It seems to me that there are three immediate lessons;
1 Government should not contribute funds to 'charities' which are political, which is indicated if they are attempting to influence policies about which there is disagreement between respectable political parties.
It is particularly stupid of the right wing party in power to allow such grants to organisations which oppose its policies, such as on EU membership or immigration. I doubt that left wing parties are so stupid.
2 Charitable status should not be allowed to organisations which are political, as above, and the ways in which they avoid the accusation watched carefully. Charlotte has found some of these tricks.
3 I would be reluctant to prevent foreign money to fund charities, but something should be done to ensure foreign influence is known. Other facts must be disclosed, e.g. People with Significant Control, so a way might be found.
4 We have long taken it for granted that charities are run by honest people according to the trust deed, and that the Charity Commission supervises effectively, but what if an impartial charity is infiltrated and falls under the control of activists? I never thought this might happen, but seeing the way museums have become unbalanced, in both senses, and started to propagandise against this country, I now doubt that the right contest the left on a level playing field. I think the problem is that left wingers are consistent, varying mostly in extremism, whereas 'right wing' is totally amorphous and meaningless, and mainly exists in the imagination of the left.
5 Right wing parties should do more to bring these facts to public knowledge. Charlotte's investigations have been a revelation to me, although I've long suspected the malign influence of foreigners like Soros.
Although I find these reports interesting and the research admirable, I do wonder what in the end it achieves, is raising awareness enough, job done next case, or is there something we should be doing with all this information? That it seems is the question.
An interesting point. I know a contributor who has nearly 300 followers but the number of likes is always in single digits and very little feedback on their posts, so I'm not entirely sure what all this tells us about substance or Substack.
Shining a light on all this stuff is very interesting but I wonder what you’re suggesting flows from it? Are you suggesting that these organisations should be banned? Surely not!
I’ve said several times in my responses to your posts that we should in many ways admire the industry and inventiveness that these lefties put into promoting their causes, regardless of the fact that we deplore them. If only the political right had an equivalent level of zeal!
The one question that arises that does warrant fruitful investigation is funding.
As a starting point no political campaigning groups of this or any other flavour should be getting taxpayer support. That is a scandal and stopping it is an easy win. But it is probably just the tip of the iceberg. Should we consider banning overseas donations to U.K. political campaigning groups with a view to addressing the likes of Soros & Gates? You could certainly make an argument here but it’s still only chipping away; it’s much more difficult, in my view, to say that U.K. based foundations such as Joseph Rowntree should be prevented from using their endowments to promote causes which are (I assume) in accordance with their foundational objectives. But where organisations have official charitable status, and therefore benefit from tax reliefs and gift aid, there may be grounds for objections.
So while we can probably do something legitimately to restrict the funding taps, and we should certainly overhaul charity law, ultimately I think that what you reveal is just a clear lesion to the right: try harder, because if you don’t the zeal of the left will overwhelm you.
It seems to me that there are three immediate lessons;
1 Government should not contribute funds to 'charities' which are political, which is indicated if they are attempting to influence policies about which there is disagreement between respectable political parties.
It is particularly stupid of the right wing party in power to allow such grants to organisations which oppose its policies, such as on EU membership or immigration. I doubt that left wing parties are so stupid.
2 Charitable status should not be allowed to organisations which are political, as above, and the ways in which they avoid the accusation watched carefully. Charlotte has found some of these tricks.
3 I would be reluctant to prevent foreign money to fund charities, but something should be done to ensure foreign influence is known. Other facts must be disclosed, e.g. People with Significant Control, so a way might be found.
4 We have long taken it for granted that charities are run by honest people according to the trust deed, and that the Charity Commission supervises effectively, but what if an impartial charity is infiltrated and falls under the control of activists? I never thought this might happen, but seeing the way museums have become unbalanced, in both senses, and started to propagandise against this country, I now doubt that the right contest the left on a level playing field. I think the problem is that left wingers are consistent, varying mostly in extremism, whereas 'right wing' is totally amorphous and meaningless, and mainly exists in the imagination of the left.
5 Right wing parties should do more to bring these facts to public knowledge. Charlotte's investigations have been a revelation to me, although I've long suspected the malign influence of foreigners like Soros.
Although I find these reports interesting and the research admirable, I do wonder what in the end it achieves, is raising awareness enough, job done next case, or is there something we should be doing with all this information? That it seems is the question.
An interesting point. I know a contributor who has nearly 300 followers but the number of likes is always in single digits and very little feedback on their posts, so I'm not entirely sure what all this tells us about substance or Substack.
The problem is that awareness is raised only for a tiny number. At the time of writing, this article has 45 likes.
Shining a light on all this stuff is very interesting but I wonder what you’re suggesting flows from it? Are you suggesting that these organisations should be banned? Surely not!
I’ve said several times in my responses to your posts that we should in many ways admire the industry and inventiveness that these lefties put into promoting their causes, regardless of the fact that we deplore them. If only the political right had an equivalent level of zeal!
The one question that arises that does warrant fruitful investigation is funding.
As a starting point no political campaigning groups of this or any other flavour should be getting taxpayer support. That is a scandal and stopping it is an easy win. But it is probably just the tip of the iceberg. Should we consider banning overseas donations to U.K. political campaigning groups with a view to addressing the likes of Soros & Gates? You could certainly make an argument here but it’s still only chipping away; it’s much more difficult, in my view, to say that U.K. based foundations such as Joseph Rowntree should be prevented from using their endowments to promote causes which are (I assume) in accordance with their foundational objectives. But where organisations have official charitable status, and therefore benefit from tax reliefs and gift aid, there may be grounds for objections.
So while we can probably do something legitimately to restrict the funding taps, and we should certainly overhaul charity law, ultimately I think that what you reveal is just a clear lesion to the right: try harder, because if you don’t the zeal of the left will overwhelm you.