Thursday, 22 March 2012

Charity begins at home - and that's where it ends at my house

Ok - first up, apologies for the hiatus. I've been on a sort of workaholic/alcoholic sabatical that on the whole has left this bunny wondering where the last four months have gone. I dunno if anyone else feels that the start of this year has shot by in a particularly rapid fashion?

Up here in my spare bedroom it gets pretty damn cold during the winter - posting 1000 words on some inane matter of Statist policy loses its appeal somewhat when you're freezing half to death and possess nipples like bullets.

Anyway, swiftly moving on...uninvited visitors to my house are about as rare as rocking horse shit or a tax cut, so they are invariably met by a sense of foreboding on the part of this bunny. Have I paid my council tax/TV licence? Yeah. Can you account for every minute of the last week or so? Yeah. That nightmare about those kids you never knew you had? Ahh - it's a bloke, thank fuck for that.

So what's to do?

A (rather nice, it must be said) man from Oxfam knocked and explained who he was when I answered. It might be best to detail how the exchange broke down for your own interest or amusement.

Daz:- yeah, hello?

Chugger:- Hi. I'm here on behalf of Oxfam. We're launching a campaign to raise funds and awareness in May of this year and hoped you might want to contribute something....your body language is telling me to 'please go away now', am I right?

Daz:-  well, the problem is that I'm well aware that Oxfam, despite being a registered charity, receives significant amounts of money via the state (ie the taxpayer). So you're already getting a good wedge from me through the taxes I'm paying, is that right?

Chugger:- well yeah, that's quite hard to argue with. Sorry for bothering you.

Daz:- this isn't personal. I know you're here principally because you care about other people. There's just a rule I have that I don't give money to charities that already receive my cash whether I like it or not. It's just a thing I've got going on.

Chugger:- well that's fair enough. Sorry for disturbing you.

Daz:- not at all. Take it easy.

Remember that a charity that takes your money on pain of imprisonment is not a charity. For information, Oxfam receives more than 40% of its total funding from the Uk Government (ie you and me).

Take care and I'll catch you soon.


  1. If I am correct the title for this post comes from 'Bottom' does it not?! Anyway, I have a thing about charity too; it seems to me that Upper Class people are the patrons, Middle Class people get (sometimes) good careers in them, and we poor huddled unwashed masses give our money to them. Shouldn't it be the other way around? The rich seem to get away with not paying any tax and not giving to charity either.

    I didn't know Oxfam got government money; that's an eye-opener for a start. Thanks for posting; I've missed the intelligent posts here for a while now!

  2. Good to hear from you TC

    Eddie, what are you eating?


    Ok - I take the hint. Time for one of Richie's Friday night fry-ups

    Gotta love that show. I have all three series on old-fashioned VHS and they're yours if you want them (I have no VHS player).

    It's true that Oxfam gets a significant proportion of its monies from you and I on pain of imprisonment...

    Now, Question Time or pint? Decisions my friend...

  3. Speaking as a poor little working class lad who grew up in Gorton (which makes me really hard too!!) I don't recognise T-Childs description of charities and I've spent most of my working life working for medical charities. Yes, prominent people are usually patrons because they need high profile people to attract publicity and cash. But that may be a Lord, a sportsman, a TV star or some other 'celebrity'. Lazy 'class' stereotyping should provoke the kind of outrage that racial stereotyping does.

    My problem with charities is that they have been, in all too many cases, nationalised as Daz alluded to in his post. In my opinion once a charity receives state money it ceases to be a charity. In many cases they are campaigning groups and should have their charitable status removed.

    I could rattle on about this a lot more but won't. One of the key roles of most charities is to lobby the state, local and/or national, on behalf of their client group and therefore should be financially independent of both to do their jobs properly.

  4. Hi Daz; yeah, I'm a BIG fan of 'Bottom'! OO-er sounds a bit rude! I've got them all on DVD's, quite a while back actually. For me, with Father Ted, they define British comedy of the 90's; totally funny, anarchic and constantly creative and inventive; oh where are they now?

    Ah Blogmaster; you took me to task quite rightly! Why I was writing was that I often get up to ten letters a week from charities I have never heard of, simply because another charity I have donated to has been passing my details on to others; this annoyed me somewhat as I am not in any way rich. I guess I was a bit pissed off when I wrote what I wrote!

  5. This negative body language that the Oxfam guy picked up on so quickly - it didn't involve you waving a baseball around, did it? ;-)

    Seriously, I knew a lot of so-called charities are sticking their hands out for government money these days, but I didn't realise Oxfam were 40% funded by the taxpayer! I've always resented the amount of political garbage they spew, the fact that I'm being forced to pay for it makes it even worse!

  6. Stuart, be assured that the bat stays by the bed - anyone intruding while I'm getting some shuteye does so at their own risk!!

    The point Gregg makes about charities requiring independence is of course a good one. Part of the work a responsible charity should be doing might involve taking the government to task over their mis-handling of one issue or another. How can they do this with sharpened teeth when they'd essentially be biting the hand that feeds them?

    I suppose Statists have found a new way to silence those asking questions from the outside - buy them off with their own money!!

  7. I have never managed to get my head around charity, particularly big organised charities where the charity workers are not giving their services for free, but earning a salary like you and me. The senior managers and directors earn considerable sums and you have to wonder whether the organisations exist for the good causes or the employees. All major political parties seem to be promoting this so called "third sector" to provise services "more efficiently" than the state sector and are prepared to use our money to prime the pump.

    However there is one aspect of the world of charity which really stick in my throat. That is when a major celebrity implores us to part with our cash (they never seem to put their money where there mouth is and donate their own money)for their chosen good cause whilst at the same time they are doing everything they possible can to avoid paying tax. I they just paid the tax they owed (to the little people that made them a success)then the government would not need to rely so much on the third sector.