Skip to content


Charities warned not to ‘play politics’ after adverts criticise Truss plans
Do not ‘stifle and poison’ debate, watchdog tells organisations

How much politics is too much politics?

200,000 Twitter followers seems quite a lot: I recognise the responsibility it brings.

I note this because the Polden Puckham Charitable Foundation, who provide a part of my funding to work on the question “how are you going to pay for the economic transition that we need”, asked when increasing the funding that they provide to Colin Hines and myself to do this what we would do differently if empowered to spend more time on this work. We suggested that we would reach more people and this is the evidence that we’re succeeding in doing just that.


Can’t see that his Twitter feed is anything but politics paid for by a charity.

8 thoughts on “Interesting”


    Who we are
    The Polden Puckham Charitable Foundation (PPCF) is a grant-giving trust with Quaker family roots. We aim to contribute to the development of a just society based on a commitment to nonviolence and environmental sustainability. Our priority is to address systemic threats by seeking to change policy and attitudes at a national, European or international level. We do this through supporting projects that seek to develop radical alternatives to current economic and social structures, that influence values and attitudes whilst promoting equity and social justice. We recognise that our vision cannot be achieved unless it is pursued in ways that simultaneously address the chronic and often hateful social and racial injustice in society.

    Sounds pretty much like a political manifesto to me. How is that allowed to be a charity?

  2. Indeed, it is a bunch of cranks, not a charity. It has assets of roughly £14m, gives grants of about £800k per annum, on income of roughly £300k. They support crank organisations such as New Economic Foundation, Positive Money, De Smog UK, Global Justice Project….. I reckon they are a bunch of tax dodgers dressed up as a charity. Just tax them

  3. I suppose there might be stuff with gift-aid and VAT, but isn’t taxing a non-profit just an exercise in inefficient bureaucracy?

    While charities playing politics is a fair criticism, I think that ship is as sailed as the Mayflower.

  4. Most charities are nakedly political. Most of them are also scams designed primarily to provide highly-paid sinecures for senior execs, who are often the charity’s founders (or their children).

    And then there’s those charities which do both and also empower nonces to molest poor children in the developing world.

  5. Most of them are also scams designed primarily to provide highly-paid sinecures for senior execs, who are often the charity’s founders (or their children).
    Undoubtedly. An uncle of mine started one years ago. It purported to be a bird sanctuary. It was actually a vehicle enabled the upkeep & maintenance of the private golf course he’d built himself to be out of tax free money. Shrewd old boy. I learned a lot from him.

  6. “Taxing a non-profit” fails to take into account the growth in net assets from profits from investments. As a private individual, I have to pay capital gains tax. Why shouldn’t this bunch of virtue-signalling w#nkers? In fact, it would be better described as a hedge fund with virtue signalling w#nkers attached. Tax them

  7. To Jim. Oh dear not another Quaker charitable grant making trust funding leftist causes. The Joseph Rowntree Trust is another one.

    Whilst I have absolute respect for those individual Quakers whose strong belief in non-violence led them to become stretcher bearers and medics on the battlefields of two world wars, the Quaker grant making trusts are a very different matter. Whilst digging into the funding for an anti-free speech group called Stop Funding Hate (see link below) I discovered that SFH ws being funded by the Joseph Rowntree Trust. A brief look at the list of projects given money by the JRT showed me that the JRT is funding a lot of economically far left, identitarian and ‘refugee’ groups as well as groups that appear to be hostile to to Britain or the way of life that Britons have built.

    Many individual Quakers are mostly harmless, not the sort of people I would want to defend me if the balloon went up but mostly harmless all the same. However because of the sort of groups and the sort of politics that Quaker grantmaking trusts support, the same ‘mostly harmless’ appellation cannot be given to these trusts.

Leave a Reply

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