9 thoughts on “Coalition should stop funding anti-smoking groups”

  1. Posted 28/10/2010 at 16:51 | Permalink

    Yes, and it’s worrying that the advertised government spending cuts are forecast to severely reduce the income of so-called ‘charities’.

    My proposal, in the interests of transparency, is that a clear distinction should be made between:

    (a) voluntary charities, which depend for all their income on voluntary donations, and
    (b) coercive charities, where some or all of the income comes from taxpayers.

    Maybe all charities which receive money directly or indirectly from taxpayers already report this openly in their accounts. But if they don’t now, they should in future.

    There could be a percentage in brackets after a charity’s name, to show what percentage of its income comes from taxpayers.

  2. Posted 28/10/2010 at 19:57 | Permalink

    That reminds me—I must get fakecharities.org back up again…

    DK

  3. Posted 28/10/2010 at 20:19 | Permalink

    It’s definitely not on for tax payers to pay to marginalise, stigmatise and denormalise themselves.

    Charities are currently allowed to be extensions of government departments without transparency and accountability to their funders.

  4. Posted 28/10/2010 at 21:19 | Permalink

    They certainly should be “branded” in this way.
    Fot the time being, if in doubt, just check out http://www.fakecharities.org

  5. Posted 28/10/2010 at 23:04 | Permalink

    @DK – It would be terrific if you could get fakecharities.org back up again, particularly if the ‘Big Society’ ends up being largely state funded and directed, as many people fear.

  6. Posted 29/10/2010 at 07:45 | Permalink

    As Mark correctly notes the money is not that great per se but it is the culture of state hand outs to charities that one can object to most. What has not been mentioned is the £51 million the taxpayer spends on nicotine replacement such as patches and gum. Also councils employ Smoking Ceassation Offices, I was button holed outside Leytonstone station by two “Smokefree” employees of Waltham Forest Council three days ago.

    If the government was serious about reducing smoking it would embrace electronic cigarettes even I have one as a 20 day smoker. However it looks like the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (an ajunct of the Department of Health) will all but ban them.

  7. Posted 29/10/2010 at 08:30 | Permalink

    For the state to fund fake charities is not just unacceptable, it is dishonest. How can anyone, even the antismokers, defend the inherent deceit?

    If any antismokers are planning to comment here, please answer this-

    WHY THE DECEIT?

  8. Posted 29/10/2010 at 09:27 | Permalink

    A change in attitude at the Charities Commission would help which is an unremittingly political quango and the sole arbiter of what groups deserve to identify themselves as ‘charities’.

  9. Posted 31/10/2010 at 21:26 | Permalink

    […] UK: Coalition should stop funding anti-smoking groups […]

Comments are closed.