Actually, it is not just Francis, but all politicians and the media. We are continually bombarded with government propaganda - which is passed off as 'news' - and the majority of the public sit in front of their television sets, or read their 'newspapers' - and swallow it, hook line and sinker.
Politics Home informs us that Cameron has received a major boost in his poll ratings - a piece of propaganda which Richard North, EU Referendum, debunks most satisfactorily. As I commented on his blog, it continually amazes me that anyone can actually believe that any of them are doing a good job. That same source (Politics Home) also informs us that the government plans to take on the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Once again Richard North, EU Referendum, steps in to debunk that piece of news too, revealing it to be exactly what it is - just 'spin', or propaganda.
In the Daily Telegraph we have Nick Hurd, Minister for Civil Society, writing on the subject of giving to charity. Two immediate observations: Nepotism does not exist in political parties? Just what is it about those in politics who use the diminutive form of 'Nicholas' that they appear to be idiots? My apologies, I digress yet again! This article is yet another attempt by government to 'nudge' us to a certain pattern of behaviour - one could almost accuse them of an attempt to 'hurd us like cattle'. We are told that it is not the government's role to tell people what they should do (hell Nick, just where have you been for the last few years?) but are then informed that companies must encourage employees to volunteer. (my emphasis) Why should individuals be 'encouraged' (for encouraged' read 'coerced') to contribute money to 'charities' to which they have already contributed by money previously extracted from them by force? For example, why should people voluntarily support Friends of the Earth or the World Wildlife Fund? In the case of the latter they received £147million - out of a total of £194million - in fees and grants, confirmed in their Annual Accounts for 2010. Part of that £147million came from the EU, money which appears to have been spent lobbying the EU to maintain EU policies.
We are also informed in the Daily Telegraph that Cameron is about to do yet another 'U' turn and ditch his promise to overturn Labour's ban on foxhunting. Yet Politics Home announces that Agriculture Minister, Jim Paice, has 'slammed' the existing law on foxhunting - follow the Independent link. Also from the Daily Telegraph we are informed that some ministers have been accused of 'total hyprocrasy' (nothing new there, then) for campaigning against cuts in their constituencies. So we have the ludicrous situation whereby those ministers can argue against policies that, should they be debated in the Commons, they would have to follow convention and support the government, of which they are members, if they wished to retain their ministerial positions - which further illustrates yet again that the question of whom MPs are elected to represent is, once again, most pertinent.
That not one of the newspapers mentioned above highlights the criticisms that Richard North and I both raise is most noticeable, which confirms my assertion that Maude is truly leading us up the garden path.
Change of URL
13 years ago
5 comments:
I find these fake charities very disturbing. Groups like WWF, which have come a long way from saving cuddly pandas, are on the face of it, voluntary organisations. By receiving state funding they are influenced by state policy and in turn influence state policy and become effectively a part of the state and astroturfing operations.
There's very little comment on this outside the blogosphere. Presumably most think it's OK and unworthy of remark.
We've come a long way from the satire boom of the 60s. Note the way that although the alternative energy sector abounds with scams, which you'd think were natural targets for Private Eye, they hardly register with it.
I agree, cosmic, it makes my blood boil to see taxpayers money squandered on these dishonest, unaccountable organisations. They did start off as charities, of course, before they became international NGOs.
What really gets my goat are the truly fake charities like the Local Government Association and the National Health Service Association diverting tax monies granted to those organisations they represent as well as having direct government grants all so that they can lobby government in the interests of those organisations. It is like my employing a plumber to fix a leaking tap, giving him another fifty quid and telling him I am sure there must be a lot of other things wrong I don't know about and could he suggest some other work he might be able to do for me. Of course, for government this means they can spend even more billions on essential things they were not aware of but 'independent' sources have brought to their attention.
c & PC: Cosmic says there is little comment outside the blogosphere about these fake charities. That is because people don't know the true situation and accept what they see and are presented with. It is impossible to get letters printed in the press pointing ou this deficit in understanding - I know, I've tried.
Of course when PC mentions government spending even more billions on essential things they were not aware of but 'independent' sources have brought to their attention, that also allows them to exert even more control on us - our actions and thoughts etc. Brilliant method of operation - no?
TV is Propaganda. Just watched German TV News - bombing in Abuja, no pictures of dead Christians just smiling Bishops shaking hands with Muslim leaders (presumably stock footage !) whereas next item Syria, pictures of dead opponents of Assad.
It is not even good propaganda but no doubt we are being softened up to congratulate Muslims who murder Christians and have NATO attack Syria ? The real questionis jow many Christians died (unreported) in Egypt or Iraq or Pakistan ?
TT: Agreed, it is not just a British thing........
All media outlets have 'fish to fry'...
Post a Comment