Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: albitz on 31 March 2011, 19:40:22
-
Im watching this programme at the moment. Its all about how many charities face very hard times due to the fact that they face cuts in their govt. funding, apparently only 60% of charities money comes from public donations.
How does that work then ? To me they arent charities in that case, they are quasi public sector organisations.
Shocking imo. :o
-
What's fuding?
-
What's fuding?
its the age old practice of stalking w..w...w...w...wabbits ;)
-
What's fuding?
its the age old practice of stalking w..w...w...w...wabbits ;)
No. That's fudding.
-
What's fuding?
its the age old practice of stalking w..w...w...w...wabbits ;)
No. That's fudding.
my mistake - you're quite right :y
pedantic fudder ;)
-
Made you look though, didnt it ? ;D
-
i dont know if "bail out the banks and shaft the charities" line of reasoning will play too well with joe public :o
-
Made you look though, didnt it ? ;D
I read all of your contributions with great interest, Albs.
And I hardly have to take the piss correct you on any of them. ;D
-
Made you look though, didnt it ? ;D
I read all of your contributions with great interest, Albs.
And I hardly have to take the piss correct you on any of them. ;D
Never start a sentence with a grammatical conjunction ;)
-
is this something to do with "gift aid" where the charity can claim back the 40% tax you paid on the money you donated to the charity?
(If I donate 60p*, that was actually £1 of my money less 40% income tax. The government gives the charity the 40p)
*Yorkshireman with scottish ancestry - big IF
-
Made you look though, didnt it ? ;D
I read all of your contributions with great interest, Albs.
And I hardly have to take the piss correct you on any of them. ;D
Never start a sentence with a grammatical conjunction ;)
That's old hat. And the number one is no longer a prime number. Keep up.
-
i dont know if "bail out the banks and shaft the charities" line of reasoning will play too well with joe public :o
Missing the point again Banjax. They operate largely by being funded by taxpayers money recieved either from local councils, or central govt, therefore, they arent charities by any definition of the word Im familiar with.
-
i dont know if "bail out the banks and shaft the charities" line of reasoning will play too well with joe public :o
Missing the point again Banjax. They operate largely by being funded by taxpayers money recieved either from local councils, or central govt, therefore, they arent charities by any definition of the word Im familiar with.
'Tis a strange state of affairs. IMO, a lot of charities do the work that the government should be responsible for anyway. i.e. Hospices, Macmillan palliative care, etc.
-
Im watching this programme at the moment. Its all about how many charities face very hard times due to the fact that they face cuts in their govt. funding, apparently only 60% of charities money comes from public donations.
How does that work then ? To me they arent charities in that case, they are quasi public sector organisations.
Shocking imo. :o
There's a few here, Albs. ;)
http://fakecharities.org/
-
i dont know if "bail out the banks and shaft the charities" line of reasoning will play too well with joe public :o
Missing the point again Banjax. They operate largely by being funded by taxpayers money recieved either from local councils, or central govt, therefore, they arent charities by any definition of the word Im familiar with.
'Tis a strange state of affairs. IMO, a lot of charities do the work that the government should be responsible for anyway. i.e. Hospices, Macmillan palliative care, etc.
Indeed you are right, they may get a grant but can still be a charity... :y
What concerns me with all these cuts is the fact that in my line of work, disabled children, a lot of services are provided by such charities. Any cut in funding could mean that some of these families may need more statutory support putting additional pressure on local government, where funding is also becoming tighter anyway.... >:( >:( :'(
-
i dont know if "bail out the banks and shaft the charities" line of reasoning will play too well with joe public :o
Missing the point again Banjax. They operate largely by being funded by taxpayers money recieved either from local councils, or central govt, therefore, they arent charities by any definition of the word Im familiar with.
'Tis a strange state of affairs. IMO, a lot of charities do the work that the government should be responsible for anyway. i.e. Hospices, Macmillan palliative care, etc.
Indeed you are right, they may get a grant but can still be a charity... :y
What concerns me with all these cuts is the fact that in my line of work, disabled children, a lot of services are provided by such charities. Any cut in funding could mean that some of these families may need more statutory support putting additional pressure on local government, where funding is also becoming tighter anyway.... >:( >:( :'(
Understand your point V but isn't that what Local Government is for?
-
i dont know if "bail out the banks and shaft the charities" line of reasoning will play too well with joe public :o
Missing the point again Banjax. They operate largely by being funded by taxpayers money recieved either from local councils, or central govt, therefore, they arent charities by any definition of the word Im familiar with.
'Tis a strange state of affairs. IMO, a lot of charities do the work that the government should be responsible for anyway. i.e. Hospices, Macmillan palliative care, etc.
Indeed you are right, they may get a grant but can still be a charity... :y
What concerns me with all these cuts is the fact that in my line of work, disabled children, a lot of services are provided by such charities. Any cut in funding could mean that some of these families may need more statutory support putting additional pressure on local government, where funding is also becoming tighter anyway.... >:( >:( :'(
Understand your point V but isn't that what Local Government is for?
Absolutely, but it needs the resources...... :( :(
-
Imo local govt has more than enough resources, but there is criminal waste on a massive scale occurring. They have executives on salaries greater than the prime minister with lots of highly paid flunkies to cater to their whims. Empire builders with an overblown sense of entitlement.
They of course will happily deprive the sick and disabled of funding, while drawing six figure salaries, and sqeal like pigs if anyone challenges them.
There is a typical case in Suffolk at the moment. They are cutting services all over the place, yet their chief exec. is paid around £250,000 p.a. and it has been revealed that the council has spent a fortune in paying off employees who dared to disagree with the chief exec. She is a prize bitch by all accounts.
Suffolk council taxpayers are starting to wake up and smell the bullsh1t, and she isnt very happy about it.
-
Imo local govt has more than enough resources, but there is criminal waste on a massive scale occurring. They have executives on salaries greater than the prime minister with lots of highly paid flunkies to cater to their whims. Empire builders with an overblown sense of entitlement.
They of course will happily deprive the sick and disabled of funding, while drawing six figure salaries, and sqeal like pigs if anyone challenges them.
There is a typical case in Suffolk at the moment. They are cutting services all over the place, yet their chief exec. is paid around £250,000 p.a. and it has been revealed that the council has spent a fortune in paying off employees who dared to disagree with the chief exec. She is a prize bitch by all accounts.
Suffolk council taxpayers are starting to wake up and smell the bullsh1t, and she isnt very happy about it.
That may very well be true, but it is the front line that provide the services or not and who have to deal with families,...... :-X
I should add that where I work there have been, so far, no reduction in provision, in fact new cases come in regularly..... :)
-
i dont know if "bail out the banks and shaft the charities" line of reasoning will play too well with joe public :o
Missing the point again Banjax. They operate largely by being funded by taxpayers money recieved either from local councils, or central govt, therefore, they arent charities by any definition of the word Im familiar with.
'Tis a strange state of affairs. IMO, a lot of charities do the work that the government should be responsible for anyway. i.e. Hospices, Macmillan palliative care, etc.
Indeed you are right, they may get a grant but can still be a charity... :y
What concerns me with all these cuts is the fact that in my line of work, disabled children, a lot of services are provided by such charities. Any cut in funding could mean that some of these families may need more statutory support putting additional pressure on local government, where funding is also becoming tighter anyway.... >:( >:( :'(
Understand your point V but isn't that what Local Government is for?
Absolutely, but it needs the resources...... :( :(
A cynic may say that provision through charities is a way of "fiddling the figures".
-
Therein lies the problem Mike. The front line services should be the last to take the pain, but they are often the first.
Councils have been awash with money for years. They put up council tax above inflation for year after year, and develop a "license to print money" mentality, which is difficult to change.
Its easier for them to just cut the visible high profile services, and then put all the blame on the heartless central govt. imo.
-
i dont know if "bail out the banks and shaft the charities" line of reasoning will play too well with joe public :o
Missing the point again Banjax. They operate largely by being funded by taxpayers money recieved either from local councils, or central govt, therefore, they arent charities by any definition of the word Im familiar with.
'Tis a strange state of affairs. IMO, a lot of charities do the work that the government should be responsible for anyway. i.e. Hospices, Macmillan palliative care, etc.
Indeed you are right, they may get a grant but can still be a charity... :y
What concerns me with all these cuts is the fact that in my line of work, disabled children, a lot of services are provided by such charities. Any cut in funding could mean that some of these families may need more statutory support putting additional pressure on local government, where funding is also becoming tighter anyway.... >:( >:( :'(
Understand your point V but isn't that what Local Government is for?
Absolutely, but it needs the resources...... :( :(
A cynic may say that provision through charities is a way of "fiddling the figures".
You calling me a cynic?.... ::) ::) ::)
-
i dont know if "bail out the banks and shaft the charities" line of reasoning will play too well with joe public :o
Missing the point again Banjax. They operate largely by being funded by taxpayers money recieved either from local councils, or central govt, therefore, they arent charities by any definition of the word Im familiar with.
'Tis a strange state of affairs. IMO, a lot of charities do the work that the government should be responsible for anyway. i.e. Hospices, Macmillan palliative care, etc.
Indeed you are right, they may get a grant but can still be a charity... :y
What concerns me with all these cuts is the fact that in my line of work, disabled children, a lot of services are provided by such charities. Any cut in funding could mean that some of these families may need more statutory support putting additional pressure on local government, where funding is also becoming tighter anyway.... >:( >:( :'(
Understand your point V but isn't that what Local Government is for?
Absolutely, but it needs the resources...... :( :(
A cynic may say that provision through charities is a way of "fiddling the figures".
The point of my original post John. :y
-
What I don't get is the fact that public spending is still increasing, it's just the rate of increase that's been cut. So, even if the public sector were to receive exactly the same as last year, why the need for draconian cuts? Something doesn't add up. :-?
-
What I don't get is the fact that public spending is still increasing, it's just the rate of increase that's been cut. So, even if the public sector were to receive exactly the same as last year, why the need for draconian cuts? Something doesn't add up. :-?
because the population increases every year? :-?
-
What I don't get is the fact that public spending is still increasing, it's just the rate of increase that's been cut. So, even if the public sector were to receive exactly the same as last year, why the need for draconian cuts? Something doesn't add up. :-?
because the population increases every year? :-?
But the birth rate is declining. In any event, it wouldn't have that much effect in one year.
-
"The cuts" are currently being discussed on question time, but Im struggling to watch it, because there is so much drivel being spouted by incredibly stupid people - the stupidest being arch hypocrite Diane Abbot. ::)
-
What I don't get is the fact that public spending is still increasing, it's just the rate of increase that's been cut. So, even if the public sector were to receive exactly the same as last year, why the need for draconian cuts? Something doesn't add up. :-?
because the population increases every year? :-?
But the birth rate is declining. In any event, it wouldn't have that much effect in one year.
maybe, but the population is getting older and more and more people are joining the unemployed daily so the strain on social services probably increases despite any falling birthrate? :(
-
What I don't get is the fact that public spending is still increasing, it's just the rate of increase that's been cut. So, even if the public sector were to receive exactly the same as last year, why the need for draconian cuts? Something doesn't add up. :-?
because the population increases every year? :-?
But the birth rate is declining. In any event, it wouldn't have that much effect in one year.
maybe, but the population is getting older and more and more people are joining the unemployed daily so the strain on social services probably increases despite any falling birthrate? :(
Of course, but year-on-year it is hardly measurable, Maybe over a decade.
-
Its all a con imo. The Tories cant admit they arent actually cutting, because they said they would and most people know they should, so it would be an admission of weaknes and incompetence.
On the other hand, the opposition are taking the opportunity to accuse them od being heartless/evil/Thatcherite. And the unions are using the whole thing to stir up another class war - which would take them back to the position they used to have - so called defenders of the working class. :-/
-
we need Labour back - we're all doomed i tellsya ;D