Monday 20 August 2012

Sock Puppet Report Touches A Nerve?

A new graphic has appeared on the Cancer Research UK website, most probably following something the IEA said recently.
In the last 15 years, state funding of charities in Britain has increased significantly. 27,000 charities are now dependent on the government for more than 75 per cent of their income and the ‘voluntary sector’ receives more money from the state than it receives in voluntary donations.
It looks something like this.

Clever, isn't it?

You see, they were part of the Smokefree Coalition - who certainly did receive financial assistance from the government - which bullied through the smoking ban, but that doesn't invalidate their claim as it wasn't paid to them directly.

They also specifically mention 'research', to tie in with their corporate merger-led brand identity.

Of course, we know that they don't just involve themselves in such activities. They have a tobacco advisory group as well as political specialists in advancing legislation towards banning sun beds and introducing daft policies such as minimum alcohol pricing.

They are currently spending much donated cash trying to get plain packaging of tobacco past gullible MPs and recently spunked £56k - raised by well-meaning women running around a field - to advance an inept anti-tobacco vanity project by the University of Bath (and a Dutch political activist) which can't even get its facts straight.

No matter their protestations, it's still undeniable that the country's biggest charity-related business (yes, business) - complete with stratospherically-remunerated executives - spend only 69p of each pound on what donors expect, while indulging themselves in activities which have sod all to do with 'research'.

It's not so much what they receive by dubious means, as what they do with donated cash which is the problem.

If you want to 'support the work' of an entity happy to see your charity donations going on political projects which have nothing to do with 'researching' cancer - and which may be the opposite of your views - knock yourself out. Personally, I'll give my cash to charities which are less disingenuous, less focussed on political revelry, and preferably local.

Nice to see that they're suitably rattled by the IEA's report, mind.


Jay said...

Spot on. CRUK *is* a business. It's fucking evil, too. <Opinion. Educated opinion, based on observation and its use and recruitment of children to further its plain packs agenda.

Oh, yeah, business: For instance, look at this tweet convo:

Funny, because the volunteers were all a-flutter because they thought they had targets, but turns out it was just the staff. Also funny that our favourite buddy can't "take off" the paper bag.

handymanphil said...

Nice post DP. If people want a 'smokers' charity then look no further than "20-20 vision of VOICE" Cancer Appeal ( ) who are buying vital equipment to help head & neck cancer patients. CRUK didn't want to know anything about the organisation because it is aimed at helping smokers! How crass is that. They also claimed that all of the monies donated (£433,000,000 last year) goes solely on research-lying bastards!

Dick_Puddlecote said...

So they had 'targets', did they? For signature gathering, do you reckon? Their campaign gets murkier and more seedy with each new revelation.

Bald headed John said...

69p in the pound, Dick? I think you may be a little generous.
The former Chairman of F2C, Colin Grainger went through their accounts and came up with a figure of just 15p in the pound. Depends on what you class as research I guess.

Bald headed John.

Dick_Puddlecote said...

I took the easy way out with Wikipedia showing an uncontested 31% 'tax' on donations. Any deeper analysis of their accounts is, of course, welcome. ;)

JonathanBagley said...

Did you know, we give part of your contribution to the Fake Charity, ASH UK and part to the libellous Unversity of Bath propaganda website? Support our taking the piss out of the gullible and generous British public.

Ivan_Denisovich said...

I have a bit of a soft spot for CRUK because it really does do some pretty good research but even I admit that it has become unacceptable on many levels and is now a prime example of why we need to reform the charity sector, Even the real science that they do is spun by armies of wannabee journalists and evangelical information managers all of which of course is paid for by people who thought that they were funding something useful. The change in slogan (except when they after your cash) from "beating cancer through research" to "together we will beat cancer" is indicative of the ghastly, syrupy almost religious culture that infests the organisation and its supporters. They grow more like the Moonies everyday and I am fully expecting a merger with the completely insane WCRF any time now. I note that the BHF is now using "beating Heart disease together" as its slogan. I suspect that the together bit is intended to convince lonely potential supporters that they are part of something rather than just a means of raising cash. I hate to be so cynical but it is all a bit vomit inducing.