Fools

Defence charities have snubbed the News of the World by refusing to accept millions of pounds in donations in protest at the alleged hacking of dead soldiers’ families’ phones.

Pecunia non olet.

Actually, worse than fools.

Some limbless squaddies will now not get their bionic limbs because the non-injured middle class twats who run the charities have been able to buff up their moral credentials by refusing such \”tainted\” money.

There must be a word which encapsulates \”you suffer for my moral prejudices\” even if I don\’t know what it is.

13 comments on “Fools

  1. Errh, no.

    ‘There are family members of dead servicemen on our board, and they will not accept News of the World money’

    People are angry. I don’t understand it totally, but I suspect there’s more than middle class morality burnishing here.

  2. Some limbless squaddies will now not get their bionic limbs because the non-injured middle class twats who run the charities have been able to buff up their moral credentials by refusing such “tainted” money.

    Of course, in a more normal world, HMG would be providing the bionic limbs. And, actually, they are. Which is a good thing.

    And I agree with Doug – there are a range of views from the military – from the economically sensible “it’s just money, we can use it” through to the more emotional “wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole.”

    If it was up to me (and it isn’t), I’d take the money and I’d put out a press release deploring the activity and stating that the money would be spent on one particular project – and possibly ask the Dowlers to open it.

  3. Scuse me Mr Evil. HMG does not provide anything – we taxpayers provide it all. I’m surprised this has to be said on Tim’s site.

  4. Fred, no, not in reality. Probably not even in theory (except accounting theory and we all know how popular non-reality-connected accountants are around here!)

    Obviously, the tax take provides the funding for all government activities, yes (treating govt debt as future taxation). But the actual provision here – specification, purchasing, supplying, fitting and set-to-work, is done by “the government” – MoD, Defence Medical Services and the NHS. As opposed to, in this specific example by “service charities.”

    Unless you actual run and manage the systems, you are no more connected with the provision of this service than a bank is with the provision of new funding.

    That actually, in large part, is one of the points of this site – what should be done by the government and what should be done by commercial organisations or non-govt funded charities. There being a generally acceptance that govt is going to be less efficient than an organisation seeking to maximise its profit or minimise its expenditure.

  5. Fred, no, not in reality. Probably not even in theory (except accounting theory and we all know how popular non-reality-connected accountants are around here!)

    Obviously, the tax take provides the funding for all government activities, yes (treating govt debt as future taxation). But the actual provision here – specification, purchasing, supplying, fitting and set-to-work, is done by “the government” – MoD, Defence Medical Services and the NHS. As opposed to, in this specific example by “service charities.”

    Unless you actually run and manage the DMS systems, you are no more connected with the provision of this service than a bank is with the provision of new housing. You merely, albeit importantly, fund it.

    That actually, in large part, is one of the points of this site – what should be done by the government and what should be done by commercial organisations or non-govt funded charities. There being a generally acceptance that govt is going to be less efficient than an organisation seeking to maximise its profit or minimise its expenditure.

  6. They are sticking to their principles, what’s wrong with that? They’ve decided, quite rightly, that what the NOTW did was absoluitely not OK, and that waving a cheque at them doesn’t change that.

    So yeah, some squaddies may well be worse off as a result… but this cause is, at least, a damn sight more worthy than the one that got those squaddies messed up in the first place.

    I think you’d be surprised at just how many soldiers would be more than willing to go without some charitable assistance in order to uphold the principle that the families of their dead friends are not fair game for press intrusion.

  7. Given that the money came from the general public through buying that edition, including many squaddies, blue jobs and matelots and their families, I’m with Tim.

    Definitely a case of cutting off nose to spite face.

  8. Another thought. I’ll bet that many of those who bought that final edition will have salved their conscience by believing the money was going to good causes.

    What if all good causes cut off their noses? Where would the money go?

  9. SimonF

    Maybe if that happend organisations would realise that giving some money to charidee is no substitute for behaving properly in the first instance.

    And if the people who bought the NOTW really wanted to give money to good causes then they should have donated directly, not via News International.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.