The Grauniad seems to be dying - hurrah!

[longfingernails]

I doubt Polly will be selling her Tuscan villa any time soon, but it will be a wonderful day when the BBC's in-house journal gets what it deserves.

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/8580566/Job-cull-looms-at-The-Guardian.html

I'm also involved in another newer organisation that is applying for charitable status. Huge range of backgrounds/bank balances/viewpoints, from millionaires to people desperately trying to make ends meet. I can't see that one lot are more worthy than another, or that their voting intentions have fuck-all to do with their contribution to the charity. Although some of the millionaires are clearly in it for the side benefits - we have to offer them the chance to meet royalty to get them to stump up.

edam, I think that is right. But is there hypocrisy right at the top? Is some of it done for political purposes at the very top? Is it sometimes not what it seems at the top?

Edam - you kinda stamp on your own point .

Oh, there are all sorts of reasons people are involved. Some of them for prestige and the chance to hang out with royalty. Some of them because they genuinely believe in the aims of the organisation and want to change things for the better (and these two groups overlap - wanting people to treat you as jolly important doesn't preclude wanting to make things better for everyone). One of them because he desperately wants to remain best friends with the royal patron and knows full well the royal in question drops people as soon as they are no longer useful to him.

Do some of the saints have feet of clay?

Coz - you are implying one group is more worthy than others...

jackstarb - nope, my point is voting intentions have fuck all to do with your ability to do something positive for charity. The millionaires who want to hang out with royalty are actually doing something useful, even if it's for a selfish reason. Their money funds the organisation. (And I assume most of the millionaires are Tories but some of them may not be.) The people who want to be treated as VIPs and swan around with everyone thinking they are jolly clever are also doing some good, even if it is irritating that their egos need quite so much stroking. The people who are motivated by seeing something that is wrong and trying to fix it are also doing something good. And the voting intentions of those three groups are presumably varied - it's not as simple as 'this lot are all automatically Tories, this lot are all automatically Labour'.

There seem to be lots of stories like these

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1314543/Bonos-ONE-foundation-giving-tiny-percentage-funds-charity.html

Place flags and banners at pop cencerts and festivals. Spread the message, "save the planet". Knight the pop stars, practically canonize them, hold them up for the public to see. Get them young, hook them early, sign them up to donate. Get the politically naive younger pop fans, show them pictures of the polar bear. Spread the word, get the political message across. For a progressive somewhere, it's all going swimmingly to plan.

No one will realise that there'll all really working for the Man.

they're all

'Get the politically naive younger pop fans, show them pictures of the polar bear'

Better still get them all to wear a plastic wristband stamped with picture of said polar bear having first run an 'awareness raising' campaign in which a 'supermodel' is photographed wearing said wristband and a very small pair of knickers.

If the pop goers start to ask questions, then

www.thefirstpost.co.uk/80824,people,news,glastonbury-guards-prick-u2-tax-protesters-balloon

You don't want that sort of behaviour on worldwide TV, someone might open their eyes and see.

exactly, moondog. Use as many celebs as you can. Anything the young look up to and admire. Make it trendy, make it cool, make it hip, then they'll from the progressive glass start to sip.

I like your style Claig.
What intrigues me is that so few people get it.

How have we all become so frighteningly malleable?

'One of the Art Uncut team complained: "Political activism used to belong at Glastonbury. This was all going to be completely peaceful."

Unfortunately, the Art Uncut team member, was naive and didn't realise that only progressive political activism wa allowed.

It's propaganda. It's tried and tested. The Man laughs at the public as He manipulates them.

Why spend all this money? Why do it? Is the Man philanthropic? Is the Man on the side of the people? Is he damn.

Is the Man a progressive? Does He call everyone who disagrees with him regressive? The answer's yes. What are the Man's plans? It may be important to try and guess.

LOL. I hear there may be protests about Bono, as apparently the man who wishes to save Africa, does not wish to save Ireland. According to a news report on ITV the other night, he is avoiding paying tax in his homeland, and hides all of this dosh on an offshore Island, perhaps Jersey, can't remember. Anyway Bono wishes to squirrel away his cash. I would do some squirreling myself if I had any money!

Does the man read the Guardian? He may well do, and I wouldn't be surprised if He writes for it too.

Is there not a paper who can stick it to the Man? Well, only the Daily Mail can.

paper that can stick it to the Man

The Guardians Assistant Editor Michael White discussing media self censorship in March 2011, says 'I have always senses liberal middle class ill ease when going after stories about immigration legal or otherwise, about welfare fraud, or the less attractive habits of the working classes, which is more easily ignored altogether, toffs, including royal ones, Christians especially popes, goverments of Israel and US Republicans are more straight forwards targets'
wikipedia.org/wiki/ This says all I need to know about this shitty little paper!

I wonder why Christians are one of the progressives' targets?
What has the old lady who goes to Church on Sunday done that is so bad? I don't think Stalin liked her either.