3 thoughts on “The anti-sockpuppet clause”

  1. Posted 19/02/2016 at 11:48 | Permalink

    “In any case, charities of this kind are so rare as to be almost hypothetical.”

    Except, perhaps, ASH. 99.4% of their income is from the wallet of the taxpayer.

    http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends67/0000262067_AC_20150331_E_C.pdf

    Donations and legacies received: £5,116
    Total income: £767,446

    0.666% (yes – less than one percent) of the total were voluntary donations. The rest was from the tax-payer via grants, or government contracts.

  2. Posted 20/02/2016 at 10:38 | Permalink

    If a “charity” receives money from the taxpayer – who is not of course given any choice as to whether he contributes or not – then it is hardly a charity in any meaningful sense of the word. The latest move to restrict lobbying is welcome, but it would be even better if all state (ie taxpayer!) funding were brought to an end.

  3. Posted 23/02/2016 at 16:38 | Permalink

    But will this clause apply to businesses who are in receipt of taxpayer funding to deliver services (eg G4S, ATOS etc). If not, why not?

Comments are closed.