I am sure you can’t have failed to notice that Dame Elizabeth Hoodlass has been all over the BBC today (Radio and TV) criticising “the cuts”. The BBC forgot to mention that she is a long term Labour Party member, and activist, and has been a Labour councillor on Islington Borough Council. Not quite the independent voice that the BBC would like to infer.Happily Biased BBC readers are more informed than the BBC would like us to be….
THERE’S NOTHING LIKE A DAME
Bookmark the permalink.
“Happily Biased BBC readers are more informed than the BBC would like us to be….”
Unfortunately the same cannot be said of the remaining 99.999% of the population.
thanks David V – somehow I wasn’t surprised at the Dame’s political affiliation – I had assumed that she had got to be the executive director of the CSV because of her support of the Labour Party (isn’t that how Baroness Ashton got her role?) But I do appreciate contributors and commentators keeping me informed (and without the £3 billion that the BBC has)
Also, note the abject stupidity of her comments. According to R5L bulletins she was saying that the cuts mean charities will have less volunteers.
Errm, logic-short circuit alert. Charity volunteers dont get paid.
With less state funding one can hope it will lead to more people who see charity work as vocational not professional.
When she refers to charities it seems clear she means fake charities, not proper ones.
Aaaah fake charities, the endless money tree for progressive socialists, they create these fake charities and then live off them, a very nice living indeed that everyone pays for through taxes, a nice little scamola indeed.
This means they can massage their consciences with the thought that they are doing good works and I suppose in their warped little minds the furthering of progressive socialism is a great thing, two birds with one stone, they get richer and live rich middle class lives and their grubby ideology is spread.
The only fly in the ointment is that there are now so many of them appearing that they are bleeding the country to death, not that they could give a toss, the nannies and the private schools and BUPA and foreing hols and the finest living all costs money and what better way to live this new Mk2 ‘good life’ than to siphon money away from those who actually earn it by capitalist methods, in one way in they are destroying capitalism they hate and despise by using the methods of the hook worm.
Actual real charities are the enemies of the fake/coroprate charities because they do their good works with no regard for making money for themselves, to the mind of the fake charity parasites this is nothing less than a sin.
Surely, if unemployment goes up more people will be free to do charity work ?
I thought the same, why do more volunteers mean more money? Hmmmm…. Maybe there is an explanation – in the loony lefty world of labour, volunteers would need to be managed (opportunity to put someone on a mad wage with megga pension), then there is health and safety, I bet one volunteer generates a host of public sector jobs in loony lefty world.
Ironically, on BBC R2 top of the hour, it was admitted that four of the Chief Execs of London’s poorest boroughs were splitting £1M between ’em. That’s at least 2x the UK PM apiece, to… ‘manage whilst on mad wage with megga pension’ some little crumbling acres of NW17 as opposed to … the entire country.
Plots have not been lost. They have been snuck away in the dark and buried in a vain attempt to conceal the insanity the Labour ‘dream’ has wrought.
Caught this latest public sector/’charity’ nanny ninny on SKY’s Boulton & co. He did not give her too easy a ride, but I missed the part where she was outed as a rampant partisan whose opinion is worth zilch.
I heard this on the radio this morning – on the BBC Here Are Cuts Announcement Service – and immediately smelt a rat. It is unfortunate the the work of some good organisations is undermined by political interference. Those on the gravy train do very well – it’s all taxpayer funded.
The point about the parasitic and self-righteous Fake Charities is a very alid one. Who in government will have the balls to deal with it,
Simple question to those opposing the cuts (yet spending rising?) – where is the money coming from not to cut?
Why would the cuts affect a volunteer service? Surely by the very definition this “charity” should be receiving donations from the public through charity work and those who work for this volunteer service do in fact volunteer.
Or have I missed the point about volunteering and charity?
/sarcasmsplode
A lot of charity money comes from the state. Some from local councils.
Rather than cut overpaid managers or outreach workers./ diversity coordinaters and the rest of the waste they will cut the grants to charity and useful services.
I think you’ll find a lot of state organisation pretend to be charities. I believe there is a webiste where you can check whether you are being asked to support a charity or just another branch of the civil service.
By definition no charity can be harmed by any government cuts, because legitimate charities rely on voluntary donations from the public, not forced donations from taxpayers.
I was just looking at the BBCs on line news page. They never say THE Labour government about releasing the Lockerby bomber. Its in second place on the page and I just imagine the difference if it had been the Conservatives that had released him.
I also noticed that on the news, It was “The government” obviously wanting to give those with short-term memories (i.e. Labour voters) the impression that it was Cameron.
Demon I noticed this to and it was very odd wording indeed. I don’t think I have ever heard them say “the government” was responsible before. Did you notice also a certain ex-PM surname of Brown never got mentioned ?
To be fair she was only a councillor in the 1960’s, but on the other hand she has been drawing a salary from the same charity for the last 47 years, so one might reasonably question her status as a “volunteer”.
Sorry, the last Gust post was me also. The CSV accounts for 2010 show that of £28m income, £22m came from central and local governmnet, with th rest coming from investments and private donations.
Somebody at the organisation was trousering between £120 and £130k for their trouble. Puts a new perspective on the word “volonteering”.
http://csv.org.uk/sites/default/files/CSV_Final-Accounts_2010.pdf
Alex
As Alex shows, CSV’s a fake charity in that it receives most of its income direct from the state. In other words the taxpayer is being compelled by law to cough up the majority of charitable “donations”. Had this been a genuine charity, the income would be coming in whatever the government decided and the Dame wouldn’t be so worried – as she obviously is – about her own income from “charitable” work.
My late mother and her sisters slaved for the charities they were interested in supporting. They gave time and money unstintingly and didn’t expect (and didn’t get) any pay or perks for doing what they thought of as good works. But, there again, they were middle class, apolitical and saw their charitable efforts as a part of their Christian duty: three aspects of an older way of British life of which Hoodlass, I’m sure, strenuously disapproves.
I wondered why the BBC was suddenly putting this message down the running order – they’ve been rumbled again.
I wonder when we will get a story about the impact on future public sacred and very important services of the enourmous debt levels the BBC and Labour want us to carry ?
just as an off topic aside
nice to see new names appearing on the site
the word is getting out—-tell your friends as well!!
Itwf,
Yes, I have noticed a lot of new names in recent months, excellent.
Wouldn’t it be terrible if the “cuts” affect Tony Blair’s charity ?
Yes – when the BBC quotes a “charity” check that they don’t mean a pressure group or lobbying organisation which gets compulsory funding from the tax payer.
http://fakecharities.org/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100075044/big-society-why-are-labour-supporters-presented-as-independent-witnesses/
Grant mentioned Blair’s charity. Funnily enough, the president of Dame Elisabeth’s charity (CSV) is Blair’s old friend and tennis partner Lord Levy (Labour).
What an amazing conicidence !
Craig,
My post above yours was meant to be below it !
Craig,
Well blow me down, knock me over with a feather, who’d of thought it ?
Har! Heard the broadcast this morning …but I immediately put on my bullshit-sensitive B-BBC headphones ( 19/6d from Grabber & Grabber ) and it all turned into a sort of low whining noise…
I have been attuned by reading this blog.
I beseech you all, in the bowels of Christ, to tell others about this site.
Try this interesting experiment.
If your local council is one of those which has succumbed to Eric Pickles request and posted all expense items over £500 on their website – flick through a few pages and see how much of your council tax goes in regular payments to fake charities for social work activities.
You’ll be amazed – at least I was.
I think the BBc ‘implies’. We, the listeners/readers/viewers do the ‘inferring’.
No one at the BBC including Paxman appears to have any idea what the Big Soc. is.
We have run out of money so it means less state and more volunteers. Is that too difficult for them to understand.
Seems strange they do not understand – maybe they should listen to one of their heroes.
“Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”
JFK
Or what about a recent BBC heroine?
“And in my own life, in my own small way, I’ve tried to give back to this country that has given me so much. That’s why I left a job at a law firm for a career in public service, working to empower young people to volunteer in their communities. Because I believe that each of us – no matter what our age or background or walk of life – each of us has something to contribute to the life of this nation.”
Michelle Obama
Sorry, JHT, but they just interpret that as a call to pay even more taxes to support the State.
“Big Society “= Cameron Idea = Bad
“Cuts” = Cameron idea = Bad
Cuts = Big Society fails = double Cameron Idea fails – hold the front Page!!
bBc what a load of see-thru w*nkers. You dont need a Cambridge double first to make this up
Honestly, and we pay for this? Where is the BBC Trust? At a conference somewhere warm no doubt.
In the news 24 12.00 is an item about the huge increase in burial costs. Then the usual sob stories. Does not make clear that these councils had been holding down the burial costs, that ratepayers had been subsidising these services.
The message is clear ‘nasty Cameron with his cuts is causing extra grief by vastly increasing the costs.’ The bBC is hard at work putting forward the Liebour message. Has Tom Baldwin taken over Thompson’s job?