If you were aware of serious crimes being committed, what would your first instinct be a) to inform the police*, or b) to ask the government for money?
From the BBC:
Barnardo's says that thousands of girls and boys are at risk of organised trafficking, and accuses councils of failing the victims. The organisation says the vast majority of local authorities do not provide expert help for such children.
It urges councils to commission research and to act on the results. In its report, Whose Child Now?, the charity says that, although there are more than 200 local authorities across the UK, only 40 are known to provide specialist services for the victims of sexual exploitation. Barnardo's runs just over half of those services...
So, well done all those of you who chose b)!
NB, Barnado's has form for this. The government pays it £120 million a year for looking after children who have been taken into care. Two months ago it called for more children to be taken into care.
* OK, on reflection you probably wouldn't. The police are only interested if you report trivial offences or hand in a shotgun nowadays. But that would be your first instinct, I hope.
Labour news: Sue Gray and budget update
4 hours ago
9 comments:
Labour's attack on families is startlingly paralleled in Bertrand Russell's "The Scientific Outlook".
Watch the video, which pulls extracts from his book.
This is a blueprint for Labour's communist utopia.
entirely and 100% OT, Mark ...
but
today's Times 'difficult' sudoku, #2863, contains one of those double-pairings that (as you surmised) means there is no unique solution
(hint: it's 6 & 9)
F, indeed.
Nick, ta, I shall have a look.
Barnados and who else, one wonders?
JH, all fakecharities, by definition. As specifically regards children, the NSPCC, KidsCompany (which went over to the dark side a year ago), Action for Children etc etc.
MW: are you a closet agorist. The note * sounds like it. see here for the worlds foremost blog on agorism
http://fskrealityguide.blogspot.com/
"I want to do useful work and get paid, without having to report it for taxation, confiscation, and regulation."
RS, no I'm not an agorist. I'm a pragmatarian and realist.
As you most likely know the bulk of Barnardo's income comes from the state. It's a typical, if very nasty, fake charity. Less than a quarter of their income comes from donations or gifts. The vast bulk of their £215 million income (that's proper money - Just shy of a quarter of a billion quid) some £119 million comes from the state.
I once posted an angry comment (at the Devil's Kitchen) something like this:
If a charity is being paid by the state to do things that the state did and does (you know, like oh... brainwashing children, or working to mess up parenting or selling working class kids abroad or spewing pro state anti-individual propaganda ... whatever horrors the state does) then they ARE - to all intents and purposes - the state. That's the point - these are not voluntary collective actors, they are the state, disguised.
But I was wrong. In fact, in a bizarre way, it's the other way around.
All these single interest pressure groups – Banardoes, Save the Children, ASH, Shelter, Alcohol Concern, Christian Aid, NSPCC, Age Concern – these organisation now make the bulk of government policy perhaps not the details, but they certainly set and drive the agenda. They are the progressive movement made flesh and we're paying for it!
Davidncl, nobody's sure which round it is any more, AFAIAC, they are one and the same thing.
Post a Comment