Recipients of EU cash favour EU shocker!

Britain’s biggest environmental charities have been accused of using public donations to campaign for staying in the European Union.

The charities watchdog will on Monday issue new guidance on political neutrality after Friends of the Earth, The Wildlife Trusts and Greenpeace all made public comments backing EU membership.

Track the cash, that’s all you need to do to divine which way these fuckers are going to argue.

15 thoughts on “Recipients of EU cash favour EU shocker!”

  1. Or just abolish charitable status and make these businesses follow the same rules as everyone else. They should be glad to pay taxes to the Courageous State. Problem solved.

  2. So Much For Subtlety

    It seems hating the British is a subset of hating humanity.

    It is no surprise that charities based on hating modern industrial society should hate Britain.

  3. Well, “Scientists for EU” put something up on facebook recently, style “What did the EU ever do for us?” However, shockingly, “bung us cash for spreading EU propaganda” wasn’t on the list.

  4. We should at least enormously restrict charitable status to those bodies that actually do charity work. What charitable work do Greenpeace actually do? Do they provide soup to tramps or shelter for orphans?

    Why does a political campaigning group ever count as a charity?

  5. When challenged charities simply reply that whatever propaganda they happen to be spreading today is “absolutely vital” to their mission. Here it is simply a fact – A FACT! -that the EU protects the environment that a UK government would wish to destroy.

  6. Or just claim that the organisation doing the campaigning isn’t the charity, it just happens to use a very similar name. Like, for example, Greenpeace Ltd.

  7. “Why does a political campaigning group ever count as a charity?”

    Because it lets middle class lefties earn high salaries, with no accountability, feel good about themselves and indulge in moral preening.

    So a complete pile of felching horse-wank.

  8. The thing that the pro-EU mob keep banging on about, but that I don’t get is this:

    If the EU passes legislation to do something, why is the automatic assumption that a post exit government wouldn’t do the same?

    For instance: let’s assume that the EU wants to pass a law protecting all lakes from having sulphuric acid dumped in it. Why wouldn’t an independent government do that too/before/ independently?

    Therefore much of the stuff that people don’t object to that the EU claims as justification for all the shit we don’t like is just evidence for what, exactly?

  9. It used to be that the elite would have one son running the estate. one in the army and the useless one went to the church.

    Now, one child’s a merchant banker, one’s a politician and the useless one gets a nice six figure annual salary for sitting on the boards of a few taxpayer funded charities and NGOs.

    Which is why the ‘bonfire of the quangos’ was such a damp squib: too many of Sam and Dave’s dinner party pals have daughters with crap ‘Studies’ degrees who need a job.

  10. Kevin B,
    I think it was age rather than usefulness.

    The eldest would run the estate, and have the seat in the Lord’s, or the family constituency (power, but no pay)

    The second would join the army, which might result in glory, money and/or death

    The third would be shunted off to be a Bishop. A pretty tedious prospect, but the pay and perks were colossal. They wouldn’t have got out of bed for what Rooney gets.

  11. Jack C, it depends when you’re talking about. In the 17th century it was pretty common for younger sons of the aristocracy to go off to seek their fortune, particularly in the American colonies but all over the world.

    That carried on into the 18th century, but increasingly less as the snobbery against being “in trade” took over.

    By the 19th century, yes, you’re right; church and armed forces or (increasingly) civil service.

  12. It is a convoluted argument but one could state that moves toward the EU played a large part in to the environmental movement. If you choose the EEC in 1958 then virtually all of the US environmental laws came into being since then. I’m too lazy to look up the dates for British laws but I bet someone here can tell which came before and after 1958. Someone in Greenpeace could easily use tortured logic to state that the is some important relationship.

    Whether there is a connection or not matters as much as the color of Nork unicorn dung.

  13. The EU has gradually become a vehicle for Proggie causes (environmentalism, human rights, social justice, feminism, blah de blah) which is why the Proggies love it so much. They always like a higher level of government that they can target with lobbying, hence their love in the USA of putting power at the Federal Level (e.g. with the Environmental Protection Agency, schooling, etc).

    Structures like the EU and UN are particularly Proggie-susceptible since they have been predicated from the outset of nurturing Proggie campaign groups as a source of legitimacy in the (deliberate) absence of democratic justifications.

  14. These charities (actually lobby groups) have just been told by the Charity Commission that they can’t campaign for the EU because they are supposedly non-political. (pull the other one.)

    So you’re a little late with this post, Tim.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *