Sim-O

You may be aware that I’ve been asking Nadine Dorries a question via Twitter about whether she has dontated her MP’s salary for the period she was in the I’m a Celebrity, Get Me Out Of Here! jungle, as she promised she would.

I’ve been asking this question for sometime now, a couple of months. If you click the link, you’ll see that I’ve been perfectly reasonable and polite, no abuse, no swearing, just a reasonably worded question.

when I was getting the tweets together for this I realised Nadine had blocked me. I don’t know when as I don’t use Twitters web interface very often, but I do know that I wasn’t blocked when I started asking.

Dorries has seen the question and instead of engaging in anyway whatsoever, not even a ‘sod off’, she’s chosen to block me and ignore a valid question about her taxpayer funded salary, her integrity and whether she is as good as her word.

So, another approach is needed. I iwould write a letter or email to her, but as I’m not one of her constiuents, she is under no obligation to reply. Dorries will immediately bin and correspondence I have with her. Good or bad.

What I need is a little help.

I need someone who Dorries represents in Parliament to ask her directly whether she has kept her word and donated 12 days worth of her parliamentary salary to charity. Hopefully finding out how much and to which charities, but that bit is even more unlikely as the charities (i think) will be under no obligation to verify.

Anyone fancy writing a polite letter to their MP for me?

Patronising, insulting fuckers…

Giving a speech at the London Chamber of Commerce, Engskov said: “I am announcing changes which will results in Starbucks paying higher corporation tax in the UK – above what is currently required by law.

“Specifically, in 2013 and 2014 Starbucks will not claim tax deductions for royalties or payments related to our intercompany charges.

“In addition, we are making a commitment that we will propose to pay a significant amount of corporation tax during 2013 and 2014 regardless of whether our company is profitable during these years.

Paying corporation tax when when you don’t make a profit is not paying corporation tax – it’s a gift. We don’t want Starbucks’ fucking charity, the wanker. We just expect them to pay the right amount of tax that is due.

Does the lady in your life fancy a funky new handbag? Do you need some bunting for a party?

If the answer to either of those questions is yes, then head over to Little-Fish.co.uk and have a look.

A friend of mine, Billie, is selling handbags and bunting in a new venture. They are all handmade, and the quality is excellent.

The range Billie is doing at the moment is called For Amber. All proceeds, that’s everything except the cost of materials, goes toward Leukemia research. Amber recently lost her fight against leukemia.

Below is a couple of the designs available (click to enlarge)

Billie says…

All ‘Grown Up’ bags are £20 each. I will let you know on P+P if needed.

The bases are approx 12cm X 22cm and they are about 20 cm tall.

All except for the ‘Union Jack’ ones can be made in a kiddy size for £15.

They have a popper fastening, I am looking into using a zip in some of them. I have also done a velcro fastening for the kiddy bags.

Just let me know the design you want and (if applicable and I have stock), the colour for the lining and the button design you would like.

Go on, treat yourself or your lady.

Yes, alright, it’s the Daily Mail. Again…

Christmas has been banned by the Red Cross from its 430 fund-raising shops.

Staff have been ordered to take down decorations and to remove any other signs of the Christian festival because they could offend Moslems.

The charity’s politically-correct move triggered an avalanche of criticism and mockery last night – from Christians and Moslems.

Christine Banks, a volunteer at a Red Cross shop in New Romney, Kent, said: ‘We put up a nativity scene in the window and were told to take it out. It seems we can’t have anything that means Christmas. We’re allowed to have some tinsel but that’s it.

‘When we send cards they have to say season’s greetings or best wishes. They must not be linked directly to Christmas.

‘When we asked we were told it is because we must not upset Moslems.’

Mrs Banks added: ‘ We have been instructed that we can’t say anything about Christmas and we certainly can’t have a Christmas tree.

This Christine Banks woman needs to learn a bit more about the seven fundamental principles that make the Red Cross what it is and allows it to do what it does. To be fair, she probably has done now.

All seven of those principles, especially the neutrality one, mean that it can be trusted by *everyone*. Because they have that trust it means they can get to people in need that other organisations can’t get to. The Red Cross isn’t a Christian organisation that might surreptitiously try and convert people from other religions. The Red Cross doesn’t have a political view, making dictators or aggressors in wartime stop them from visiting prisoners. If you want an example of what the Red Cross’ fundamental principles enable it to do then look at Dafur. No other aid agency is allowed in except for the Red Cross.

This neutrality and the trust it brings with it is very special to the Red Cross and consequently all the people that it helps. The Red Cross couldn’t carry on as it is without it.

By not having Christmas trees or other decorations the Red Cross isn’t trying to be politically-correct. Well ok, maybe it is but only in the sense that it can’t afford to show allegiance or favouritism towards one form of dogma over another. Being apolitical and areligious is the best and easiest way to stay neutral.

The Red Cross could celebrate the birth of Christ, but to maintain their impartiality and neutrality they would have to celebrate every single other religions special day. You’d struggle to do that in your own home, never mind in such a large organisation. The chance of getting something wrong or forgetting a date and being accused of insulting such-and-such a diety is immense.

The Red Cross doesn’t ‘do’ Christmas, but it certainly hasn’t banned it, as you’ll note by visiting this page.

That article by the Mail is not a recent one, though. It could’ve been written yesterday, but it wasn’t. The Mail is still pushing the ‘Christmas is banned’ line and they still read the same today as they did ten years ago. That article is from December 2002. It is not dated, the only thing that gives it away is the mention of Sangatte, the French refugee camp near Calias, which was closed in 2002.

Why is it relevent now, after eight years? Well, because this story about a misunderstanding between the Red Cross and one of their volunteers is still haunting them…

Yesterday, we started getting some comments on our Facebook page from people angry with us for ‘banning Christmas’, which we haven’t, and the story now seems to be spreading on some American websites.

And what is the result of this anger? Cancellations of donations. A volunteers time may be free but the equipment and other resources the Red Cross needs certainly isn’t. The Red Cross needs those donations so it can carry it the work it needs it’s impartiality for. This article, *eight years* after it was written, is still having a damaging effect on both it’s finances and it’s well deserved and much needed reputation.

There is a claim common to all tabloids that nobody believes them. This is proof that that claim is wrong. People do believe them. Not only do people believe the lies, people act on them too and that is why the media needs to be more accountable to the truth.

I have a friend who, in his spare time, volunteers for the Samaritans. He sent me this email…

Samaritans have been nominated to be one of the supported charities for The Lawyer Awards. Two charities will be chosen and will be supported by the awards for three years raising over £150,000 for each charity.

The two charities are being voted on by a public vote via http://www.thelawyer.com/the-lawyer-awards-2011-charity-nominations/ It is a public vote so anyone can vote but you can only vote once. The voting closes on 22nd October.

The Lawyer Awards are held in June every year. There is no fee to enter, instead entries are asked to make a donation to the chosen charities. All donations are split between the two chosen charities. On average each charity will receive £50,000 per year for 3 years.

This is a public vote and could raise around £50,000 a year for Samaritans – if you can spare a few seconds, I would be really grateful if you could click on the link above and vote. This could be a massive boost for us financially Please vote!

There are many other worthwhile charities you can vote for as well, but it would be great if you could vote for the Samaritans.

Many thanx

WTF?

Not sure what to make of this…

The world of philanthropy got a huge financial boost today as more than 30 American billionaires pledged to give away at least half of their fortunes to charitable causes, signing up to a campaign launched by Warren Buffett and Bill Gates.

As the article states, Buffett alone is worth $47 billion.

What, though, has prompted this? Have they finally realised that their children will have a secure future without having to worry about a thing with a fraction of that? Did these guys get out a calculator and realise that they could never spend it all?

Of course, not to put a dampener on the gesture, the pledge isn’t binding, but well, it’s a start. Maybe the next step is to make people realise they don’t need to amass these large fortunes in the first place.

I tell you what though, if Warren Buffett can persuade these guys to give away half their fortunes, maybe David Cameron should have word with him to get some of our rich people to help out with his Big Society plans.

Instead of a big state, the Conservatives want a ‘big society’…

“It is a guiding philosophy”, Cameron said, “a society where the leading force for progress is social responsibility, not state control”.

Hmm. Progress.

“It includes a whole set of unifying approaches – breaking state monopolies, allowing charities, social enterprises and companies to provide public services, devolving power down to neighbourhoods, making government more accountable”.

Charities, eh?

I think I see a teeny tiny massive gaping hole in his plan.

via Justin