I am getting tired of charities and medical bodies trying to boss us around and interfere in our lives. This time it's a food charity called Sustain, backed by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health
They are urging the government to slap a levy of 20p per litre on soft drinks. A levy is a euphemism for a tax. With the tax they squeeze out of us they want to buy fruit and veg for schools. Tell you what, you're a charity, raise the money yourselves and stop thieving off the rest of us, we pay too much tax already.
It's time a lot of these organisations that call themselves charities were reviewed. In many cases they should lose their charitable status as they are merely pseudo-political campaigning bodies. A decent government would carry out a wholesale review of charity law and the Charity Commission.
There has been a fuss this week about charity shops and whether their numbers should be restricted.
They get rate relief that other shops don't get and have voluntary staff, which other shops don't have. Because of this they can undercut other shops, such as secondhand bookshops, and help to destroy our high streets.
They raise a fortune for charities and provide invaluable experience for volunteers many of whom, as a consequence, go on to new careers in the retail sector. They help poorer families to buy quality goods at cut prices. They help to save our high streets by filling shops that would otherwise be empty.
The truth lies somewhere in between. Are charity shops merely taking advantage of a free market? Or are their tax advantages and volunteer staff killing other businesses? Should their number be restricted?
Please feel free to leave a comment and to vote in the poll on the side bar.
I first worked for medical charities in the mid 1980s and it was extremely challenging but satisfying and rewarding. We had a job to do, in my case recruiting training and supporting volunteers, and were by and large left to get on with it. We were expected to get results but the management was light and the bureaucracy minimal. Our members' needs, not the staff's needs were paramount
My last experience of the charity world was absolute agony. The charity resembled the most bureaucratic, management obsesssed arm of the NHS. It was like a particularly unfunny version of Yes Minister. Staff were expected to log virtually every movement on a computerised management system that wouldn't have been out of place in the DDR, and unable to do anything without first doing risk assessments and a huge pile of associated health and safety paperwork. And don't mention the dreaded police checks and the hated proposed Independent Sageguarding Authority, thankfully dumped by the Coalition.
In my experience too many charities are now run for the benefit of an ever expanding paid workforce, partly because of government red tape, partly because of empire building. In the last fifteen years I increasingly heard staff complaining that volunteers couldn't be trusted to do X, Y or Z. My reaction invariably was; "why not?". The voluntary sector, thanks to government interference and an increased dependency on government funding, has been nationalised. Which means that its role as an independent force to fight for its client group has been diminished, it won't bite the hand that feeds it, the government.
The Coalition is about to introduce tax reforms to encourage donations to charity, which is to be welcomed. But it really needs look at the whole ethos of the voluntary sector in this country. Cash is crucial to charities as it is to any organisation in any sector. What the voluntary sector needs to do is to encourage volunteers and volunteering, in many ways much more difficult than raising funds, especially if you are just tapping into taxpayers' money through grant aplications.
But volunteers and volunteering are at the heart of the voluntary sector, and my sense is that in recent years the charirty world has lost its heart.
I never bother with the big celebrity fundraising bashes. They seem to raise money for charity, but seem equally to show what sad, attention seeking media whores many celebrities are, especially when their careers are hurtling south.
There are millions of people, all over the country raising money in all kinds of ways, some weird, some wonderful others downright daft, every day of the week. They are the heroes, and they get little publicity except maybe a thank you and a write up in a charity's newsletter or a small piece in the local rag.
I always thought that artistic types had imagination. That they could imagine what living in a luxurious mansion might be like. Or what living on a desert island might be like. But no, this year we have the sickening prospect of watching Lenny Henry and a few others staying in a Bombay slum for a week to 'experience a lifetime in dire poverty'. Patronising pap. The sight of Lenny Henry blubbing on national TV makes me reach for the sick bag whenever I see the trailer. At least he is now described as a 'celebrity', much more accurate than describing him as a 'comedian'.
I was educated at primary school by Franciscans, many of whom spent years of their lives living in the poorest parts of the world helping the poorest people in the world. They, and the people who run marathons, pack bags at the local supermarket and absail down skyscrapers are the people I really admire, not publicity starved z-listers.
I get seriously weary when people in the voluntary sector whinge about government funding cuts. Dame Elisabeth Hoodless, retiring chief of CSV is the latest whinger.
There's a simple answer to the funding problem, get off your lazy arses and raise some money.
I have many years experience in the charity world and, without wanting to sound like an old fogey, the voluntary sector's not what it used to be. Under the last governmnent it was effectively nationalised with the feeble charity sector accepting pots of cash from the government which they proceeded to waste on ineffectual pet projects and ludicrously expensive consultants and senior staff. Which is why the real work of the voluntary sector effectively stood still under Blair and Brown, but voluntary bodies became more political and more dependent on the politicians. Like everything Labour touch the voluntary sector is now a useless, bloated bureaucracy.
When I was in a position where I was advising new groups on establishing themselves I always advised them to avoid statutory funding where possible, as money always comes with strings attached. Charites should be free from those restraints so that they can remain independent and impartial, after all, part of their role should be to influence, and criticise where necessary both local and national government.
In my experience CSV typifies so many voluntary organisations. They are good at self-publicising, great at boasting about how much they do, but in reality only exist to further their senior staff, such as Dame Elisabeth Hoodless. A few years ago I had regular contact with CSV and could never work out what they actually did, certainly they were the worst of many bad voluntary organisations I came across.
It's now time the government, and local councils cut financial contributions to voluntary bodies, preferably to zero. Or to put it in politcal language, privatise the voluntary sector. We can then choose which charities we support, rather than having our taxes pumped into charities that we would never support on a voluntary basis. They would then have to prove their worth to you and me.
At this time of year lots of worthy causes pop up to appeal for donations. Quite right too. Then there are dodgy outfits such as Manchester homeless charity Barnabus.
Barnabus claim that homeless people will die in Manchester if they do not receive money for at least 30 more beds. This is what Manchester City Council say:
"We do currently have 20 spaces available for rough sleepers in supported housing schemes, and on top of that, we will find spaces in B&Bs and hotels if we need to.
"These are extreme weather conditions but we are confident there is no reason for anyone to sleep rough in Manchester."
Barnabus, screwing you and the homeless!
Unlikely any rough sleepers will read this but, just in case, here is a link to the Manchester City Council Homeless Section. Personally I'd rather take in a homeless person for Christmas than give a penny to a cowboy outfit like Barnabus.
It's absolutely crucial that the government cuts, cuts and cuts even deeper. There are several reasons but firstly the government squanders money and in the process grabs more and more power over us, the innocent populace. Also the govenment doesn't actually have any money to spend, it thieves from the likes of you and me so it is actually squandering our money. Forgive me, but I think we know best how to spend our money.
Today the NCVO (National Council of Voluntary Organisations) is whining that government cuts to local authority funding could seriously damage some charities. Good, that's life. I've spent most of my life as a volunteer and over 20 years working in the charity sector and in that time I have seen the voluntary sector go from a healthy, independent, largely self-financing sector to an overstaffed, bloated, taxpayer funded bureaucracy. Many charities and voluntary organisations have been nationalised.
Of course when charities take the easy route, and accept taxpayers' money, they immediately lose their independence, he who pays the piper calls the tune. Their campaigning edge, especially in the world of medical chrities which is my background, has been blunted. They've sold their souls and the last government were experts at buying them off.
And voluntary means just that, voluntary. If I support the Citizen's Advice Bureau I will choose to support it financially. If I don't support that charity I do not want my money being forcibly taken from me and given to them through taxation. I don't accept the bleeding heart liberal cry that charities will die if they don't get government funding. If they are worthwhile people will happily cough up the cash. If they don't survive, it's because they don't deserve to survive because people don't support them. It's quite simple.
So don't listen to the pinko liberal self-serving propoganda from the vested interests in the voluntary sector. Cuts are a good thing and the more and deeper the better.
Which brings me nicely to a classic song from the eighties that reminds me of life in Glossop, Derbyshire, the wild days!
Ladies and gentlemen I give you Propaganda with The First Cut:
Christmas is a wonderful time for giving and receiving and, if you are a Christian, for celebrating the birth of Christ. Who knows, we may even get a white Christmas this year.
Via this blog I am supporting the Prostate Cancer Charity. I don't believe in asking people to donate rather than give presents or send cards, that's too much fun to not do, but I would ask you to consider clicking on the image on my side bar and making a donation, no matter how small, to the Prostate Cancer Charity.
Now the government is to force even more people to submit themselves to police checks, if they want to walk past an empty school without being accused of being a pervert and so on, it might be as well to remember that many voluntary organisations are already doing the state's dirty work.
Charities used to be independent organisations providing invaluable services, funding research and valuing their freedom to campaign on behalf of the people they were established to support. No longer, many charities are now no more than nationalised industries funded and controlled by the government. For thirty pieces of silver they have sold their souls to the state. In return they have been castrated, they dare not criticise the government, after all who bites the hand that feeds them?
In return they have adopted politically correct policies and procedures, are obsessed with diversy and 'equality' and routinely police check anybody who wants to become a volunteer. Health and safety and reporting obsessions to satisfy their government funders, has driven many people away from volunteering. Who can blame them?
Until recently police checks were only allowed on volunteers working one-on-one with vulnerable people, now it is allowed to be done routinely. There are many organisations out there, not just government agencies, holding highly personal information on people just because they want to give their time freely to help people less fortunate. Volunteering has been nationalised.
Nobody kicks against the creeping police state more than I do, but the state of the voluntary sector is surely a truly frightening sign of the times.
Hundreds of girls heavily sedated in UK care homes during the 1970s and 1980s may be at risk of having children with birth defects, the BBC has found.
So begins this worrying article on the BBC news website. It is important to keep a sense of proportion on issues such as this, and I am sure that the overwhelming majority of care homes provide wonderful care for kids who have found themselves in terrible situations. But care must be the last resort, and I am confident that anybody who has been in care would concur.
But up pops a self-seeking, career obsessed, professional do-gooder like Andrew Flanagan, newly appointed chief executive of the NSPCC. In this interview in the Times, and other newspapers, he advocates putting even more children into care. That wouldn't be because you have a vested interest would it Andrew? Or perhaps because you are trying to make a name for yourself to improve your career prospects?
Some charities seem to be especially bad for sensationalising and abusing the trust that so many of us instinctively have for charities generally. I will be keeping a beady eye on the NSPCC now with Mr Flanagan at the helm.
On Tuesday Mark Wadsworth blogged about misleading headlines in relation to alcohol abuse. Today I came across this ridiculous 'study' by a team at University College London:
Majority of carers 'abusive'
More than half of carers looking after a relative with dementia have been abusive towards them, a study found.
Experts from University College London questioned 220 carers looking after people with dementia at home for a study in the British Medical Journal.
Of these, 52% of carers had been abusive in some way, with 34% reporting significant levels of abuse such as swearing often or being insulting.
Forgive me but the headline suggests physical abuse, locking people in cupboards under the stairs and more. What they actually mean is occasionally carers, quite understandably, swear or mildly insult the person they care for, probably from sheer exasperation and frustration. Big deal.
The problem now is that unprincipled charities will use the study to beg for more cash to break the relationship between loved ones, one of whom is seriously ill, in order to bring in 'professional' carers and thus expand their own empires.
