´óÏó´«Ã½

it looks like Turkey's application for membership might go through as Nadir seems to know which way the Mistral winds are blowing hence is return to English justice.....he has more faith in it than I have. Very good NN last night and Emily was excellent...

on Metropolis...

Dystopia is alive and well and living amongst us today just as it did in the Weimar republic. Indeed why we are interested today is that it is a relevant to the description of the economic and political position today as it was in 1927/1931. We are having the start of a Long Depression today just as our parents(or grandparents) did in the late 20s. Expressionist cinema could never have come for Hollywood where saccharin dominates. Black and white has better colours!

"Net migration to the UK rose last year to 196,000, up by 33,000 from the number in 2008."

Are these just consumers to compensate for our low birth rate as has been said elsewhere by others? Without them, we'd be closing schools and the retail industry would no doubt be making negative projections which would be bad for the economy/stock market and pension funds I suppose?
So, I guess the real questions which need to be answered by some Newsnight experts (demographers?) is: "why is our birth rate falling, why do people not want to bring babies into this libertarian paradise and why do we have to import them from abroad? And perhaps most significantly, why when we do so, do we then moan about their traditions, many of which account for the very family values which account for their having lots of children?

49. At 11:00am on 26 Aug 2010, JunkkMale wrote:

"Objectivity in commission. Or errors of omission? Who to listen to. Who to believe?"

Exactly, why do they bother saying 'respected', as it goes without saying that SOME people will respect a think tank, if only one person who works for it! These days, think tanks are rarely independent of political parties or agendas.

This is not the sort of behaviour which one might have expected from the ´óÏó´«Ã½, at least, I didn't, until recently. These days it seems it's OK to promote agendas, or products (e.g. authors, musicians etc) so long as it's done discretely. Why don't we see the ´óÏó´«Ã½ objectively cover radically alternative political systems in the world? These do exist, and I thought the ´óÏó´«Ã½ Charter had something in it about informing and educating the public, quite apart form entertaining? Has this changed?

Hey,ho, so immigration keeps rising....



Must be even more than 402 per square mile now in England.

"51. At 11:59am on 26 Aug 2010, jauntycyclist wrote:
the whole debate that fairness/equality=justice is such a deep darkness its hard to know where to start."

One starts with a law, philosophy, politics or economics degree (although one can self-educate, rarely). In all of these disciplines one learns what the concepts and practices of justice are in liberal-democracies (in other systems, e.g Islamic Sharia, people learn a different system of rules and people learn to behave according to those rules). One also gets some idea of this from doing a science degree as Natural (scientific) Law and jurisprudence are related in terms of logic and evidence.

If one studies law, one learns about Contracts etc, and this is how one must understand the idea of The Social Contract, and 'fairness' which is central to Political Liberalism . Our MPs (legislators) spend much of their time working on Bills which become Acts of Parliament (laws). It's then the job of the Courts to arbitrate and other branches of the executive to enforce the laws. One has to work within a system to talk any sense. Of course it's difficult to master. Higher Education is supposedly a selective process in that it elects those who are able to work within this system. That's what qualification and qualified means.

It's not perfect, but if one's going to comment, one has to make the effort to respect the system one lives within. Too many people these days acknowledge they don't understand, but don't take the next step and try to learn, or show respect where it is due.

Blair's anti-elitism and Thatcher's before that was subversive in my view. They wanted to undermine the Communitarian status quo which was building up after WWII. They did this largely by liquidating assets which had been invested on the public's behalf in public services (the state). When that was gone, we had busts. I suggest one sees Rawls and other like him as having inadvertently helped in the asset stripping.

I think you are right to question his premises as a lot of good science is now at odd with the Libertarian premises, but one has to respect analytic logic of people like Rawls, and show how empirical facts are at odds with what he argued for, else you end up with chaos, which is, as I have said, where we are heading if we don't take more care..

stevie

One day you'll give up yourself though I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about. I'm only guessing. As for the others you mention, well I can't really say. Again, I'm only guessing.

I think I shall stick with the Tories and any differences or misunderstandings between us will have to be simply ironed out, like in realistically orientated families.

Unfortunately the great people ponzi scheme is continuing unabated.

The short termism of bringing more people into the UK to pay for the increasing elderly population needs a fundamental rethink.

What it is actually doing is alienating those who live or have settled here as their standard of living is being gradually undermined by those who are happy to exploit cheap labour.

Less are leaving the country for where else is there to go anymore when the whole world is in economic turmoil.

We are told that 196000 more came than went in the last year. What we are not told is who they are why they continue to come here and what they are doing when they get here.

This is about numbers not race and the effect and cost it is having on housing education and health provision and most important of all on employment. All of which will be in shorter supply over the coming years.

NB It must be the silly season when someone like Adil Nazir who few have even heard of is welcomed home with celebrity status. Some of the bankers of late make him look like a pussy.

The subject may go quiet for a while in the media but it is still one of the most talked about issues among the people in general.

6

not everyone has been brainwashed by the sophists. the universities are not there to educate. you will not find rationality in the universities. merely a private game of oneupmanship among a self appointed self referring elite trying to persuade others of their false beliefs. they hate and have bad words for anyone who points that out.

at some point you will have to accept that for people like me who see the good as the highest idea of the mind equality does not =justice. contracts does not = the highest idea of the mind. but people have a hatred of the good. because it demands discrimination against the bad. which they say is an 'oppression'.

at some point for people to progress they have to throw the books away and participate in original thinking/experience and not parrot others like a character out of the good will hunting film.

the deep darkness rests in models not having the good as the highest idea of the mind.

Look at this through a UK indigenous population mirror, " white man " meaning the celebrity stock market parasites ?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

9. At 1:51pm on 26 Aug 2010, jauntycyclist wrote:

"at some point for people to progress they have to throw the books away and participate in original thinking/experience and not parrot others like a character out of the good will hunting film."

Yes, but that ONLY happens after one has learned what others have already contributed, why things are the way they are, and that everyone who got us to where we are wasn't a parrot or idiot. Nowhere is that more clear than in scientific research and logic/law. As I have said elsewhere, that is what Further/Higher Education is for. It prepares those who are able to professionally practice (and perhaps add to) what is already known, for how can one possibly know that one is having an ORIGINAL thought if one hasn't studied what has already been said and done?

Perhaps you have not thought this through enough? For example, you are using a common language, but you didn't originate the words did you? They are elements of a communal vernacular. How do you know when you are having an original idea? That is usually what expert peer review is for. It is a filtering process so we can expand what we know, not repeat past errors or just repeat what is known.

That was Mr justice Bean who bent over backwards to accommodate the wishes of Asil Nadir.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I look forward to Stephen's report on the legendary "Metropolis" tonight :o)

:o( Oh dear.....

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I was just wondering whether Newsnight has the guts to dredge up all the circumstances surrounding Nadir's escape to Turkish Cyprus. If my memory serves me correctly was it not that Nadir was tipped off about his forthcoming arrest and a private plane organised from a small airstrip by persons including a then fairly high profile Tory cabinet minister. Of course it was all soon forgotten about and nobody had to resign or anything like that, not even an apology for what could be described as perverting the course of justice ?

19 Guts and NN dont mix she/he/they dont have any.

Wait till they are hungry, the tune may change.

there's A Call win/Cold wind that Blas/Blows

if your capable feed yer Bairns

It used 2 be called Freedom of Speech

FREEDOM nn woulDent No what Freedom was/were/is if it Bit them on the ARSE.

they call it pc now, I DONT..

I will watch the chugging item with interest after having a rather aggressive chugger approach me in Swansea last week.

For several years I have been paying a direct debit, non-chugger set up, to Sightsavers but I have become incrasingly concerned of late about just how much actually ends up helping people.

Reading through the Newnsight list of charities that basically give money to chugging firms I am becoming more and more opposed to these corporate businesses that pass as charities.

I DUN SIN ABOUT EVERATHIN - WHEN AH SEE AN ELEPHANT FLY (#19)

The Asil Nadir Elephant has flown in, and actually ANNOUNCED his presence 'in the room'.
It's 'follow the money/power' time again. Either it is his least worst option, or he knows he is going to get a Locherbie/Kelly/BAE type of 'justice'. Well - he has come to the right place!

In passing, the gloriously 'dictional' Charlotte Green, pronounced the elephants name, not as nad-ear but as nadir, aka the lowest or deepest point; depths (pits?).

I'm with Bro. Let's dig it all up and get rational. No independent enquiries by retired judges 'beyond reproach' PLEASE!

The net immigration is large, but global figures do not tell the whole story. How many are from the EU and we therefore have little control over them at present? How many are 'students' - a rather dodgy area? How many have no recourse to public funds (applies to lots of non-EU family members)? How many are in employment? How many are employment above the National Minimum Wage? How many are here because they cover skill shortages in this country? How many are here because they have served this country? The global figure just creates the impression that there are loads of people who come here to live off benefits and take our jobs away.

Before we begin to argue the rights and wrongs we need to know more about these figures. If immigrants get employment over British nationals, is it always just because they are happier with a lower wage? Are we prepared to pay more for food so that it can be prepared by people on higher than minimum wages? It is a complex issue.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Well done Newsnight for exposing the many mainstream alleged " charities " for the corporate financial parasites they would now appear to have become. Perhaps its just a symptom of the Corporate Nazi ideology engulfing the 21st century UK, foolish ten bob fat cats prepared to pay an additional monthly private tax on the daft. It kind of makes a complete mockery of Cameron's " Big Society ", potential " private sector contractors " almost certainly less financially efficient at providing services to " vulnerable groups " than the public sector is present.

If the DEC can provide disaster aid to a country as potentially corrupt as Pakistan at a rate of 95p in the pound it makes a total mockery of most UK charities. Perhaps any alleged charity which can't amply prove that it spends at least 75% of its total revenue going direct to " good causes " should loose its charitable status. After all the current high rate tax dodges etc could go some way to reducing the government deficit, and local councils could do with the business rates on charity shops.

That is not to say that I never donate anything to charity, I always buy a poppy for Remembrance Sunday. Likewise occasionally sponsoring friends on specific charity walks ( usually just a fiver ), I once upped my donation to 20 quid when I found out what one particular small charity for the blind was providing locally.

Echo's of #24 ?

/blogs/newsnight/fromthewebteam/2010/08/tuesday_10_august_2010.html

Got these Porky Pies any Takhers, They fell off the back of your wagon.
You can meet me on Speakers corner ANY Day of the WEAK.

Where's my Pig GONE ahh its not over there

WHERE GOVERNANCE IS CORRUPT SURELY THE GOVERNED WILL FOLLOW? (#26)

Forget the expenses/allowances row (I'll even leave the party system unmentioned - directly) look at the whipping ethos. They pick your candidate, you vote their choice in, then as MP your 'choice' obeys the whip.

This time the MP you voted in can get whipped to follow another party's agenda!

Vast amounts of money are spent to BUY your vote, indirectly, AS SURELY AS IF YOU HAD BEEN BRIBED.

All this adds up to corruption. Small wonder then, that we embrace: Arms to murderers. Booze to bibbers. Fags to gaspers. Food to fatties. Lottery tickets to numpties. Alms to chuggers. Lies to anyone who'll buy them.

It adds up to: Blair/Brown Britain in Cameron/Clegg care. Have they closed those 19 Wastminster bars yet?

Oh - it's all going awfully well.

Surrender ooPs EH whats that then, or was it yesterday/year

Dont surrender 2 anyone

surrender 2 YOUrelf/serf.. pay Tax

I used to work with someone whose husband works for a well known charity. Having learnt how much he earns (over £60000pa) I have stopped my regular donations to all charities.

Ch4 News did pull Micheal Mates out of the Nadir case but failed to mention the tip-off or private light aircraft arranged in a hurry ?

I am not hear 2

She is My Cure Yet She is My DisEAZE

I stink we should Mag1Grid My DissEaze

May B

Try Fluttering The EyeLids

It works 4 Me MayB,..somertime

At 5:54pm on 26 Aug 2010, Boilerbill wrote:

"How many are here because they cover skill shortages in this country?
How many are here because they have served this country? The global figure just creates the impression that there are loads of people who come here to live off benefits and take our jobs away.

Before we begin to argue the rights and wrongs we need to know more about these figures."

This is old ground surely, even for NN? The problem is, as I understand it, it's very difficult to get accurate figures when border control has all but gone (because of the EU Lisbon Treaty etc). The last Government admitted this was a problem, and the Border Agency seems to have little say (again from past coverage here)..

One thing we know (from ONS etc) is that our non immigrant birth-rate is low, and that means the population is not naturally even replacing itself never mind growing, hence, presumably, all the immigration?
There's thus a choice: either we have more babies or we must import immigrants to stop the population falling as If the population falls, it's bad for the economy for reasons touched upon earlier, i.e businesses (like schools) need consumers (teachers need jobs), and in turn, they need pensions etc.

We seem to be locked into a grow/swim or decline/sink system as I see it, and we are clearly not so enamoured with our way of life that we want to play happy families. It's a "shark's economy" - in every sense of the word. Is that the freedom of the 'free-world'? Do we really have any choice?

"Charities have admitted to Newsnight that they are paying these companies as much as £100 a time to sign up donors, and in total pay millions of pounds every year to these subcontracted firms"

Ed Miliband's Third Sector! Look up the Charities Act 2006 to see the unbelievable scope of 'charity' these days. Too many people have been seduced by old concepts rebranded as extremely sharp practices.

Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha.

Corporate Nazi spin doctors now attempting to portray that you have to pay your monthly private tax for life or the " good causes " wont see any of your hard earned money, and foolish as ever Gavin lets them get away with it ?

Perhaps the best and most controversial Newsnight agenda of the last week ruined by an inept and as ever lightweight alleged anchor man presenter !

SUIT WISDOM

Some suit said: "Free movement of labour is very important in a global knowledge economy".

Surely it can be argued that: "Labour should have no need to migrate or travel far in a global knowledge economy."

Might the suit have an ulterior motive? Or are some suits dim?

In passing: Did anyone explain WHY Asil Nadir has returned?

Is Isreal moving closer with the connivance of the USA to attacking Iran ?

NN fails to report that three weeks ago the US Defence Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) published a notice, as it is legally required to do, announcing that Israel has ordered massive quantities of various fuels suitable for military use, and in the case of the order for JP-8 jet fuel, suitable only for military use.

If Israel were planning to strike Iran then that would explain the requirement for the large amounts of JP-8 fuel. However, it does not explain Israel’s need for such large amounts of gasoline and diesel fuel since an Israeli strike against Iran is unlikely to include any type of ground incursion into Iran for which these fuels would be used. The only conclusion one can draw, if Israel is not planning to actually invade Iran, which, clearly, it could not, is that Israel is planning to use the gasoline and the diesel fuel for some other ground incursion – and that can only mean an invasion of Lebanon and possibly the Gaza and West Bank when an attack against Iran is launched.

SPECULATE TO ACCUMULATE (#28)

Those who aspire to govern us with instant 'Honour', see nothing wrong in accepting large (compromising) donations to amass 'war chests' with which to coerce the electorate into voting for their chosen faction.

No surprise then that notionally 'ethical' charities see no problem in paying high rewards to chuggers, who skilfully coerce ordinary citizens, caught ill-prepared in their high streets.

Corruption begets corruption. Nothing will change while the Westminster Ethos holds sway. It must be dismantled. Where to begin?

SPOILPARYGAMES (Google)

I'd just like to point out that not ALL charities, or Fundraising companies work as indicated in this report. I work for a fundraising company, in association with a national charity, which DOES NOT charge the charity up front for supporters, but rather receives payment over the course of 3 years which actually equates to LESS than the amount of Gift Aid received. I feel very strongly for the charity I represent, and would not work for this company if it was unfair in any way to them. I feel incenced that all fundraising companies are being lumped together, when I know for a fact a load of the charities mentioned use one particular company I have had experience with, which is originally a sales company, selling utilities like gas & electric, and apply the same techniques to fundraising, which is just wrong.

Yes, I am a fundraiser,
Yes, I get paid, but as I put so many hours into fundraising, and I DO need to eat and pay my rent like everyone else, this is done in a fair way which means the charity DOES NOT LOSE OUT, I dont see the problem.

Further to my post at #41:

I ask of the public not to simply turn charities away because of this story, as not all work in the way described tonight.

Instead, when asked for donations, you should be TOLD of any fee, and how it is paid, if not ASK! We are obliged to inform you, and if you are refused, or given a vague answer, then something is wrong, and by all means, dont donate.

However there are a few companies out there that work WITH charities to ensure fees are fair and dont represent a financial risk to the charity.

Not all charge a fee as soon as the donator is signed up meaning that they have to give to the charity for 18 months before the charity actually receives anything, as implied in the program!

#34

shark away as much as you want, who cares

#41 & #42

These days, nutkar97, every financial story, but not only financial, seems to be turned into such out of proportion dramas with tslk of monsters and sharks, etc, that one could, if one 'subscribed' to them, that there woiudn't be anything else to do but to run away as fast as possible from the UK to some remote place and be left with nothing but dreams. Thank goodness for one's families.... Well, I'm happy to have quite a few family members not to have to resort to such a drastic move.

Best wishes with your charity work, nutkar97

mim

"Yes, I am a fundraiser, Yes, I get paid, but as I put so many hours into fundraising, and I DO need to eat and pay my rent like everyone else, this is done in a fair way which means the charity DOES NOT LOSE OUT, I dont see the problem."

"Don't see the problem" says it all perhaps?

Many of the problems in our present liberal system occur with people in key positions being controlled by forces acting upon the positions they play in the system. This is as true of people working in support modern (post 2006) Third Sector charities as it is for those working in Financial Services who agents assert (often truthfully) that their actions are only because they have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders (think of pension funds during the ENRON debacle). Alas, this is exactly how Directors, managers and opportunists exploit these forces. In the case of many companies presentable people (often female) are fielded as front line staff on contact lines where they basically just make things up to ensure that the customer behaves as the company wishes. That is how they are trained. They probably don't even realise what they are doing (or they wouldn't do it perhaps?), or why it's wrong. But that doesn't change the fact that it IS wrong. We live in a society now where what happens is all too often excused because as cogs in the machine people claim that their actions are not intentional, that they are just doing their jobs to pay the mortgage etc.

It's no excuse, as burglars steal in order to feed themselves etc.
Charity is supposed to be voluntary, not something people feel they have to do under pressure of a salesperson's influence.

Fancy sponsoring a penguin? how about an at-risk tree ant in the Amazon?.How about supporting a sick and starving child in Africa?

Is this scaremongering or true?

4. At 12:46pm on 26 Aug 2010, tabblenabble01

I am concerned very much with these days with the 'how' of news portrayals as much as the 'what'.

We all rely on objective information and the sharing of pertinent facts, good and bad, comfortable or not, to try and arrive at views on all subjects. And hence one is very much in the hands of those paid and in a position to present them.

Hence what can precede a story, and the ways it can be shaped in editorial, become very potent. From the selection of interviewees beforehand to how their pitches are shaped in post-production, all become pertinent to, quoting two rather worrying ´óÏó´«Ã½ mantras, 'interpreting events' to 'enhance the narrative'.

One has to trust that these things to not get taken, or pushed too far. An audience of 60M is a seductive one for any who feel their opinion matters. And while being 'unique' (as with its funding) can be liberating, with such opportunity comes great responsibility, too often abused in my view. Today I read the DG is to 'attack' SKY, one presumes as a better form of defence. This seems odd, and rather beyond remit, as one may as well invite comparison with any service the public can choose to engage with or not, though sadly not enjoying a hefty, guaranteed income no matter what.

Hence, when public service broadcasting seems more guided by ratings or dogma, I take note.

Take, like so many things, the issue of charitable giving, which is incredibly nuanced.

I have to agree with many feeling that many 'charities' seem to have been allowed to stray, yet with all the financial concessions beyond my more comfortable perception of what they should be and/or support.

Which is, using the simplistic shorthand I fear does get overused, a lot more money going where it can do the most good, and a lot less funding of advocacy. Especially with a political slant more designed to help the agendas of those whose careers depend on it, and a lot less concerned with the direct needs of the beneficiaries claimed.

But one has to accept that, in this day and age, the sophistication of modern consumerist society, and the complexity of logistical systems, means there has to be a solid professional base to garner and distribute the pounds from punter's pockets.

However, as with any pendulum swing, things seem to have ended up in a dangerous place. Too often I see some comfortable looking individual with a scary title (if there is a VP of Comms, how many others, above and below are there in just that 'division' soaking up salary, pension and air miles) on screen making a plea (or worse a political pitch), just back from a fund-raiser concert with Al Gore in some far flung 5* venue.

And the expectation can be taken too far.

I am involved with the creative industries. And in this, what is asked of some by the 'charity industry' can too often crank an eyebrow.

While many can and do contribute for free, I often wonder just how many Marketing Directors commissioning expensive PR agencies forgo their salaries and fees in creating an atmosphere where those a lot lower down, and less able to afford it, either contribute or 'volunteer'. With bonusses often on top for success in using funds to effect such conversions.

I fear my distaste for such excessive corporatisation is now shaping my decisions in this regard.

And I just hope that am being informed reliably by the media in coming to these.

I like to know where my money is going, and what proportion is reaching the productive aspects of the 'brand' I am being asked to support, as opposed to out of control upper and middle-management seeking to make a mark, shape the world and/or score a bonus, often untroubled by the guiding principles and necessary restrictions of being in a competitive service environment.

Be it a charity, or the ´óÏó´«Ã½.

Neither represent necessities in my life, yet when contributions based on income-generating labours seem to be heading more to staff pay, perks and pensions than product, I might see fit to reassess my priorities.

@ Ecolizzy #46 - unfortunately it is true :o(
...and the backlash against the proposed mosque at Ground Zero is already taking place

#;45

Who do you get paid for, tb 01? Or are you hoping to make fat bucks out of your blogging and whatever else you might be up to?

#47

We all need to reconsider the fundamentals every now and then. From what you say, junk, the time is up for you to do just that.

the eu dogma of unlimited migration is just as extremists as those who say there should be no immigration. thus the eu is an extremist organisation. the eu flag is that of extremists.

given the millions out of work in the uk and the further millions idle to say we need skilled migrant labour is damming of the govt education policies, to say we need willing workers is damming of the social security system and to say we need migrants to fund the ponzi pension scheme is delusional.

the govt has no society building science. they have no models. their only model is some kind of market fundamentalist anarchy and allowing extremists like the EU set national policy.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

52 Spank Me Now Auntie I am very very Naughtie

nevermind freedom of speech just spank me

I want/deserve it Harder than THAT

down a bit up a bit move left or RIGHT oohh thats nearly right/wrong

#51 Very well said JC, you have said it all in a nutshell.

I feel sorry for the million young people here who will never get an opportunity for work, they are supposed to be the future of britain, a non working britain it appears.

I have not a had strong enough opinion about anything to comment on a forum for many years, but I felt I needed to on this occasion.

Further to nutkar97's post, I am also a fundraiser. The ID badge I wear, which is always visible to the public, states that I am 'a paid prospector, engaged by an agency to work on behalf of charities and NPOs'.
I am relatively young and idealistic. I believe completely in the message conveyed by the charity I represent, and find great pleasure and satisfaction in informing people who otherwise would not be familiar with this. Talking from experience, I believe that the vast majority of individuals employed by fundraising companies are motivated by the ambitions and needs of the charity, not by profit (as is the case in a few, less than reputable, companies).

Regarding the bill of this subcontracting for the charity involved, I would point out that any method of raising money has its own costs. I work full time, 9 hours a day, for which I could not be expected to work for free. Like the previous poster said, I am an individual who needs to pay for rent, bills, food, etc like everyone else. However, we do recruit a number of donors who stay with us for life. As Newsnight said, our costs are doubled and trebled by the money that we bring in. There are other ways to interpret the figures, but ultimately this is the method the charity has deemed most cost-effective. Any charity or NPO who uses agencies for fundraising will be completely data-transparent; any person, donor or otherwise, is able to see a breakdown of costs to the charity on the relevant website.
The nature of my job is such that in a full day, it's a given that I will endure some pretty horrific abuse. Ultimately, we "chuggers" make a profit for our charities. Not only that, but most of us truly believe that we can make the world a better place. Is that really reason enough to vilify us?

-Molerus x

Further to my post, if anyone would like a more eloquent explanation:

street-fundraising is *very* hard work, although if done for an ethical organisation, also often very highly personally rewarding. It is not the "chuggers" who are 'raking in the £Ms', it is those who own the for-profit companies who have taken control over out-sourced fundraising that ae rolling in it.

the same will be true if the tories manage to get their health 'reforms' through - the bulk of the NHS money will go to the private, for-profit outsourced 'management companies', because most GPs will find that easier - just like charities do.

don't blame the people on the street/front-line, blame the [bleep]s who have deliberately organised it this way.