Trans activist charities receive taxpayers’ money through ‘loophole’- Telegraph

It's not the activism that's the problem, but the Civil Service's response to it. And MPs' responses. Rather than listening neutrally and investigation, the civil service and various MPs have embraced, supported and promoted something that has absolutely no basis in law. Could even be said to have broken the law.

That's the problem.

So, much as I disagree with this particular activism, it is a case of "I disagree with what you say, but support your right to say it." Removing funding used for lobbying restricts the right of charities to speak and be heard.

That’s how I read the intention of the overview board.

I think this is unlikely to be good overall. It’s a form of micromanagement and will make charities much less effective with the government grants they do get and less experimental.

While it looks like a win in terms of cutting some funding right now for some trans-activist charities that have undermined women, that’s only because right now the people in charge have decided this particular bit of activism is a vote winner to be seen to be standing up against. If they decide it’s not than the money will flow that way again (because training on trans-inclusion is likely to be a justified cost for many charities getting government grants). The government could decide instead to stop charities paying Women’s Aid for services if Women’s Aid get too vocal about lack of action on VAWAGs. Etc.

It’s a way for the government to put pressure on the charitable sector to STFU about things the government doesn’t want criticized.

"Public service legal requirements that this may achieve."

What ones are those then?!

None of the cost considerations asks you to do a cost-ben analysis. In fact the opposite:

"Merchandise/freebies

This is generally a must to support your message and attract people to your stall. You can also get your message out there on the day during the parade and march with exciting freebies."

Spend spend spend!!! After all, it's only public money. Who cares?

Ambulance services

www.ambulancelgbt.org/media/1393/preparing-for-pride-events-draft-v4-bb-31-jan-2018.pdf

Preparing a business case

Expected gains for the trust, look for other organisations published evidence for attending these events and relevant publications from Stonewall.

Or maybe give it to the fire brigade:

www.thesun.co.uk/news/19693403/fire-brigades-trucks-lgbt-colours/

Then again, maybe not.

For heaven's sake, I said it needs scrutiny. Why bring businesses into it.

Give it to the NHS maybe?

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/09/03/nhs-spent-700-taxpayer-cash-virtue-signalling-staff-magazines/

Then again, maybe not.

So best not to give it to anyone at all, are you saying?

Yes, let’s give it to private businesses instead. They’ll do much more good with it. Perhaps your local MP knows a company who can help?

Actually I think it's a bit naive to throw money at the charity sector and expect it to be used for public good. Look at Oxfam etc. The whole sector needs scrutiny because there are some very dodgy things going on at the moment.

This.

I think we all know why, there are civil servants who agree with trans activists and lie to the ministers, so the people in government don’t understand the issue properly.
This is what happened to Kemi Badenoch. She was consistently told not to meet women who were worried about their rights and child safeguarding. She ignored them thank god.

What if this was their intention all along. Deregulate, dismantle, rebuild.

£140k used to tell female athletes they must shut the fuck up because their places, medals, prize money etc must be handed over to male athletes under the false narrative of 'inclusion'.

I think that's entirely reasonable and in keeping with other areas such as research grants. Conflicts of interest should be declared. I'm not saying I trust the government to do it well, but I don't think the suggestion that someone needs to is unreasonable.

I think they are demanding that applications for funding have to explain in more detail where the money will go.
So the body asking for funding would have to declare they intend to give it to GI for delivering training. At the moment it seems to be a daisy chain of sub contracts with no scrutiny.
So the gov isn't in position of refusing funding to GI only to find the money given to another charity has been given to them.
That's if I understand it properly.

Yes Theeyeballsinthesky
"why is it that this charity along with stonewall & GI have been getting a yes to everything they ask when the vast majority of charities get no? That’s what needs to be untangled"

This is the key issue. Why are so many scared to prioritise safeguarding when faced with trans extremist groups? Why have children's wellbeing and safety been sacrificed to the demands of the "drugs and surgery can cure your teenage angst" brigade? Why are so many politicians terrified of accurately defining what a woman is?

How on earth have we ended up here?

Agree. And "the work they do" shouldn't be "work" that harms children first and foremost.

Tbf mermaids have not explicitly received funding to lobby government what they have been funded for is things like training and a % towards their core costs to ensure the charity can keep running. That’s pretty much the same for every charity

however core costs cover things like CEO salary. Suzy is invited to government meetings and she goes along & states mermaids view. Again that is normal. What isn’t normal is that unlike the vast majority of charities, the government has been saying “yes whatever you want” rather than “thanks we’ll take that on board” and doing nothing.

why is it that this charity along with stonewall & GI have been getting a yes to everything they ask when the vast majority of charities get no? That’s what needs to be untangled

Exactly! So what they need to be looking at is how that was allowed to happen rather than using it as a smokescreen to stop charities campaigning

If charities want to lobby then surely they raise money from their supporters to fund that lobbying? Public sector grants should be spent on the work they do, not on lobbying activities. If they don't have enough money to fund their lobbying then maybe they should consider that their cause doesn't have much support.

It completely misses the point. Of course many charities lobby for particular issues - VAWG, cancer and animal charoties - all lobby for legislative / funding changes etc. Why wouldn't they?
The problem is that this government (along with everyone else) overlooked queer theory underpinning of these trans extremist groups. Many of us spotted the red flags flying when we looked at the nature of individuals being invited in to advise the government, sports bodies, children's charities - flashers, extreme porn advocates, those with behaviour that rendered them unfit to work with children. Yet the tories feted, funded and rewarded them instead of addressing the issues and refusing to engage with organisations who advocated the removing of child safeguarding and women's rights.

It seems fair that this is scrutinized and limitations put in place, but it is a balancing act.

I agree.

When I worked for charities we had grants tied to specific activities and private donations that we could use on our own initiatives. Funding bodies and grants that refused to support contraception were controversial, but they were overcome by using alternative sources and still programming "approved" activities with the somewhat odorous but still desperately needed restricted funding.

It sounds like Sport England has not been explicit in what funding will be used for, or noone was really asking. It seems fair that this is scrutinized and limitations put in place, but it is a balancing act.

I agree @JellySaurus this governments campaign against charities has been going on for 12 years. They’ve made it abundantly clear that they think charities shouldn’t be allowed to lobby against government policy which in reality means eg Age Uk would not be allowed to campaign about the governments (lack of) social care policy, MIND would not be allowed to campaign about the appalling state of mental health services and shelter wouldn’t be allowed to lobby about the state of the rental market

I’d be very concerned that in reality his would only government approved charities would get money - and that a slew of government friends & relations would suddenly set up charities!

i do agree the likes of Big Lottery & Sport England clearly didn’t do much in the way of due diligence with grants to the likes of mermaids & gendered intelligence but the question is, why did they allow themselves to be taken in by such utter nonsense? JRM committee won’t solve that. It will do is ensure money only goes to charities the committee approves of