OPINION: We shouldn't get a warm glow from telethons

Yesterday, the BBC's Children in Need set a new first day fundraising record raising £26 million from all sorts of activities. Lots of praise has followed from celebs (all very keen to promote their latest book or song) and online in places like Twitter.

But, really, isn't it a disgrace that, in 2011, telethons are seen as a normal way of raising money for things which ought to be there, provided by the state?

Let's put it into a bit of context. £26 million is considerably less than the £40 million cost of the civil list (money given to the Queen) each year and, when put into contrast with the £202 million total cost of the royal family, it makes you wonder what 21st century Britons' priorities are. Why not scrap the irrelevant and anachronistic monarchy and use that money to fund hospices, youth centres, medical research, etc.

Then let's look at taxation. We (Britons) seem to expect everything without paying more tax. This is moronic on a level that only George W Bush could equal. We NEED to pay more taxes in order to find essential services - and it's not simply a case of the rich paying more, we all need to pay a bit more. In return, we'd have a better society. Doesn't that make sense? Isn't that what the majority want?

If every tax payer in the UK paid an extra one pound per week in tax (hardly enough to bankrupt anyone) it would raise over £2 BILLION pounds each year. Yes, I'll say that again, £2 BILLION - that makes yesterday's £26 million seem rather pathetic doesn't it? It shows how greedy and selfish many Britons are.

But, of course, Children in Need's trump card last night was to keep repeating that all monies donated would go to UK-based projects and charities. Yes, the xenophobic, if not racist, card. Nigel Farage must have been grinning to himself all day.

The poverty and suffering experienced by British children is nothing in comparison to the poverty and suffering of children in the Third World but, oh no, Children in Need, unlike Comic Relief, is only helping the children in a country who can well-afford to eliminate poverty and suffering affecting its own children overnight.

Anyone who watched the hours of inane nonsense last night shouldn't feel a warm glow but a deep embarrassment that they, like me, live in a society that puts greed and self above caring for others and sharing resources.

Any good Prime Minister should be embarrassed that telethons like Children in Need are providing essential services in a nation that can easily afford to fund those services, but I wonder if Cameron cares. I'm fairly sure he doesn't. Not do the vast majority of politicians in Westminster.

The time has come for a new Britain, with new priorities and an egalitarian outlook. If there is any compassion in this country then last night should be the last ever Children in Need. Sadly, I doubt it will be. There are too many who just don't care.

Remember, £1 per week from every taxpayer would raise over £2 BILLION pounds per annum. Imagine, with that as a starting point, how quickly the UK, and then the rest of the world, could be transformed.


_____

See also: http://pimpmycadence.blogspot.com/2011/10/i-don-want-to-give-to-charity.html

OPINION: The Occupy movement - are they going for the right targets?

A few weeks ago, when the Occupy Wall Street protests began in New York, I felt a sympathy for their cause - the anger at corporate greed, the world financial crisis and, the increasingly pantomime villains, the bankers.

This weekend the movement has moved its protests beyond lower Manhattan and had "occupations" in many of the world's major cities - certainly in most of the world's financial centres. On the whole, these protests were peaceful and well organised (Rome being the main exception). In the City of London the protestors "occupied" the London Stock Exchange. well, no, they didn't they stood outside the London Stock Exchange to shout slogans and wave banners on a day that the Exchange is closed. Indeed, as is the case most Saturdays, very little of the Square Mile that makes up the City of London was open for business. The chances of a single banker hearing the chants or reading the banners was minimal unless they happened to watch the television news on Saturday evening.

So, having rather shot themselves in the foot with a silly and pointless attention-seeking protest, #OccupyLSX decided they need to camp out for the big, to continue their protest today. It wasn't long before the organisers announced on their Twitter account that they were now "occupying St. Paul's". There are many who, I'm sure, will consider this odd. maybe they were just seeking a safe haven, protection from the authorities, the sort of thing that the Christian church has done in the past for those who need a place of safety.

It made me wonder, though. Why protest at a closed Stock Exchange but only seek a pitch for your tent in a cathedral yard?

Then I realised, the protestors were actually attacking the wrong target.

The churches, of all denominations, are huge corporations. They have billions of pounds/dollars in real estate throughout the world. They have incredible investments in stocks and shares. In many pension funds some of the biggest investors are various churches.

Aren't the churches, in fact, the fat cats that we should be protesting about?

And, worse still, because they do some charitable work (and it is only some) they pay very little on nothing in taxation on huge swathes of their income. massive tax avoidance on a scale that would put most bankers to shame.

Take a look at the Salvation Army, just down towards the Millennium Bridge from St. Paul's overlooking the Thames towards the Tate Modern. I'm sure many see them as friendly, nice folks who wear slightly odd Toytown soldier outfits, play Christmas carols outside Tesco and rattle their tambourines. They are, though they cover it well, dangerous fundamentalists, loony creationists who believe the Bible word for word (and ignore the various nonsenses and contradictions that it contains). Their International HQ, built in recent years, wouldn't look out of place as the head office of a firm of accountants or an investment bank. It's on a piece of prime real estate and, in the open market, would have cost millions to build. It is plush and very comfortable. Some might say it was luxurious. I'm sure the hundreds of homeless they help each week are glad that so much was spent to make their pen pushers and senior churchmen work in such luxury. The Army get donations of billions of pounds/dollars each year - a small percentage is spent for anything most people would consider a good cause - most is spent on promotion, publications and indoctrination - but they pay little in tax despite being such a huge global corporation.

The Church of England and the Roman Catholic church also avoid tax on a major scale despite uh of the money donated for good causes gong into investments of stocks and shares.

Yes, those who camped outside St. Paul's cathedral last night needed somewhere to camp. Yes, they sought safe haven so the authorities couldn't round them up, arrest or move on - though there was no evidence that was happening. But, while they're there why not properly Occupy St. Paul's.

* We need an openness, currently not happening, about the funding of religious organisations.

* We need an openness about the tax paid by religious organisations.

* We need an openness about how donations to religious organisations is used and how much is in stocks and shares and bonds.

To my mind, the churches are corrupt international corporations that have been allowed to have a position above the law.

This must stop.

OCCUPY ST. PAUL'S!

The politics of weight loss...

I popped into the supermarket to get a few bits and pieces: milk and fruit mostly. As usual there weren't enough tills open and so what should have been a quick in and out involved a long queue and lots of wasted time. I really don't understand why the shops can't work out the right number of staff they need on specific days and times based on analysis of shopping patterns! It's not, to use a phrase I hate, "rocket science".

Anyhow, whilst wandering up and down the aisles it struck me how the food that's supposedly bad for you tends to be cheap whilst the healthy food is expensive. Surely this is absurd?

Now I realize this is because of the "free market" and supply and demand but surely any government with any interest in the health of the nation would do something about this ridiculous situation?

And this isn't an attack on just the current government, it has been the case with governments of all colours over the past few decades  - do the easy and popular and let's not give a shit about principles or tackling genuine problems. In the meantime the nation is slowly killing itself in an ocean of fat, salt and sugar.

So what should they do? It's so, so simple. All foodstuffs need to be classified properly by how good they are for you and how much harm they will do to you if you eat them. This shouldn't be tricky - a tomato would, I would suggest, be in a good and healthy category 1 while a burger from one of the popular fast food chains would be in category 5. And foods of other levels would fall somewhere in between. All the category 1 foods (and drinks) would have a zero rated Healthy Eating Sales tax added while the higher levels would get higher and higher. 

it's often the only way to stop people doing harm to themselves and to others - hit them in their pocket. Tax them so heavily on crap food and use that money to subsidize healthier options that there is no argument for not changing habits.

Sure, I hear a cry of "but it's not just the content but the quantity that's an issue" - this is true but it would help enormously if the fat-laiden, salt soaked and sugar heavy ready meal cost £20 and the ingredients to be able to make it yourself only cost £2! Or, if people are too lazy or stupid to try to cook for themselves, a healthy ready meal is £5.

And this wouldn't just benefit the individual it would benefit the whole of society by reducing the tax burden of the NHS by having a healthier and fitter population. That money could, again, be spent on more beneficial things like free swimming passes for everyone or annual check ups for all

The same should be done with alcohol - the tax should be so much higher and the monies raised used to encourage and, to some extent, force people to cut down their booze intake.

Maybe politicians are too far up their own arses to do anything, maybe they're too scared they might upset someone, maybe they just don't care as long as they get their big salary and all the perks but with each piece of tokenism they simply tinker with the problem of a society of lard arses, they're not really tackling it and not really doing anything that will genuinely change the habits of a nation who need to be pulled by the scruff of the neck into the modern world.

Posted with iBlogger from my iPhone]