The Devil You Say?!?

For Ian Birrell, the penny drops:

It is hard to ignore the idea that some charities saw the disaster as a chance to raise money; why else did they all need to be there despite the duplication and slap their logos everywhere? The Lancet accused them of jostling for publicity while Médécins sans Frontièrs – which almost uniquely stopped fundraising after a few days, having made enough for its needs – told me charities loved to be in front of cameras to ensure cash flowed in to their accounts.

This would not be so bad if the money was well spent. Big chunks went on vital and immediate emergency relief to save lives. But substantial sums were blown on botched projects and needless staff costs. I visited one place were families were lured to live in wooden sheds on the promise of jobs and decent public services, only to find themselves marooned on rocky land 10 miles from town, unemployed and charged twice the going rate for water. The voices of local people were ignored by arrogant outsiders, undermining accountability and sustainable development.

As the Centre for Global Development reported this month, only a shameful 0.6% of the money spent by bilateral and multilateral donors was given to Haitian charities and businesses. Meanwhile an estimated 40% went on supporting all the foreigners dispensing aid, with their inflated housing allowances, vehicles and drivers.

Well, that sums up Haiti, Ian.

Now, about all those other huge charities...

Oh, wait, wait! Do you have a solution to this?

When it comes to development aid, the concept of giving cash to people to spend as they see fit is attracting interest. Perhaps it is time to apply similar tactics to disaster relief once the most pressing emergency needs are out of the way. In Haiti, people could have been given more than double the average annual income. It is hard to believe they would not have spent the money better than the foreigners who have achieved depressingly little.

What an awesome concept! Could we extend it to schemes here at home, maybe?

It's Not Working! Dial Up The Hyperbole!

Since no-one bought the last sob story, they decided to step up a gear:

Thousands of London children are going to school hungry because their parents are too poor to afford breakfast.

A harrowing investigation reveals today that scores of children have even passed out in class due to lack of food.

Bullshit! Show me the evidence for this claim!

Three quarters of teachers interviewed by the London Assembly in a snapshot survey said they had personally taken action to help hungry children.

Well, of course they did! Even on an anonymous survey, I'm sure the progressives like to enjoy that warm glow that comes from feeling magnanimous, even if you are just fantasising...

Of those who said they had “taken action” to feed pupils, 60 per cent said they provided food at their own expense.

We must be payin' 'em too much! Let's hope the school governors remember this when they start to go on strike for more pay...

Fiona Twycross, who is leading the study, said: “It’s heart-breaking to think that children are going to school hungry. Some kids have told us there’s no food in the cupboard at home at all. The problem might be even more widespread than we think. There are probably thousands going hungry.

“You can’t see a hungry child, you just see a child who is listless or a bit ratty and lacking concentration, so unless a teacher spots it and asks the right questions we just don’t know.

“Thank goodness for caring teachers who pay for food for hungry pupils out of their own pockets – although it is scandalous that they have to in this day and age. What worries me even more is what is happening during the school holidays when this extra help isn't available.”

Gosh, Fiona, maybe the parents will have to use their KittyBingo money to feed their brats instead?

Investigators have uncovered harrowing tales. One teacher came across a child standing outside a cookery class sniffing the air as cakes were baked inside.

I stood by the bakery counter in M&S the other day, sniffing the air in similar fashion. Because it smelled good, not because I was starving!

Good grief, these people make the Sandy Hook gun banners look like an oasis of calm reason and informed debate!

What A Great Idea!

Residents are demanding the council holds a public meeting to address antisocial behaviour stemming from a house occupied by teenagers.

Eh? How can such a thing exist?

Well, would you believe, on charity money?

Neighbours living near the property, in which charity CAYSH hosts a project to support homeless young people, claim they have been subjected to a reign of terror. And they have said it is due to a lack of supervision from the authorities.

And when I say 'charity money', no, they aren't going out rattling a tin!

But Alan Hiscutt, the council's head of commissioning for vulnerable adults and supported housing, said: "CAYSH has been recognised nationally as a good quality and innovative provider of services for homeless young people.

"The house is not unsupervised. CAYSH support workers visit regularly. Complaints about the behaviour of two of the residents were made in 2011. CAYSH took appropriate action to manage the situation, including by increasing visits to the property and working with the Council to evict them. The eviction took place in May 2012. "

 The neighbours aren't impressed:

The SCCA, however, has said the troubles are ongoing and enough is enough.

Mrs Davies said: "I am absolutely appalled at his complacent attitude about safety in my community and his complacent attitude to under-age homeless residents in this Borough, who are left for long periods unsupervised.

"This project has cost South Croydon Residents thousands of pounds – it is absolutely unacceptable. If it is such a great project let us move them to Mr Hiscutt's street."

An excellent suggestion! How about it, Mr Hiscutt? If it's such good quality and innovative service, how could you possibly object?

Zoe Williams Asks The Wrong Questions Again…

On ‘poverty’ in the UK:

Whose work is it to make sure children in the UK aren't hungry? That they have shoes, that they're not sleeping with their cots jammed up against a mouldy wall, or in a house infested with rats?

It’s the work of their parents, Zoe. You’re welcome.

She isn’t finished, though:

The charity Action for Children published figures showing that two thirds of their centre managers were seeing children without enough to eat. Its chief executive, Helen Donohoe, spoke to Radio 4's Woman's Hour about the pressures families were under, giving the example of a rat-infested house – the children couldn't sleep, the father was so sleep-deprived that he lost his job, the mother had mental health problems anyway, and "we enabled them, through housing support and advocacy, to get rehoused". That's great, but I'm left with unanswered questions: who thought that was appropriate housing for a family?

Surely a better question would be ‘who thought it appropriate to start a family under those conditions?’..? Zoe, however, thinks the problem is with…charities!

Really?

There are three problems. First, charities need access to ministers; if they alienate them, they won't even get into the room, and that is more important than worrying about what concessions you've exacted before you leave.

Charities don’t seem particularly bothered about alienating the government; they are always issuing scathing press releases and commissioning reports claiming that the government isn’t doing enough.

The government never seems to mind, either. It never blacklists any particular charity. No CEO has to stand in the cold with his nose pressed up against the window on No 10 Downing Street, watching forlornly as all the other charity bigwigs tuck in to champagne and canapés.

One might almost conclude from this that it’s all a game they play…

Second, charities are legally excluded from party politics, and in the more consensual age just passed, this meant avoiding saying anything directly critical of the government. This message got so deep into the political bloodstream that when Save the Children launched its campaign in September, to help UK children who were going hungry and without shoes, it was slated in right-wing circles for "politicising" the issue, even though to avoid politics would have meant avoiding poverty altogether.

Yes, I’m sure the ‘Guardian’ would happily sit by and refuse to criticise a charity which, say, pointed out that unrestricted immigration was putting pressure on our infrastructure…

Third, the relationship between government and larger charities has been compromised by the fact that charities run so many services. Barnardo's gets around three quarters of its income from commissions to run services, and only a quarter from fundraising. The Children's Society only gets a third of its budget from government, but that's enough to make an adversarial position impossible.

Ah, now you’re talking! Good idea, Zoe, let’s immediately abolish government funding for charities! Let ‘em stand on their own two feet with the donations from the public, hmm?

Who's opposing the benefit cap? Who's calling for a ringfence of council tax benefits for families in need? Who's arguing to maintain the child tax credit threshold? Who's fighting against families being rehoused miles away from their children's school? Who's calling for more social housing?

Looks like it’s just….well, you, Zoe. And the rest of the progressives. Judging by the comments, though, the rest of us are finally getting a bit hacked off with it all...