Originally I was going to say this video about the EU funding highly political oganisations such as Oxfam was purely one posted for interest which had nothing to do with the BBC but on reflection it has everything to do with the BBC.

The BBC, as we know, itself receives fairly large sums of cash from the EU...£20,152,022 (€24,435,906) to be precise. That is the sum dispersed to the BBC from EU funds between 2007-2012 inclusive.

Astonishingly Oxfam has received over 326 million from the EU between 2007 and 2013….last year it received 82.8 million.  Oxfam doesn’t just use this to feed or educate the needy it uses it to lobby and pressurise governments to adopt policies that Oxfam wants them to adopt.  Oxfam is highly political as you can see here…

Europe is facing unacceptable levels of poverty and inequality. Instead of putting people first, policy decision making is increasingly influenced by wealthy elites who bend the rules to their advantage, worsening poverty and economic inequality, while steadily and significantly eroding democratic institutions. Austerity measures and unfair tax systems across Europe are skewed in favour of powerful vested interests. It is time to reverse the course of poverty and inequality in Europe, putting people first. 

Ironically Oxfam discards all thoughts of European security and stability when on another hobby horse...Oxfam Position Paper for EU-Africa Migration..

With the latest figures showing that over the last 15 years at least 31,000 people have died or gone missing while trying to reach Europe, the EU must let human rights be the focus at Valletta and not prioritize the EU’s own agenda of tightened borders and increased state security.

Oxfam is calling for greater commitment to human security and human rights, sustainable development and prevention of violent conflict. Increased securitization of border control, and greater criminalization of irregular migration, will only increase human suffering and the risks to people’s safety. 

As  with the BBC’s finest Oxfam buries its head in the sand when it comes to assessing the impact mass migration of very different cultures into Europe will have.  It talks of security, poverty and inequality in Europe in one breath and then tells us we must allow in unlimited numbers of immigrants in another.

Oxfam’s, and the BBC’s, naivity and wilful blindness are not only ironic but highly dangerous.  A Europe that ends up destabilised and torn apart by immigration makes the whole world less safe because Europe is in the end the source of liberal values that speak of freedom of speech, of human rights, of equality and law.  If Europe as a set of cultures, not a political construct, collapses all those living in poverty and inequality in the rest of the world will have absolutely no chance.  Oxfam’s fine rhetoric takes no account of the reality of mass migration and its consequences that will only lead to conflict and even more refugees and more misery worldwide.

The BBC is no different.  It also of course receives a government grant, one that comes not direct from the British government but via the licence fee system which, due to its compulsory nature, is in fact a government gift given at arms length.  The BBC uses this money as it likes, more often than not to broadcast its propaganda slipped in under the radar into its children’s programmes, comedy, drama and soaps….and to pressurise the government on foreign policy and austerity.

The audience isn’t informed, educated and indeed rarely entertained as it has no choice as to what it hears….the debates are not rounded, balanced or honest.  The BBC pumps out one view on Islam, one view on Europe, one view on Climate Change, one view on the economy and if your views differs you are either mocked, ridiculed and scorned or shut out of the debate.

This is the direct opposite of what the BBC was intended to be as it now is nothing less than a propaganda machine that brooks no opposition and is in reality, despite appearances to the opposite, pretty much in the pay of government when it comes to issues like Islam, attacking the EDL and the ‘Far- Right’ as bidden by the Home Office, and climate, and now of course Europe as the government has adopted a pro-European Union position.

The BBC and the Left launched furious attacks on Murdoch because they told us he was buying influence and forcing politics to go the way he wanted….why the silence about the likes of Oxfam which rakes in a billion Euros a year and uses a lot of that to lobby governments and institutions on highly political matters?  Seems like one law for a ‘right-wing’ media mogul in competition wth the BBC and another for left-wing NGO’s, and the BBC itself, that support mass migration and massive spending programmes.




Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Payola

  1. Cull the Badgers says:

    All the funding which comes from the EU in grants or other allocations is not the EU’s money, it is our money, it has no money of its own, it is the money we have given to it in the first place. More than that, we pay over £10 billion more each year to it than we get back in allocations, as we are deemed to be rich enough to subsidise it.

    All the grants and allocations received by businesses here with an EU stamp on it, farming for example, is money which we have sent to Brussels, less of course the £10 billion they keep. By leaving the EU we could continue to pay the farmers and the rest and be still be £10 billion better off.

    Being back in control of our own affairs again we would also be able to stop the BBC grant if we wished.


    • 60022Mallard says:

      I believe the “remain” argument is that our government cannot be trusted to distribute the cash as fairly as the EU does.

      Particularly the money to the BBC?

      A family member is now furthering her career (yes, career) in the charity sector with Oxfam. It will be interesting to discuss the cash they get from the EU and their pro-EU stance with her. We rarely see eye to eye on such matters!


      • Beness says:


        Ask her how much Oxfam has to collect to pay the pensions of all these lovely cuddly charity workers.

        Charity used to be something you did with passion and not looking for remuneration for it. People gave time and money, hoping they were doing something good to help others. I have done it myself at cost to me with no expectation of a payoff.
        Charities are no longer for the good hearted to give their time. They are nothing but buisness making money off the misery and suffering of others.
        How many of the CEO,s are giving their time and energy without recieving a good salary and pension?

        Charity is now a full time career and nothing more than a political movement. I choose very carefully who I donate to now and if they phone me for more they get struck off my list.


        • Cranmer says:

          Agreed. I tend only to give to local charities or those which are not politicised. Although it’s remarkable when you realise just how much charities, even ostensibly non-political ones, are involved in lobbying etc to expand their ’empires’.


  2. GCooper says:

    Oxfam is an extremist organisation and that isn’t unique in the self styled ‘charity’ sector. While the state is so keen on ‘tackling extremism’, our money would be better spent digging into the subversive and nakedly political activities of some of these fake charities. Islamic extremism, meanwhile, could be more effectively and cheaply combated with forced repatriation.


  3. vlad the inhaler says:

    There’s a petition about requiring the Civil Service not to use taxpayers’ money to campaign for ‘Remain’. I linked to it from Guido, I think, which is a site I can’t post on. But when I signed it, the total number signed was 153. That doesn’t sound much for a country this size. A petition to try to breed square oranges would get more than that. Are people so disinterested, or are they cooking the books?

    Anyway, please sign it folks . Everything is going to be launched against us in this referendum and if we’re going to get our country back we need to make the playing field as even as possible.


  4. Grant says:

    I suspect that all the big charities are corrupt. Why is any of our money being given to charities ? If I want to give , I shall give to one of my choice and an amount of my choosing.


    • Soapbox says:

      I too saw this on Guido Fawkes site. There were 9 other charities listed receiving huge sums of OUR money!

      I agree with you, Grant. To me it seems a matter of principle that charities should receive donations and NOT public money!