Print Story The next David Icke?
Diary
By Breaker (Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 03:49:12 PM EST) (all tags)
Or a lizard conspiracy mentalist?

Worth watching to the end.  He was doing alright until the last 15 minutes I thought.


If only for the quote "charities are to be used for political purposes".

ASH - the anti smoking lobby that's killing our pubs: 

Year ended 31st March 2007

Department of Health: £210,400

Wales Assembly Government: £110,000

Supporting charities: £185,228

Donations & legacies received: £11,143

Charity kept alive by the people, or tame government echo chamber quango?

Discuss.

Also, we'll be rolling out the exciting new Breakermatic(tm) comment moderation system in this exciting Web 3.2 edition!

< 31 Seasons in the Minor Leagues | Auditor >
The next David Icke? | 4 comments (4 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
The way it works by jump the ladder (4.00 / 2) #1 Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 11:35:10 PM EST
Think of something you don't like. Dress up it up as health/crime issue. Set up a charidee, get govt funding, use the govt funding to lobby the govt to change the law and/or policy and fund sensationalist press releseases to be picked up by the lazy media. Become a stakeholder and be paid by the govt to monitor the situation and/or implement the policy.

Nice cushy, unaccountable jobs all round...

According to by yicky yacky (4.00 / 1) #2 Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 01:54:26 AM EST

the last census, the number of people under the age of 15 constitutes 18.9% of the UK population -- less than one in five. Any issue framed in terms of "the children" therefore is, by definition, the tail wagging the dog to begin with -- and needs to be acknowledged as such.


----
Vacuity abhors a vacuum.
Almost a non-story by gpig (4.00 / 1) #3 Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 07:22:08 AM EST
The government often supports charities that implement government policy.

The government's stated policy is against smoking; the fewer people smoke the better.

ASH have the same view.

So, it's not surprising that the government supports ASH.

Where it would get dodgy would be if the government was using ASH as some representative of some groundswell of popular anti-smoking opinion in order to justify their policy. I don't think they do.

The funding ratio thing makes me uneasy though, and I'd support a 'health warning' for that -- i.e. when a quote from a lobbying charity is used on the news, they say something like 'in 2006-7 ASH received 60% of its funding from government'. (I'm not suggesting a law to enforce this, just that it would be good if news sources did it).

Incidentally, where I was at the time, the smoking ban was supported / opposed roughly 50/50, though all the really vehement opinion was on the part of the smokers. After the ban, it had a lot more support as everyone realised they didn't have to do nearly as much washing.
---
(,   ,') -- eep

People don't feel comfortable with conspiracies. by dmg (2.00 / 0) #4 Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 11:50:42 PM EST
They'd rather attribute things to 'coincidence' and 'chance'. Even when the conspiracy is blatantly obvious.
It's interesting that once you stop believing in certain 'coincidence theories', the people who do believe in them seem more wacky to you than the conspiratorialists used to a seem.






--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
The next David Icke? | 4 comments (4 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback