LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
The advancement of education has been a charitable purpose from the 16th century when all schools for ordinary people were charitable. It might be an anomaly, but it remains the law. CP can argue that they are advancing education. We don't have to agree, but that's a fact.
See: Commentary on the Descriptions of Charitable Purposes in the Draft Charities Bill
But correct me if i'm wrong Eaton was not a charity funded through public money.
One more point socialism it would seem has become almost like a religion as the Christian faith diminishes it's needed something to replace it. It's kind of like succeeding where many now thick religion failed.
Some of the educational charities are or have been funded by public money. My grammar school was a direct grant school under the pre-comprehensive system. 75% of the places were bought by Coventry City Council and given out to those of us from normal backgrounds who passed the 11+. The school has now become private fee paying only. Many schools receive public funding through places bought for certain pupils who would not normally be able to attend.
Many charities are supported with public funding, especially within the NHS.
Last edited by Aardvark; 28-02-2008 at 03:05 PM.
Aarvark: Government charities frequently have conditions in their Charity Commission Schemes, claiming that they must advance 'public awareness', about this, that and the other: an overt educative role. These charities are merely the propaganda wings of various departments. As I was told many years ago, in this life, you can't have proper gander without proper geese.
Question for anyone who knows.
CP charge for they're leadership courses if they are down as a charity does that make them in any way tax exempt.
The Labour Government abolished the Tory assisted places scheme which sent poor pupils to public schools (charities) using public funds. The LibDems want it back.
BBC NEWS | Politics | Send poor pupils to Eton - Cable
CP will get the same tax exemptions as other charities (that means 'yes', but don't ask me what they are).
GC, good point. People will always look for ways to 'abuse' the system.
That's an interesting idea. My friend who told me about the Landmark training courses said from what he had sene of them that was exactly what they where like for a lot of people. Coupled with agressive sales techniques it's not the best of combinations.One more point socialism it would seem has become almost like a religion as the Christian faith diminishes it's needed something to replace it. It's kind of like succeeding where many now thick religion failed.
Ea of dune
Spot-on ! UKIP's strategy should be to confront the enemy head-on: that is the pro-EU protagonists here.Originally Posted by Hartlepool
i.e. The politicians and supporters of the other parties by opposing them in every way possible and with our best weapon - putting candidates into elections. All and every election, big or small, national or parish. That is the priority. That is what will make change eventually.
If UKIP is NOT on the ballot paper - we DONT EXIST. Change is not possible.
==========
This "Common Purpose" business some mentally deficient people get het-up about is a diversion to our political efforts.
As a conspiracy it is bunkum.
It is no more than standard bureaucratic paper-shuffling for the 'common purpose' of keeping the pen-pushers happy with more work at taxpayer's expense.
Douglas.
-
Last edited by douglas denny; 28-02-2008 at 11:27 PM.
Douglas: Are you changing your mind on this subject? Quite recently you were arguing that CP only existed in the imagination of Brian Gerrish, now you are claiming it's to keep pen-pushers happy. Let's look more closely at what could be happening.
State bureaucracies developed for different purposes, against different circumstances, over a period of centuries. In a very definite way, because of their origins, those bureaucracies were never a unified cultural whole. In deed, they were frequently at war one with another. What we can say is that CP is certainly a process; to what extent it is, or intends to be, conspiratorial is a point of conjecture. All references to, 'mentally deficient people' must be excluded from these debates. Such comments add little of worth. Come on Douglas, be serious, the possession of humour has never been one of my failings.
In time, CP wil impose a cultural uniformity not only on State bureaucracies,
but also the bureaucracies of commerce, finance and the media. Only then will we be able to identify the benefits, if any, and the disadvantages and dangers of this cultural standardisation. As we fragment and become less culturally homogenous as a people, CP couldl emerge to, 'fill the gap', so to speak, in much the same way as the decline social-liberalism, saw the rise
of a more litigious society.
We are all inclined to be ambivalent about bureaucracies. In polite company nothing good can be said about it, but when it fails to provide the seven million OAPs', with their pensions, for example, or provision for other social groups, attitudes change rapidly. In private or public enterterprises,
numbers dictate the need for bureaucracies. In the early 20th C. Max Weber and Karl Mannheim discussed bureaucracies in different social systems. They are well worth re-reading. I believe that this subject must assume a higher social profile.
A change in more recent time has been the transformation of bureaucracies
from being a vehicle for implementing and administering government decisions,
to one were bureaucracies both formulate and implement policies. The EU has been a god-send to bureaucrats.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks