|
Post by baldrick on Sept 9, 2024 0:26:25 GMT
So he's changed his mind, happens to us all at some point.
|
|
|
Post by baldrick on Sept 9, 2024 1:37:32 GMT
"Sir Keir will be joined by Elba, an anti-knife campaigner, on Monday as he launches the coalition which aims to stop young people from being dragged into violent gangs. The coalition will bring together campaign groups, families of people who have lost their lives to knife crime, and young people who have been affected by it - as well as Elba and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper. Snip Commander Stephen Clayman, the national policing lead for knife crime, has been tasked with leading a rapid review to understand how these weapons are sold online and delivered to under 18s, and to close loopholes in the law. He will report back to the home secretary by the end of the year. Monday's announcement is the first step in the government's 10-year plan to tackle knife crime, which will be central to its mission to keep our streets safe." www.itv.com/news/2024-09-08/starmer-to-launch-new-anti-knife-crime-coalition-alongside-idris-elba
|
|
|
Post by baldrick on Sept 9, 2024 9:37:51 GMT
Not sure where this best sits, happy to have it moved if appropriate. "An anti-corruption charity says it has identified significant concerns in contracts worth over £15.3bn awarded by the Conservative government during the Covid pandemic, equivalent to one in every £3 spent. Transparency International UK found 135 “high-risk” contracts with at least three red flags - warning signs of a risk of corruption. Twenty-eight contracts worth £4.1bn went to firms with known political connections, while 51 worth £4bn went through a "VIP lane" for companies recommended by MPs and peers, a practice the High Court ruled was unlawful. A Conservative spokesperson said: “Government policy was in no way influenced by the donations the party received – they are entirely separate.” Transparency International UK analysed 5,000 contracts for red flags. The charity said its analysis also indicated that almost two thirds of high-value contracts to supply items such as masks and protective medical equipment during the pandemic, adding up to a total of £30.7bn, were awarded without any competition. A further eight contracts worth a total of £500m went to suppliers no more than 100 days old – another red flag for corruption. Normal safeguards designed to protect the process of bidding for government contracts from corruption were suspended during the pandemic. The government, led by Boris Johnson, justified this at the time by stressing the need to short-cut the bidding process to accelerate the supply of much-needed items such as personal protective equipment (PPE). But Transparency International UK, a core participant in the Covid-19 inquiry which begins its third module on Monday, said the suspension of normal safeguards was often unjustifiable, costing the public purse billions and eroding trust in political institutions. It is urging the authorities to investigate the high-risk contracts it has identified." www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cevj3y7n33vo
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 9, 2024 23:50:57 GMT
Not sure where this best sits, happy to have it moved if appropriate. "An anti-corruption charity says it has identified significant concerns in contracts worth over £15.3bn awarded by the Conservative government during the Covid pandemic, equivalent to one in every £3 spent. Transparency International UK found 135 “high-risk” contracts with at least three red flags - warning signs of a risk of corruption. Twenty-eight contracts worth £4.1bn went to firms with known political connections, while 51 worth £4bn went through a "VIP lane" for companies recommended by MPs and peers, a practice the High Court ruled was unlawful. A Conservative spokesperson said: “Government policy was in no way influenced by the donations the party received – they are entirely separate.” Transparency International UK analysed 5,000 contracts for red flags. The charity said its analysis also indicated that almost two thirds of high-value contracts to supply items such as masks and protective medical equipment during the pandemic, adding up to a total of £30.7bn, were awarded without any competition. A further eight contracts worth a total of £500m went to suppliers no more than 100 days old – another red flag for corruption. Normal safeguards designed to protect the process of bidding for government contracts from corruption were suspended during the pandemic. The government, led by Boris Johnson, justified this at the time by stressing the need to short-cut the bidding process to accelerate the supply of much-needed items such as personal protective equipment (PPE). But Transparency International UK, a core participant in the Covid-19 inquiry which begins its third module on Monday, said the suspension of normal safeguards was often unjustifiable, costing the public purse billions and eroding trust in political institutions. It is urging the authorities to investigate the high-risk contracts it has identified." www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cevj3y7n33voThis is from a 'charity'? Seriously? Do you expect this to be news?
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 6,497
|
Post by oldie on Sept 10, 2024 6:01:12 GMT
Not sure where this best sits, happy to have it moved if appropriate. "An anti-corruption charity says it has identified significant concerns in contracts worth over £15.3bn awarded by the Conservative government during the Covid pandemic, equivalent to one in every £3 spent. Transparency International UK found 135 “high-risk” contracts with at least three red flags - warning signs of a risk of corruption. Twenty-eight contracts worth £4.1bn went to firms with known political connections, while 51 worth £4bn went through a "VIP lane" for companies recommended by MPs and peers, a practice the High Court ruled was unlawful. A Conservative spokesperson said: “Government policy was in no way influenced by the donations the party received – they are entirely separate.” Transparency International UK analysed 5,000 contracts for red flags. The charity said its analysis also indicated that almost two thirds of high-value contracts to supply items such as masks and protective medical equipment during the pandemic, adding up to a total of £30.7bn, were awarded without any competition. A further eight contracts worth a total of £500m went to suppliers no more than 100 days old – another red flag for corruption. Normal safeguards designed to protect the process of bidding for government contracts from corruption were suspended during the pandemic. The government, led by Boris Johnson, justified this at the time by stressing the need to short-cut the bidding process to accelerate the supply of much-needed items such as personal protective equipment (PPE). But Transparency International UK, a core participant in the Covid-19 inquiry which begins its third module on Monday, said the suspension of normal safeguards was often unjustifiable, costing the public purse billions and eroding trust in political institutions. It is urging the authorities to investigate the high-risk contracts it has identified." www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cevj3y7n33voThis is from a 'charity'? Seriously? Do you expect this to be news? Expect? It is news, any potential for large scale corruption is "news"
|
|
|
Post by baldrick on Sept 10, 2024 6:17:30 GMT
Not sure where this best sits, happy to have it moved if appropriate. "An anti-corruption charity says it has identified significant concerns in contracts worth over £15.3bn awarded by the Conservative government during the Covid pandemic, equivalent to one in every £3 spent. Transparency International UK found 135 “high-risk” contracts with at least three red flags - warning signs of a risk of corruption. Twenty-eight contracts worth £4.1bn went to firms with known political connections, while 51 worth £4bn went through a "VIP lane" for companies recommended by MPs and peers, a practice the High Court ruled was unlawful. A Conservative spokesperson said: “Government policy was in no way influenced by the donations the party received – they are entirely separate.” Transparency International UK analysed 5,000 contracts for red flags. The charity said its analysis also indicated that almost two thirds of high-value contracts to supply items such as masks and protective medical equipment during the pandemic, adding up to a total of £30.7bn, were awarded without any competition. A further eight contracts worth a total of £500m went to suppliers no more than 100 days old – another red flag for corruption. Normal safeguards designed to protect the process of bidding for government contracts from corruption were suspended during the pandemic. The government, led by Boris Johnson, justified this at the time by stressing the need to short-cut the bidding process to accelerate the supply of much-needed items such as personal protective equipment (PPE). But Transparency International UK, a core participant in the Covid-19 inquiry which begins its third module on Monday, said the suspension of normal safeguards was often unjustifiable, costing the public purse billions and eroding trust in political institutions. It is urging the authorities to investigate the high-risk contracts it has identified." www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cevj3y7n33voThis is from a 'charity'? Seriously? Do you expect this to be news? Didn't you vote for a 'limited company' to form the next government?
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 10, 2024 7:27:53 GMT
This is from a 'charity'? Seriously? Do you expect this to be news? Didn't you vote for a 'limited company' to form the next government? No. There was no way Reform were going to form a government, but small steps etc etc. And just how I voted.....what has that got to do with you posting an opinion piece from a "charity" that you seem to believe is the gospel truth?
|
|
bluetornados
Predictions League
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 14,759
Member is Online
|
Post by bluetornados on Sept 10, 2024 7:56:10 GMT
More than 1,700 prisoners start being released early because of overcrowding..by Sam Hancockichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/standard/1024/cpsprodpb/6f7e/live/7309eb50-6ec4-11ef-b282-4535eb84fe4b.jpgAround 1,750 prisoners are being released early in England and Wales today, because of overcrowding Offenders serving less than five years are being released after 40% of their sentence, rather than the usual 50% The plan excludes offenders jailed for violent offences with sentences of at least four years, as well as sex offenders and domestic abusers The prison population in England and Wales hit 88,521 last week - an all-time high - and Keir Starmer says the situation is at "crisis point" Labour announced the scheme days after coming to power, but officials were drawing it up when the Conservatives were in office Some people working in the Prison Service and the Probation Service tell the BBC they're "deeply worried" about the early release
|
|
bluetornados
Predictions League
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 14,759
Member is Online
|
Post by bluetornados on Sept 10, 2024 7:58:27 GMT
This is not a surprise - but some people are 'deeply worried'..Report by Chris Mason, Political editor
Criminals leave prisons every day.
But today is different; it is on a different order of magnitude - with many, many more times as many people walking beyond the gates behind which they have been incarcerated and onto the streets than would normally ever happen in one go.
The fact it is happening isn’t a surprise.
Labour stands accused of doing things in government it didn’t advertise in advance when the party was trying to woo you during the election campaign.
Take the campaign about the Winter Fuel Payment for a start. But on the issue of letting prisoners out early, it was mentioned before polling day.
I asked Sir Keir Starmer about it in the week of the election and he said it would be necessary "in all likelihood".
The last government also set criminals free before they had originally intended to - for the same reason. There aren’t enough prison places.
Capacity has come within 100 places of being exhausted in England and Wales in recent weeks. It currently stands at around 350, I am told - ie pretty much full.
So, ministers argue, they have no other option.
I am also told that by setting out their plans earlier in the summer, the Probation Service and others have had chance to prepare for around 1,700 being set free today, putting in plans for each of them.
But there are people working within the Prison Service and the Probation Service who have contacted me deeply worried about what is happening.
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,644
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Sept 10, 2024 7:59:34 GMT
Not sure where this best sits, happy to have it moved if appropriate. "An anti-corruption charity says it has identified significant concerns in contracts worth over £15.3bn awarded by the Conservative government during the Covid pandemic, equivalent to one in every £3 spent. Transparency International UK found 135 “high-risk” contracts with at least three red flags - warning signs of a risk of corruption. Twenty-eight contracts worth £4.1bn went to firms with known political connections, while 51 worth £4bn went through a "VIP lane" for companies recommended by MPs and peers, a practice the High Court ruled was unlawful. A Conservative spokesperson said: “Government policy was in no way influenced by the donations the party received – they are entirely separate.” Transparency International UK analysed 5,000 contracts for red flags. The charity said its analysis also indicated that almost two thirds of high-value contracts to supply items such as masks and protective medical equipment during the pandemic, adding up to a total of £30.7bn, were awarded without any competition. A further eight contracts worth a total of £500m went to suppliers no more than 100 days old – another red flag for corruption. Normal safeguards designed to protect the process of bidding for government contracts from corruption were suspended during the pandemic. The government, led by Boris Johnson, justified this at the time by stressing the need to short-cut the bidding process to accelerate the supply of much-needed items such as personal protective equipment (PPE). But Transparency International UK, a core participant in the Covid-19 inquiry which begins its third module on Monday, said the suspension of normal safeguards was often unjustifiable, costing the public purse billions and eroding trust in political institutions. It is urging the authorities to investigate the high-risk contracts it has identified." www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cevj3y7n33voThis is from a 'charity'? Seriously? Do you expect this to be news? You surprise me more and more each day Nobby. It's registered as a charity as it wishes to be non profit making but is global. I thought you would be against corruption, guess not. So you believe that charities can be ignored and their reports ignored? What about Oxfam, the Red Cross, Amnesty International, Greenpeace, Barnados, Save the Chidren, Samaritans, etc www.transparency.org/en/aboutAbout Transparency International is a global movement working in over 100 countries to end the injustice of corruption. We focus on issues with the greatest impact on people’s lives and hold the powerful to account for the common good. Through our advocacy, campaigning and research, we work to expose the systems and networks that enable corruption to thrive, demanding greater transparency and integrity in all areas of public life. Our mission
Our mission is to stop corruption and promote transparency, accountability and integrity at all levels and across all sectors of society. Our vision
Our vision is a world in which government, politics, business, civil society and the daily lives of people are free of corruption. We are independent, non-governmental, not-for-profit and work with like-minded partners across the world to end the injustice of corruption.
|
|
|
Post by baldrick on Sept 10, 2024 8:25:38 GMT
Didn't you vote for a 'limited company' to form the next government? No. There was no way Reform were going to form a government, but small steps etc etc. And just how I voted.....what has that got to do with you posting an opinion piece from a "charity" that you seem to believe is the gospel truth? Who said I thought it was the Gospel truth? Your words not mine. As for the Reform plc comment, you've questioned their ability by being a charity, whereas you are happy to vote for Reform despite its status. Aren't a lot of private schools registered as charities? Do you question their teaching ability because of that?
|
|
oldie
Joined: September 2021
Posts: 6,497
|
Post by oldie on Sept 10, 2024 8:39:31 GMT
No. There was no way Reform were going to form a government, but small steps etc etc. And just how I voted.....what has that got to do with you posting an opinion piece from a "charity" that you seem to believe is the gospel truth? Who said I thought it was the Gospel truth? Your words not mine. As for the Reform plc comment, you've questioned their ability by being a charity, whereas you are happy to vote for Reform despite its status. Aren't a lot of private schools registered as charities? Do you question their teaching ability because of that? Boom
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 10, 2024 9:28:08 GMT
No. There was no way Reform were going to form a government, but small steps etc etc. And just how I voted.....what has that got to do with you posting an opinion piece from a "charity" that you seem to believe is the gospel truth? Who said I thought it was the Gospel truth? Your words not mine. As for the Reform plc comment, you've questioned their ability by being a charity, whereas you are happy to vote for Reform despite its status. Aren't a lot of private schools registered as charities? Do you question their teaching ability because of that? But you did post it as 'the truth'. It was posted as a "look at these figures" type of post! If you personally don't believe the figures in that report, then why did you post it? A school registered as a charity is fine. That is totally different to what you are trying to claim with this so-called 'report'. I'm surprised you are trying these deflection techniques. Yes, I was happy to vote for Reform. Many people vote for the LibDems don't they? I don't hear you screaming and howling about that! "According to the electoral commission register, the entity which is registered form Reform UK is just an unincorporated political party like any other - you’d find the same for any major (or minor) political party. In truth, there is nothing illegal or improper about registering a limited company as a political party (which is why they have a column for it) - but Reform UK have not done so. However, all major political parties typically include some limited companies within their group structure in relation to specific asset holding or contractual roles. For example, the Labour Party has Labour Party Properties Limited (Company number 00964628) and Labour Party Nominees Limited (Company number 00966540). It’s nothing illegal or sinister.
I don’t claim to know much about how Reform is structured, but I don’t think there is anything particularly Machiavellian about having one (or more) limited liability companies within the party structure."
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 10, 2024 9:33:02 GMT
This is from a 'charity'? Seriously? Do you expect this to be news? You surprise me more and more each day Nobby. It's registered as a charity as it wishes to be non profit making but is global. I thought you would be against corruption, guess not. So you believe that charities can be ignored and their reports ignored? What about Oxfam, the Red Cross, Amnesty International, Greenpeace, Barnados, Save the Chidren, Samaritans, etc www.transparency.org/en/aboutAbout Transparency International is a global movement working in over 100 countries to end the injustice of corruption. We focus on issues with the greatest impact on people’s lives and hold the powerful to account for the common good. Through our advocacy, campaigning and research, we work to expose the systems and networks that enable corruption to thrive, demanding greater transparency and integrity in all areas of public life. Our mission
Our mission is to stop corruption and promote transparency, accountability and integrity at all levels and across all sectors of society. Our vision
Our vision is a world in which government, politics, business, civil society and the daily lives of people are free of corruption. We are independent, non-governmental, not-for-profit and work with like-minded partners across the world to end the injustice of corruption. Don't be silly Terry. Of course I am against corruption. I prefer to read real facts and not a biased opinion piece by a "charity" that has a vested interest, especially as it's presented on here as the truth! All these charities you mentioned, yes, they often produce reports but you also have to bear in mind that anything they produce will be presented as an effort to increase their charities revenue. Their reports will be biased. That's the name of the game I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Post by baldrick on Sept 10, 2024 9:44:33 GMT
Who said I thought it was the Gospel truth? Your words not mine. As for the Reform plc comment, you've questioned their ability by being a charity, whereas you are happy to vote for Reform despite its status. Aren't a lot of private schools registered as charities? Do you question their teaching ability because of that? But you did post it as 'the truth'. It was posted as a "look at these figures" type of post! If you personally don't believe the figures in that report, then why did you post it? A school registered as a charity is fine. That is totally different to what you are trying to claim with this so-called 'report'. I'm surprised you are trying these deflection techniques. Yes, I was happy to vote for Reform. Many people vote for the LibDems don't they? I don't hear you screaming and howling about that! "According to the electoral commission register, the entity which is registered form Reform UK is just an unincorporated political party like any other - you’d find the same for any major (or minor) political party. In truth, there is nothing illegal or improper about registering a limited company as a political party (which is why they have a column for it) - but Reform UK have not done so. However, all major political parties typically include some limited companies within their group structure in relation to specific asset holding or contractual roles. For example, the Labour Party has Labour Party Properties Limited (Company number 00964628) and Labour Party Nominees Limited (Company number 00966540). It’s nothing illegal or sinister.
I don’t claim to know much about how Reform is structured, but I don’t think there is anything particularly Machiavellian about having one (or more) limited liability companies within the party structure." You dismissed it because it was written by a charity. I pointed out the other two examples as a status being a separate issue, two areas I suspect you've no issues with. If that's the case, why make such a deal of this report? Surely you can debate the content rather than try to undermine the whole article.
|
|
|
Post by baldrick on Sept 10, 2024 10:17:22 GMT
|
|
bluetornados
Predictions League
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 14,759
Member is Online
|
Post by bluetornados on Sept 10, 2024 10:30:44 GMT
Starmer tells unions 'we won't be reckless' with money ahead of winter fuel vote..by Emily Atkinson and Nathan Williamsichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/standard/1024/cpsprodpb/599a/live/bec51250-6f5e-11ef-8c1a-df523ba43a9a.jpgKeir Starmer is addressing the TUC conference a day after the Unite union called for a U-turn on the policy of cutting winter fuel payments The prime minister says he owes it to working people not be reckless with money, and again says the government inherited a "£22bn black hole" His speech comes hours before MPs vote on the plan to restrict the payment to all but the poorest pensioners - a move that is expected to save £1.4bn this financial year As a reminder for what this is all about, winter fuel payments are paid to all pensioners in the UK to help with their energy bills. The payment, which was introduced by Gordon Brown in 1997, was based on the idea that older people would be left exposed and at increased risk if they could not pay their bill. This year, the winter fuel payment totals £200 for those on certain benefits and born before 22 September 1958. For those born before 23 September 1944 and on certain benefits, it is worth £300. More than nine million pensioners will no longer be eligible for the financial support under the proposed cut.
|
|
Cheshiregas
Global Moderator
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,644
|
Post by Cheshiregas on Sept 10, 2024 21:31:41 GMT
You surprise me more and more each day Nobby. It's registered as a charity as it wishes to be non profit making but is global. I thought you would be against corruption, guess not. So you believe that charities can be ignored and their reports ignored? What about Oxfam, the Red Cross, Amnesty International, Greenpeace, Barnados, Save the Chidren, Samaritans, etc www.transparency.org/en/aboutAbout Transparency International is a global movement working in over 100 countries to end the injustice of corruption. We focus on issues with the greatest impact on people’s lives and hold the powerful to account for the common good. Through our advocacy, campaigning and research, we work to expose the systems and networks that enable corruption to thrive, demanding greater transparency and integrity in all areas of public life. Our mission
Our mission is to stop corruption and promote transparency, accountability and integrity at all levels and across all sectors of society. Our vision
Our vision is a world in which government, politics, business, civil society and the daily lives of people are free of corruption. We are independent, non-governmental, not-for-profit and work with like-minded partners across the world to end the injustice of corruption. Don't be silly Terry. Of course I am against corruption. I prefer to read real facts and not a biased opinion piece by a "charity" that has a vested interest, especially as it's presented on here as the truth! All these charities you mentioned, yes, they often produce reports but you also have to bear in mind that anything they produce will be presented as an effort to increase their charities revenue. Their reports will be biased. That's the name of the game I'm afraid. But that's not the case here Nobby, they are not publishing their report to raise funds. They are producing objective reports globally. They are not raising funds for kids or famine. They have registered as a charity as they are a non profit making organisation. Registering just as many non profit organisations do. Their specific objective is to look at global corruption. You write as if they are some tinpot organisation just looking to raise a few quid and can be ignored. Do you not want someone independent to take an objective global view, not attached to any one Government and hold people to account. How do we otherwise understand Government corruption? Because your attitude seems to be that we can just ignore it as its a charity. Or have I misread you. So therefore, I further take it that you do not believe that a charity can publish a report that is of use as it 'will be biased' so when the Samaritans produce a report on ways to reduce suicide it shouldn't be listened to as it is biased, nor Oxfam on famine, nor Save the Children or raising children out of poverty..... interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 10, 2024 23:29:26 GMT
Wow, this is from the Guardian........and the Guardian is a friend of Lablour! "As the nights begin to draw in, the brief euphoria of 5 July increasingly feels like something that happened in a lost time of sunny innocence. Today, amid deep dismay, the House of Commons approved the government’s ill-conceived and dangerous plan to withdraw the winter fuel allowance from most pensioners in England and Wales. Rachel Reeves has reportedly given ministers and civil servants until Friday to draw up departmental savings. In some parts of Keir Starmer’s administration, meanwhile, minds are at least partly focused on interesting and exciting policies – but the Treasury is spreading a familiar sense of fear and foreboding. What this highlights is simple enough: that there are two strands of this government. One is recognisably left-of-centre, and is personified by a handful of key cabinet ministers: Angela Rayner, Ed Miliband, the culture secretary, Lisa Nandy, and Louise Haigh, who is in charge of the transport brief. This grouping’s priorities are manifested in such policies as improving people’s rights at work, creating a new, publicly owned energy company and gradually renationalising the railways and reregulating local buses in England: all well-intentioned and avowedly social-democratic proposals that serve as instant reminders that the Tories are no longer in charge. The other key Labour tendency, however, has a rather different mindset – and given that its representatives include the prime minister and the chancellor, it is much more powerful. In their own way, Reeves and Starmer are as stereotypically Labour as their more left-leaning colleagues, but they are statist technocrats rather than merchants of social change: their shared quest, it seems, is to put the government machine back in working order and cling on to its orthodoxies in the hope that they can be restored, while somehow sparking renewed economic growth. This is really a bureaucrat’s prospectus, all about such apolitical concepts as competence and efficiency. It reflects Starmer’s time as the director of public prosecutions, and Reeves’s spell at the Bank of England. And its most vivid illustration is the three-pronged insistence that will define the immediate political future: that supposed fiscal rectitude must prevail, that no really ambitious thinking can be brought to the tax system and, as a consequence, that meaningfully lifting the country out of the hole it has been stuck in for 14 years is going to have to wait. Treasury spreadsheets, it seems, have decided our fate – and the national malaise may be about to deepen even further." Labour in trouble
|
|
|
Post by Nobbygas on Sept 10, 2024 23:34:05 GMT
Don't be silly Terry. Of course I am against corruption. I prefer to read real facts and not a biased opinion piece by a "charity" that has a vested interest, especially as it's presented on here as the truth! All these charities you mentioned, yes, they often produce reports but you also have to bear in mind that anything they produce will be presented as an effort to increase their charities revenue. Their reports will be biased. That's the name of the game I'm afraid. But that's not the case here Nobby, they are not publishing their report to raise funds. They are producing objective reports globally. They are not raising funds for kids or famine. They have registered as a charity as they are a non profit making organisation. Registering just as many non profit organisations do. Their specific objective is to look at global corruption. You write as if they are some tinpot organisation just looking to raise a few quid and can be ignored. Do you not want someone independent to take an objective global view, not attached to any one Government and hold people to account. How do we otherwise understand Government corruption? Because your attitude seems to be that we can just ignore it as its a charity. Or have I misread you. So therefore, I further take it that you do not believe that a charity can publish a report that is of use as it 'will be biased' so when the Samaritans produce a report on ways to reduce suicide it shouldn't be listened to as it is biased, nor Oxfam on famine, nor Save the Children or raising children out of poverty..... interesting. Terry, of course they are biased. They may be a non-profit organisation, but they have costs so therefore they need funds! They have a need to promote alleged areas of corruption to attract the funds. It's the fact the post was put up as a sort of, "look at this" ! As if the words presented were true and honest, when they are blatantly not as the report creators have a vested interest in making the claims worse than they probably are. Does this "charity" have access to the government information regarding the funds given out, or are they making assumptions?
|
|