"The problem with taxpayer support of groups such as ASH is not just that it forces people to fund campaign groups they may disagree with, but that there is a danger that the public believe that such groups really are private and completely independent."I'll just leave the link to the whole piece HERE, shall I?
Even China Isn't That Heartless...
11 minutes ago
10 comments:
It'll be so sweet if the funding is cut. I would definately celebrate with a big cigar.
Thing is, it wouldn't be announced, we'd have to wait to see accounts filed at the Charity Commission site. So first we'd know is around 18 months after their year end.
Assuming, that is, that the coalition don't see an advantage in announcing it sooner. And I don't reckon they would do, do you? :(
Previous removed for late night grammatical errors.
But you are wrong. The first we know is that they will launch a fund raising campaign, then they will lay off nearly all their staff.
It will be a rapid descent
Yebbut, no but, pharma would undoubtedly make up the slack. It's in their interest to do so. Look at who is financing anti-smoking ads on TV now government withdrew. It's not the NHS paying anymore, but Pfizer who benefit whoever pays. And that's how it should be.
If the state stops paying, pharma won't let their publicity arm die, far from it.
Death by a thousand blogs?
Fakecharities.org is back in business.
yeah DP - But - Big pharma backing is not the heavy hand of Govt enforcement backing their ridiculous and damaging policies and prosecuting "non-believers".
The Pfizer ad is just that - an ad. It is not the same as those horrendous "Smokers are child abusers/murderers/stinky/smelly/ fish hooked/addicts" of Govt backed propaganda.
The public can make their own choices about Pfizer products, but they are not having it forced down their throats by Govt as some kind of "vital health education programme that we must all obey for our own good and everybody else's."
Yea cut em !
I don't see why we should pay for the stone they crawl out from.
Pfizer can pay.
Pat: I agree. I have no problem with Pfizer paying for their own advertising, it shouldn't be for the government (effectively, the taxpayer) to do their marketing for them.
And it's true, when Pfizer are made to talk directly to their potential customers instead of relying on the state, the message is far more genial and less bullying in nature. Companies don't generally sell products successfully if they threaten their potential market.
Politicians are frightened of the
Medic lobbies and health zealots.
Any politician with guts to speak
against them will be hung, drawn and quartered.The national and local media would be inundated
with the shreiks of abuse and threats of exposure from the nationwide hirelings and rent-a-mob
wretches.The zealots require some
more affirmative attention.
The Judases have had their silver
time to give them the rope and
show them a tree.
TheFumingFew
Post a Comment