This Cat needs drowning

The problem is that this cat is already drowning in government funding.

I was reading James Delingpole’s blog in the Torygraph when one supporter of the AGW scam mentioned certain reading. It was a so called environmental charity that I’d never heard of before

 CAT
Britain's major centre for environmental inspiration and courses.

Of course you get the mindless newspeak confronting you:

 

Mission Statement

CAT is concerned with the search for globally sustainable, whole and ecologically sound technologies and ways of life.

Within this search the role of CAT is to explore and demonstrate a wide range of alternatives, communicating to other people the options for them to achieve positive change in their own lives.

This communication involves:

• Inspiring - instilling the desire to change by practical example
• Informing - feeding the desire to change by providing the most appropriate information
• Enabling - providing effective and continuing support to put the change into practice.

CAT has a holistic approach to its work, integrating ideas and practice relating to land use, shelter, energy conservation and use, diet and health, waste management and recycling.

Through its resident community and work organisation, CAT is also committed to the implementation of co-operative principles and best achievable environmental practices.

As far as I’m concerned this is another fake charity trying to “nudge” us back to an agrarian society.

 

Of course these people will need to be funded and being of an enquiring mind I just sort of wandered around their site until I found this:

How is CAT funded ?

CAT receives almost no grant or government funding for its ongoing activities. It has received significant grants towards its new building, the Wales Institute for Sustainable Education, and for other projects. This capital funding is shown in the year end accounts of CAT Charity Limited, in addition to operating income.

But dig deeper and you find that they are somewhat economical with the truth in that statement.

This little part of a table in their accounts for 2009 exposes their little scam.

 

That adds up  to £1,617,256 out of their total funding of £2,124,398. Hardly what they state above in their funding statement?

This is not a charity, it’s a semi government funded Quango. I don’t object to charities, but if they can’t subsist on private charity, then they shouldn’t exist.

I also dug up that before 2006 there were only four categories of charity enshrined in law.

1. the relief of poverty,
2. the advancement of education,
3. the advancement of religion, and
4. other purposes considered beneficial to the community.

Bugger me, but how that has expanded. There are now 13. and guess what comes creeping in at number 9.

the advancement of environmental protection or improvement

How many are there of those so called charities that are only existing, by being fed from my hard one income and paid from my tax?

There is a need for a small department to be set up to strip these fake charities of their funding.

I’ll do the job for a small fee. (With bonuses of course)

Another Quango that can go.

The grandly sounding “National Family and Parenting Institute”.

A taxpayer-funded fake charity think-tank said yesterday that instead of offering tax breaks for married couples, the Coalition should pay out billions more in benefits.

Like we can really afford it right now.

Turn away now, if you are of a weak disposition. This ugly cow is it’s chief.

  Katherine Rake. *shudders*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is another superfluous body that gets most of it’s funding from you and me via The Department for Children, Schools and families. Last year they received £8,8 million. 96% of their total income.

Reading through their literature, it would appear that all they are is just another lobby group sucking from the taxpayers teat.

There are plenty of genuine charities that could make better use of this money.

and finally.

Jill Kirby, of the Centre for Policy Studies, said: 'This is an organisation which was created by the Labour government and which has had no or negligible impact on the lives of families.

'This report is about protecting vested interests.'

Says it all. I rest my case

Nanny still knows best

 

Another one of those "Fake Charities" sticking it's nose in again to try and justify it's existence before it's funding is cut off. (Hopefully).

Children using takeaway shops at the school gates could be consuming more fat and salt in one meal than an adult's maximum daily recommendation.

and who is it you ask? One of the old favourites.

The snapshot study, carried out by London environmental health food teams on behalf of Consensus Action on Salt and Health (Cash), will refuel fears over child obesity in London.

Of course the general public gives generously.

Its 2007/08 accounts show a total income of £213,347, of which:

• Food Standards Agency: £23,500
• ---
• Total £23,500 (11% of all income)

There is no record of any voluntary donations from the public.

And we also have another Fake charity chipping (Pun with no salt) in.

The School Food Trust, established by the Department for Education, has consistently supported the use of stay-on-site policies at lunchtime, which are working well for many schools and have the backing of the majority of parents.

And we're all giving generously to this one aren't we?

Nope.

Its 2008 accounts show a total income of £8,897,000.

• Grant in Aid (Department for Children, Schools and Families): £1,215,000
• Capital grant (Department for Children, Schools and Families): £6,436,000
  ---
• Total £7,651,000 (86% of all income)

All the rest of its income (£1,246,000) came from the Big Lottery Fund.

I hope they are building a big enough bonfire. It's up to the parents to decide what's best for their children.