Friday, June 15, 2012
Sock Puppetry 2
I have sent this letter out tom newspapers across the country. I tried to be emolient to journalists by not mentioning that they have been publishing these lies for years & to merely suggest that in future they should be clear when they are reporting an independent person and when they are reporting a state sock puppet. Tell me if you see it published - so far fakecharities have been among those things the British media simply do not mention, but it is always possible that will change.
##################
Sir,
Daily we see the press covering some "report from a charity" telling us we need more government in some fielf. The little understood way in which "charities" have been used by government bureaucracy, seeking to advertise (or "raise awareness" to put it in more politically correct way) how much they need more money.
Thus Christopher Snowden's report on how government has manufactured "sock puppet" charities is a welcome addition to the debate. It turns out that 27,000 charities across Britain get at least 75% of their money direct from government grants. In some cases such as ASH only 2% comes from independent sources. In cases where the charity only engages in charitable work this may well be acceptable but for "charities" whose main activity is political campaigning for bigger government, more regulation and more regulators, it clearly isn't. For example 9 of the top "environmental charities" get 70% of their income from EU grants, which they then use to promote more EY regulation. We don't know where the other 30% comes from - there are other governments than the EU and other ways of making payments than by direct open grants - but we do know that only 5% of all charity money given in Britain by people is given to "green" charities. We also know that the majority of money received across registered charities comes from the state.
At the very least, when reporting the opinions of organisations passing as charities, journalists should distinguish between those who are truly independent charities and those who are simply "sock puppets" for government bureaucracies. A Mr Snowden says "There is undoubtedly greater PR value in a charity calling for restrictions on liberty than would be the case if the message came directly from a bureaucrat or politician. The charity worker is assumed to be driven by altruism." Journalists should not be complicit in this deceit of the public with our own money.
It should be noted that government "sock puppetry" is not limited to nominal charities. I have elsewhere written on how Scottish Renewables, which appears to be a lobbying group for the windmill industry, has more government organisations on its membership list than windmill companies. Equally the BBC, officially an independent organisation bound by its Charter to "balance" is in fact a government funded organisation which has a clear agenda, indistinguishable from the state one on subjects such as alleged catastrophic warming, the EU and the need to liberate foreigners with bombers which unambiguously censors reporting of some parties and promotes others. For example the aforementioned subsidised greens get 10 times more coverage, all supportive, than UKIP with 4 times as many votes, does.
To quote Snowden again "This is not civil society; it is the muzzling of civil society."
Neil Craig
Ref - Snowden's report http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/Sock%20Puppets.pdf
Some quotes from it http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/government-fakecharities-sock-puppets.html
##################
Sir,
Daily we see the press covering some "report from a charity" telling us we need more government in some fielf. The little understood way in which "charities" have been used by government bureaucracy, seeking to advertise (or "raise awareness" to put it in more politically correct way) how much they need more money.
Thus Christopher Snowden's report on how government has manufactured "sock puppet" charities is a welcome addition to the debate. It turns out that 27,000 charities across Britain get at least 75% of their money direct from government grants. In some cases such as ASH only 2% comes from independent sources. In cases where the charity only engages in charitable work this may well be acceptable but for "charities" whose main activity is political campaigning for bigger government, more regulation and more regulators, it clearly isn't. For example 9 of the top "environmental charities" get 70% of their income from EU grants, which they then use to promote more EY regulation. We don't know where the other 30% comes from - there are other governments than the EU and other ways of making payments than by direct open grants - but we do know that only 5% of all charity money given in Britain by people is given to "green" charities. We also know that the majority of money received across registered charities comes from the state.
At the very least, when reporting the opinions of organisations passing as charities, journalists should distinguish between those who are truly independent charities and those who are simply "sock puppets" for government bureaucracies. A Mr Snowden says "There is undoubtedly greater PR value in a charity calling for restrictions on liberty than would be the case if the message came directly from a bureaucrat or politician. The charity worker is assumed to be driven by altruism." Journalists should not be complicit in this deceit of the public with our own money.
It should be noted that government "sock puppetry" is not limited to nominal charities. I have elsewhere written on how Scottish Renewables, which appears to be a lobbying group for the windmill industry, has more government organisations on its membership list than windmill companies. Equally the BBC, officially an independent organisation bound by its Charter to "balance" is in fact a government funded organisation which has a clear agenda, indistinguishable from the state one on subjects such as alleged catastrophic warming, the EU and the need to liberate foreigners with bombers which unambiguously censors reporting of some parties and promotes others. For example the aforementioned subsidised greens get 10 times more coverage, all supportive, than UKIP with 4 times as many votes, does.
To quote Snowden again "This is not civil society; it is the muzzling of civil society."
Neil Craig
Ref - Snowden's report http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/Sock%20Puppets.pdf
Some quotes from it http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/government-fakecharities-sock-puppets.html
Labels: BBC, Government E-Petition, Rise of modern fascism
Comments:
<< Home
Neil, you are right, but you won't get letters like that published. It needs to be a quarter of the length. Here is my suggested amended letter:
"Dear Sir
It turns out that 27,000 charities across Britain get at least 75% of their money direct from government grants [Ref: IEA Discussion Paper no.39]. In some cases such as ASH only 2% comes from independent sources. In cases where the charity only engages in charitable work this may well be acceptable but for "charities" whose main activity is political campaigning, it clearly isn't.
Scottish Renewables, which appears to be a lobbying group for the windmill industry, has more government organisations on its membership list than windmill companies. Nine of the top "environmental charities" get 70% of their income from EU grants, which they then use to promote more EU regulation.
Equally the BBC, officially an independent organisation bound by its Charter to "balance" its output is, in fact, a government funded organisation which promotes alleged catastrophic global warming, and the EU. The BBC also censors reporting of some parties and promotes others. For example the subsidised Greens get 10 times more coverage, all supportive, than UKIP, despite UKIP having 4 times as many votes.
This is clearly unacceptable."
"Dear Sir
It turns out that 27,000 charities across Britain get at least 75% of their money direct from government grants [Ref: IEA Discussion Paper no.39]. In some cases such as ASH only 2% comes from independent sources. In cases where the charity only engages in charitable work this may well be acceptable but for "charities" whose main activity is political campaigning, it clearly isn't.
Scottish Renewables, which appears to be a lobbying group for the windmill industry, has more government organisations on its membership list than windmill companies. Nine of the top "environmental charities" get 70% of their income from EU grants, which they then use to promote more EU regulation.
Equally the BBC, officially an independent organisation bound by its Charter to "balance" its output is, in fact, a government funded organisation which promotes alleged catastrophic global warming, and the EU. The BBC also censors reporting of some parties and promotes others. For example the subsidised Greens get 10 times more coverage, all supportive, than UKIP, despite UKIP having 4 times as many votes.
This is clearly unacceptable."
# posted by 
: June 17, 2012
: June 17, 2012
Try the Yorkshire Post (yp.editor@ypn.co.uk) for the shortened letter. They are willing to publish controversial letters. Be prepared to wait up to a couple of weeks to get it printed if they choose to print.
Post a Comment
# posted by : June 17, 2012
: June 17, 2012 << Home
