Further to my little rummage in the postbag recently, a somewhat disgruntled fellow jewel robber has kindly passed on an interesting letter from Cancer Research UK. As I mentioned in that article last month ...
[...] the employee who replied is one of a minority within [Cancer Research UK] who are aware that their company is involved in political lobbying. I've had cold callers begging for money who have laughed at me for suggesting that their charity is involved in politics. If their own fundraisers aren't aware of it, how do they expect anyone else to know [...]Indeed, it would appear that the "Supporter Contact Advisor" who signed this letter - rejecting a plea for start-up support for a local cancer charity - is just one of very many who are blissfully ignorant of how CRUK spend their sizeable cash.
Strictly Research
Remember that quote when the sponsor form is thrust under your nose from someone trying to raise £50 by dressing in pink for a £482m mega-business. "When the public donates to us, we pledge that their donations will strictly go towards researching cancer.".
One wonders, then, how they square that 'pledge' with the £56k they recently gave to the University of Bath for a wiki guffaw-fest, or the substantial funds they have funnelled into the CRUK tobacco advisory group. Not to mention the alcohol equivalent.
It seems that they only proudly boast about their integrity in distributing funds when it is to refuse a leg-up to grass roots charities.
While on the one hand admitting they use donations for political lobbying ...
The link between smoking and cancer is irrefutable, which is one reason why we are currently campaigning for the introduction of plain packaging for cigarettes.... they blankly deny it when someone comes asking for a tiny portion of their substantial wage bill.
I wish they'd get their story straight.
6 comments:
You might send them this for background.
http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/Sock%20Puppets.pdf
Aren't they (CRUK) the ones who pick up a substantial part of the tab for ASH? Which means, of course, that a significant percentage of donations to CRUK goes towards Deb Arnott's mortgage. Not to mention their lobbying costs.
Unsure about that, but they did have a member of staff seconded one day a week to the Department of Health when the tobacco display ban campaign was going on.
An empty pledge, I'd say.
If you go to the ASH site
http://www.ash.org.uk/
and scroll down to the bottom of the page, there is a box which proudly declares:
ASH receives funding from:
DP, you and your readers may be interested in comments on F.
Davis’ blog highlighting the “Chapman Trick”. Everyone should be aware of this
trick. It has been one of the singularly most damaging (promoting mental
dysfunction) pieces of propaganda that has incessantly been foisted on
populations around the world over the last three decades.
Let as many know about this trick as possible.
"I wish they'd get their story straight.
Very difficult when they tell so many lies they wouldn't know the truth if it got up and smacked them in the face!
Liars are always caught out in the end because they weave such a complicated web of lies it trips them up, eventually.
One day, someone in the REAL world with some REAL clout will have one of those Eureka moments and twig that CRUK, BHF and others of similar ilk are doing nothing more than scamming the public and committing fraud.
Post a Comment