist soley for the benifits of the CEO, other exec officers and hangers-on. They get funded from the Tax-Payer, so it has no effect If, I me, you never give them money directly. It’s all quite depressing.


  13. 17
    Anonymous says:

    These lovely unselfish people are simply acting out for the benefit of us unworldly tax-payers, the old adage: Charity begins at home. At least this money won’t be diverted towards updating Trident missiles that we wouldn’t dare to use.


    • 22
      Please, Russia, please nuke London. says:

      I’d dare to use Trident missiles. The target would be pretty close to home, too.


      • 40
        Benny Fitz-Clements says:

        Who would finance Benefits Street then ?


        • 83
          Persona non grata says:

          In todays Sun. White Dee to become an MP. Were so fucked up as a country now, you just wouldn’t bet against it.


          • Non tv licence taxpayer says:

            But do you think she could be arsed to get up in the morning and actually go to the office? Still, a transition from a few thousand pounds in bennies to over 100,000 in one simple movement would leave most of us utterly gobsmacked!


  14. 26
    er ... but ... says:

    All tax is charity, albeit charity that isn’t voluntary and that you can get sent to prison for not paying.


  15. 29
    Sky News says:

    We love charities, it is after all where 90% of our advertising revenue comes from.

    The rest being ambulance chasers, PPI scammers and insurance companies offering free biros in return for a senile pensioners bank details.


  16. 30
    Bill Quango MP/5 says:

    …is no more a charity than a prostitute is your girlfriend…

    Is this another Sally story?


  17. 34
    The Spineless Tit in Number 10 says:

    I give you a cast iron promise I’ll do something about it.


    • 53
      Bill Quango MP/5 says:

      Its funny how that one promise sunk his trust. Dave spent a long time trying to rebuild that trust on the centre sands.

      In retrospect he should have promised a pointless referendum on Lisbon. And if the feelings against it were still strong {not necessarily so back in 2010} he could then have promised a genuine in/out referendum in the next parliament.

      Unlike now, where his word is not accepted, he may have had some credit having already delivered. And the LIBS/LABS would now be opposing his bill, which , must already have been carried at Lisbon to have allowed a further referendum.

      Instead of appearing a duplicitous wet he might have appeared a decisive leader.

      So much for history. Can’t make a leopard into a monkey. If Chamberlain hadn’t been such a wet Hitler wouldn’t have used the UK’s sterling credit Danegeld to stockpile copper and steel for ammunition shells


  18. 38
    Labour Meltdown says:

    It also highlights the weakness of Labour, it simply cannot be trusted to help the poor.


  19. 39
    Monee Drane says:

    Government – stop giving tax-payers’ money to charity.

    If we want to, we will do so.



  20. 42
    Winston says:

    As you know Guido, the print press is dying. The survivors are the free papers, like the Metro and the ES. The Metro has a skeleton staff and relies heavily on news agencies and press releases from charities and academic research. So much so, that its more like an in house journal for NGOs activists. Shelter is the most prominent.


  21. 43
    Long John Silver's parrot says:

    Charities are the next political scandal about to happen.

    Well paid CEOs………. expenses……………… third party contracts………………..political influence……………patronage………….


  22. 44
    inconvenient truth says:

    Yeah what about all these blood sucking Private Schools that are all “charities”. Let’s see the government do something about that. Or maybe not. Maybe they’re happy to see ordinary people subsidise the school fees of the rich.

    Ooops did we forget that little one when this can of worms was opened?


    • 55
      Bill Quango MP/5 says:

      Who subsidies those schools? You?
      I don’t think so.


      • 58
        inconvenient truth says:

        As charities they enjoy tax breaks. So as a tax payer I subsidise them. Do try to keep up.


        • 62
          Bill Quango MP/5 says:

          You subsidise them how?
          You pay tax that goes to a private school? I don’t think it does.


          • was it something I said? says:

            Bedwetter-think. We could tax them at 100%. We don’t. Therefore we subsidise them.

            They’re not right in the head.


          • inconvenient truth says:

            Well they don’t have to pay VAT so as a result they will get a higher income . I, along with other commercial bodies do have to pay VAT. This is not a difficult concept.


          • was it something I said? says:

            So, by the same ‘logic’ we are subsidising basic foodstuffs and children’s clothes because we don’t charge VAT.

            You really haven’t thought it through have you?


          • inconvenient truth says:

            Yeah because school fees at Eaton, Harrow and the rest are just the same as basic food stuffs.


          • Bill Quango MP/5 says:

            It doesn’t matter if they charge VAT or not. All registered for VAT schools, which is probably most of them can reclaim the VAT as they are last in the chain. A school buys a sink. It pays VAT. It recovers the cost of the sink VAT from the treasury.

            I’m still no wiser as to how YOU subsidise private schools. We ALL subsidise state schools as we ALL pay for their entire budgets from taxation, so that’s pretty clear. And , as someone has pointed out, the parents of private school children are paying for two places/child but only using one. So in all fairness regarding subsidy they really should be able to recover the £6000-£10,000 annual cost of that unused place.


          • was it something I said? says:

            It’s still a ‘subsidy’ by your own definition.

            However, by my definition, Not taxing something is not a ‘subsidy’. It’s just not taxing something.


          • NE Frontiersman says:

            In our dying local high street genuine traders struggle against charities that are basically retailers exempt from business rates. We have a brand-new shiny Sue Ryder selling new bought-in household goods, not even donations, next to furniture and homeware shops who pay the full whack.
            I’d call that a subsidy.
            Then you check out the salary scales of the senior staff…


        • 65
          Bluto says:

          Do they engage in political lobbying on behalf of the Labour party and do as we say not as we do nanny nonsense?

          Thought not.


    • 66
      Mornington Crescent says:

      Do parents who send their offspring to private school receive a discount on their taxes – the taxes that fund state education?


    • 70
      Diane Abbot says:

      STFU and stick to the agreed rhetoric Jimmy.


    • 102
      inconvenient truth says:

      So let me get this clear, its not really charities per say people are objecting to just the ones that they personally don’t like. Standard “Libertarian” bellhooks then.


      • 111
        was it something I said? says:

        A fake charity is one set up or subsidised or infiltrated with placemen by any party with the (unspoken) purpose of making political mischief or enriching the staff

        If you have examples of LibDem or Tory fake charities then by all means name and shame them.


        • 116
          inconvenient truth says:

          If you think Save the Children is a fake charity then you really are on a different page.

          Aside from the schools there was the little Fox and Werrity show that was Atlantic Bridge.


          • was it something I said? says:

            A sideshow that was rightly targeted on this site as a fake charity. You seem to want to choose which fake charities are targeted. Me? I’d shut the whole fucking lot down.


      • 128
        The Critic says:

        No.it’s the 27,000 who are funded 75% or more by government.

        Government funding of politically active charities, non-governmental organisations and pressure groups is objectionable.

        Firstly, it subverts democracy and debases the concept of charity.

        Secondly, it is an unnecessary and wasteful use of taxpayers’ money.

        ‘Thirdly, by funding like-minded organisations and ignoring others, genuine civil society is cold-shouldered in the political process


        • 132
          was it something I said? says:

          Remember that when you hear Labour talking about getting the ‘publicly owned banks to invest in businesses’ too. You can guess whose ‘businesses’ they’re talking about.


  23. 47
    Gordon Brown, Ex Human says:

    Nothing wrong with registered charities. Especially ones that have a £10k per week travel and entertainment budget.


  24. 48
    UKIP or bust says:

    Interesting I have an add. for the RSPB come up on the side.

    No mention of windmills killing birds from them though.


    • 133
      Non tv licence taxpayer says:

      Use firefox with adblock and there will be nothing at all to trouble your conscience.


  25. 49
    UKIP does what it says on the tin says:

    How about a PUBLIC INQUIRY into the state of the charity sector?

    A detailed examination of that sector is long overdue, it has become a hotbed of greed corruption, graft and political extremism.

    We will have to wait for a UKIP government for that and many other common sense policies of course.


  26. 54
    was it something I said? says:


    From the gweed-feed:

    ‘Happy 25th Birthday to Sky’

    You’ll be in Private Eye for cross-media advertising like that. And rightly so.

    Bought and sold for the Digger’s gold.


  27. 71
    Popcorn says:

    35 minutes till Bercow gets crucified at PMQs.

    Once you become a total laughing stock and have lost all authority, your days as speaker are numbered.

    Bye, John.


    • 81
      Mr Potato Head2 says:

      He should be blackballed – as his wife routinely is.


      • 84
        The last thing Sally said says:

        There is no way that will fit in my gagag^&587628w2147choke


        • 98
          June 2015 Its Lady Sally says:

          Post June 2015 John’s off to the Lords, Lord John and Lady Sally, where John enjoys a retired speakers pension and I get a spouses pension.

          Lady Sally Bercow ps he can just be called Bercow


    • 86
      was it something I said? says:

      I think there might be a certain amount of pity for Bercow. But he’d better be on his best behaviour or there’ll be no mercy.

      It’s Miliband who must be soiling himself. Tube strike and Falkirk revelations.

      It has Labour in pay of militant unions who are determined to grind the country to a halt all over it.


  28. 74
    Mr Potato Head2 says:

    The only way to reduce poverty in this country is to stop net immigration. With the Liblabcon policy of allowing unrestricted immigration, most incomers are poor and so just add to the problem of poverty. This is so bleeding obvious yet you will never hear this inconvenient truth on the BBC. But why do the righties on the tele never mention this obvious truth either?


  29. 74
    Interested party says:

    The rot begins with the Charity Commission. Note the number of charities that have not filed or are late in filing their accounts. Companies House does not have the same problem. The Chairman is a Labour Party political appointee; like the Environment commission; enough said!


    • 95
      Dr Liam Fox says:

      I have no idea what you are talking about.


    • 150
      NE Frontiersman says:

      Our largest local mosque, where 25% of the councillors worship, is riven with bitter long-running factional feuds.
      A year or two ago the local Police Commander came in to mediate, which does not often happen at the Quaker Meeting House.
      The major issue was the controlling faction’s repeated failure to hold new trustee elections at the due time.
      The Charity Commission has now stated its position: it is, that they have told the parties to hold elections, so that its own duties have been fulfilled, and will involve itself no further.
      No inconvenient nonsense about cancelling the mosque’s charitable status, obviously.
      Teapots, chocolate, &c.


  30. 79

    “campaign to spend 0.7% of GDP on foreign aid” This only works if the country is in surplus, otherwise it’s borrowing money to give away to others. The charitable donations from the UK are big in any event, grandstanding by impoverishing our nations poor is pure politics.


  31. 92
    Mr Potato Head2 says:

    Are these charities legally obliged to state how much of the money that they take in goes directly to the needy they are collecting for and how much for other purposes like salaries, advertising, lobbying, etc?


  32. 94
    FFS says:

    NSPCC – very dodgy bunch. Read about them on Wikipedia.

    I have some connections with Sri Lanka. When the tsunami struck a small charity I know about got some money together and sent a few people out there to help. They got there no problems were able to give some small assistance to a few people. No Oxfam, IRC, UNICEF, Save the Children or any other big-name charity out there. No sign of any of them for weeks.

    I noticed similarly that you had news teams in the Philipines reporting on the typhoon showing that people didn’t have clean drinking water, let alond food. News teams out there, but no aid. Where was Oxfam etc then? They know that these disasters are only a matter of time before the next one – why don’t they have warehouses full of aid ready to go with the stuff? Why don’t they have their own transport aircraft on standby? Oxfam ALONE has a staggering income of £368million a YEAR.


    • 115
      Village Idiot says:

      Something like that may be useful in Somerset,and,the entire south coast,as the storms have illuminated a massive “Neglect” in the infrastructure,mainly from the years of terror, 1997-2010,but seems to be continuing under HMG!


    • 118
      xplod says:

      And what difference would they have made had they been there? Absolutely none! After all, they’ve been operating since when? The 30’s? 40’s?

      And what have they achieved?

      Sweet Fuck All !!!

      You’ll never hear any charity announce “Our work here is done”. As far as I’m concerned most charities are a syphon – sucking our money up and hosing it at their “executives, fund raising organisers” and similar, and their leftwing lobbying. Won’t get another penny from me (voluntarily, at least). All the Government subsidies to ALL charities should be stopped. Now!


      • 124
        was it something I said? says:

        True. My missus is currently doing some work for a charity. Without naming the charity, they’re actually concerned that their raison-d’etre is indeed disappearing and are trying to make sure all that government funding continues to flow to keep all the terribly concerned and committed employees in the manner to which they have become accustomed.

        They’re just all so committed and caring you see. It would be just such a waste of such a collection of caring people if (say) AIDS was cured.

        Will nobody think of the carers?

        Can you imagine if they did (say) cure cancer? What the fuck would all these charity ‘professionals’ suddenly do?


  33. 96
    EUHATER says:

    Even Common Purpose is a charity .


  34. 99
    Blackballed Sally says:

    So a girl likes a good time, wtf. I have liberty and freedom to do as I wish, you lot are so uptight and probably knocking one out while poor John tries to bring home the bacon, no Anel’ka pun intended but he does seem a nice boy and meets my new criteria.


    • 105
      China doll wendi says:

      Me also like big time boy big boy like my Toni. No prob getting up for nice time like other man, hmmm, call me.


    • 113
      FFS says:

      30% of women prefer chocolate to sex. That doesn’t mean they REALLY like chocolate, it means they aren’t that bothered by sex. You don’t get women cruising red light streets looking for fresh meat because they aren’t that bothered by sex. Most healthy adult women make men jump through hoops if they want to get laid.

      So there must have been some other reason why you were hanging out with that sad loser that likes rough old blonde scrag-end. You simply have a drink problem. Next week you are as likely to be snapped snogging some woman with no idea of who you are or where you are.

      Anybody whose life is adversely affected by alcohol and can’t bring themselves to give it up has a problem with alcohol. That’s YOU Sally. You’ve brought no end of humiliation on yourself and the people around you through alcohol but you just can’t give it up.


      • 117
        Blackballed Sally says:

        I’ll have you in the Tower for that. Remember what happened to the last chauvy type who crossed me. Burp.


      • 119
        Village Idiot says:

        ..Probably not of interest to anyone,(that leaves me exposed),but, on the 1st of May,2014,give or take a day or two because of leap years,it will be 10,000 days since I gave up alcohol..Miserable barstard that I am…..


  35. 103
    Jay says:

    Statist Wankers


  36. 104
    Johnny says says:

    The nanny state has missed a trick here. It should implement a traffic light system for charities. The public simply cannot be expected to know which charities are decent and upstanding and which are tax parasites. A green Charity Commission rating could mean no taxpayer funding, amber up to 15% taxpayer funding, red more than 15% taxpayer funding.


  37. 114
    still on hols southern hemisphere, soon to end says:

    The world is much bigger than the people and issues on this blog, navel gazing will help no one and one fears that the coming milliturd obliteration of the Tories will be terminal. Liebour have bought votes and Cameron as the last chance saloon has blown it, he couldn’t even sort the scotch vote question due to the fifth columnist Clogg.


  38. 120
    was down under, the UK is done for, folks. says:

    Changi Airport, something else.

    UK airports look like they were built after WW2 in comparison.


    • 135
      Non tv licence taxpayer says:

      Could not agree more – especially their latest terminal. I have spent many a happy hour there awaiting a connection to a distant part of the world.


    • 136
      smoke and mirrors says:

      How much do the Chinese Socialist Government give to the EU and in Foreign Aid ?


  39. 123
    Cinna says:

    Taxpayer’s money should not be given to charities of any kind. That destroys the very essence of charity and becomes yet another drain on the public purse.

    Many of these charities are doing work abroad and the taxpayer is already contributing through government aid. This is double dipping as far as I’m concerned.

    Giving to charity is a personal thing and should remain in the hands of the individual who gives. This allows them to support the causes they wish.

    The whole business of registered charities is now in total disrepute. In many cases they are merely tax avoidance devices and used by the unscrupulous (and we know who many of them are).


  40. 126
    Lke you said the bankers ARE scum says:

    I too watched the News Night programme. The Oxfam guy was a joke, good on Packman he kept demanding to know if the Oxfam guy wanted all of the Arabs sacked and eventually he said yes. These people don’t care who their ideology harms as long its not them


    • 137
      smoke and mirrors says:

      Oxfam prove that if you scratch the surface of any Liberal Socialist hard enough, you’ll find an Alf Garnett itching to get out.


  41. 129
    George says:

    Thwworst of all is Oxfam followed closely by save the children , and any Eu sponsored charities full of fat cats at the top creaming off’ the money and then wasting what is left


  42. 146
    mraemiller says:

    Is the sock puppet on the right supposed to be Rihanna? I only ask because I feel it’s a bit sad when even black sock puppets of colour feel pressured by the fashion industry and the media into dying their hair blonde …


  43. 147
    Banned says:

    All my girlfriends have been prostitutes.


  44. 148
    TerryS says:

    The Department for International Development gives WWF £3m a year (6% of their income). I’m not sure how giving money to an animal charity helps International Development but they have plenty of money to go round.
    Altogether they are handing £360m over the 3 years from April 2013 to April 2014 to 39 different organisations in what they call the Programme Partnership Arrangement


Seen Elsewhere

Oxfam Rapped For Political Bias | Telegraph
Twitter Should Not Ban Racist Words | Alex Wickham
Guardian Staff’s Elite Schooling | Chris McGovern
Term-Time Holidays Were State Encouraged | Liberal England
What Did Britain Really Look Like in 1930s? | CapX
Who Is Steering Labour’s Strategy? | Ballot Box
Greens are UKIP for Young People | Telegraph
Short-Termism of CCHQ | ConHome
May Aide: CCHQ Are Being Misleading | Telegraph
Tories Planning For Second Election | Guardian
We Are Losing Cyber War | Fraser Nelson

Find out more about PLMR AD-MS

Mandy Rice-Davies (R.I.P.) on Lord Astor’s denial of their affair….

“Well he would, wouldn’t he?”

Tip off Guido
Web Guido's Archives

Subscribe me to:


AddThis Feed Button

Guido Reads

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,642 other followers