Here's an interesting thing. Since the League Against Cruel Sports is registered as a 'charity' (bit of a joke that, but stick with this) they have to publish their accounts. So you can go to this page on the Charity Commission website and see what income and expenditure they're owning up to.
What immediately struck me was that almost exactly half their expenditure goes on 'generating voluntary income' and 'governance'. So anyone foolhardy enough to give them a couple of quid can be sure that a big chunk of that will be blown on chasing more donations. Then there's the mysterious £675,000 'retained', presumably for a rainy day.
This page suggests that their income rocketed by a factor of 10 in 2007. Follow this link and you'll get a pdf which shows more detail. Including the fact that "The annual emoluments of one employee exceeded £60,000." I'm sure he was worth every penny!
I'm no expert on these matters, so perhaps a reader can shed more light on what all these figures mean. What I find sad is that, spent wisely, £1.7m could have made a real difference to animal welfare and the environment.
“Deranged” – PETA • “Super-posh” – The Mirror • "His own worst enemy" – D Barnes Esq • "Barbaric" – Liverpool City Council
14 comments:
Jimbo - You are rejecting my comments! You don't like free speech do you? Neither do you like any reasoned opposition to insult and cant.
No matter. Where there's a will there's a way.
~anus, It took you long enough to notice. As you'll see elsewhere on this blog, I have no problem with allowing anti-shooting comments and debate. Your recent efforts however are not about debate, you are simply trying to use this blog as a way of spreading your twisted views about shooters and shooting.
It's hardly about free speech, you're free to start your own blog where you can peddle your views. If you have specific questions, you're free to email me. I'm intrigued to know what has made you so bitter. If you don't like the idea of animals being killed, fair enough, but why the hatred for shooters specifically?
Now this is animal cruelty. Makes me sick. How dare antis describe what we do as 'cruelty'?
Well Jimbo, you decided to stop publishing my comments on your blog because you couldn’t keep up with the debate. I was consistently, successfully contradicting you, exposing your lack of knowledge as the editor of a shooting magazine, and asking you and your blog supporters to put time and place to your wild allegations about Animal Rights and Welfare Organisations. But be truthful! What pushed you over the edge was not your conjured perspective of my bitterness but your own vanity. I knew you didn’t like being called Jim. You like Jimbo even less.
You can dish it out but you can’t take it. You published my penultimate comment about your disregard for free speech, because you couldn’t resist airing your abbreviated name Anus for me. I love it! It gives our relationship a special ring.
You can look back at all my posts on your blog (and if you allowed the nearly a handful of readers to see them), you could see that I have never been abusive or bitter, and your readers could judge for themselves. It’s just that you have been out-debated – you don’t like it and you hate being called Jimbo. For instance you called for any reader to explain why the League Against Cruel Sports had funds put aside for the future. I read the balance sheet. You didn’t like my explanation because without attempting to ridicule you, that’s what my answer plainly did. You have great gaps in your knowledge, of what after all is your bread and butter.
Here are some examples of your colourful language, attitudes and woeful inaccuracy:
The League Against Cruel Sports is not a charity because it is extremist.
Animal Aid is linked to the Animal Liberation Front.
Douglas Batchelor (LACS CE) is an idiot and peddles hate and lies.
People at Animal Aid are nutters.
People who call for investigation into what appears to be a photograph of a man in the illegal act of beating a dog have an extremist agenda.
Without any knowledge of me other than I hold an opposite view, you implied that I was linked to terrorist style tactics.
Similarly, you implied that I was a paedophile because I called you Jim.
Animal Aid has extremist aims and its people are bigoted, class-hating animal rights extremist numpties.
There are no raised laying cages for game bird breeding in Britain.
Game birds are raised for food and the majority are eaten.
People at the BBC are feel-good waffling bunny-huggers.
People at Advocates for Animals are devious liars.
Anonymous (one of your blog readers) is an arrogant twat.
And you call me bitter? Please point out any language similar to yours in my previous comments whether published or not.
If you can remember your statements and implications whilst still holding them up as seeming and appropriate for the editor of a shooting magazine or indeed positively representative of the shooting industry you seek to protect - then I am stunned. Does any have the gravitas or dignity that Archant might expect of its editors?
Hmm, seemed to have touched a raw nerve there. How little you know me, Phasianus. So come on, now you've said your piece will you own up to who you really are, and which of the anti organisations you work for?
We agree on something Jimbo! I am sick with you. For that reason alone I suspect that I have a better chance of getting my comment published. You like people who agree with you. But it is quite wrong of you to fish for acceptance in using animals as pleasure targets by holding yourself up righteously against the despicable mindless mentality of horse maimers. It is a vile human condition that has recurred throughout history.
Someone once said to me "I never learned anything from anyone who agreed with me". It's an interesting point, and one that I find often holds true.
Phasianus, or whoever you are, I am more than happy to talk to people who disagree with me. I think my problem with you is this: you are far too concerned about "winning" a debate, and scoring points, rather than making real progress on animal welfare and the environment.
Thank you for resuming the publication of my comments. Now will you publish the retained comments? Or will I have to take your advice and start my own blog responding to your cut & pasted posts?
Once rejected, they vanish, so I couldn't if I wanted to.
You still haven't explained why you are so bitter about shooters, and refuse to acknowledge the huge amount of good shooters do for conservation and the countryside. Did a pheasant fall on your pram?
I can help you out then. Here is a post you rejected on the grounds that I was spreading my twisted views about shooters:
"Thanks for the heads up on the Charities Commission web site. I took a look as you suggested. I think you have those WW2 blackout slits on your headlights. You only see what you want to see. The Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust is also a newly registered charity. It calls for the active support of live quarry shooting. In 2007 its voluntary contributions made up 43 per cent of its income and its fund-raising effort was 34 per cent. So it’s fund-raising costs are well in excess of 50 per cent of its voluntary revenue. It has one employee with an income in excess of £60K, one with an income in excess of £70K, and one with an income in the range of £100K - £110K. Think about that when you send off your membership fee! The GWCT has some of the wealthiest landowners in Britain as trustees. Last year, they collected £15.2K for their trouble and 3 of them collected £5.9K as travelling and subsistence expenses.
Finally, the League Against Cruel Sports recently sold their London HQ and moved to reduced cost-of-ownership premises in Surrey. You comment cynically on its retained funds. Did you really expect it to spend all that money in one year?"
Ah, I think we're seeing your true colours now.
The fact is you have a big chip on your shoulder about "wealthy landowners".
Bearing in mind the list of your attitudes I provided - where are your shoulder chips?
I'm very balanced, me - chip on both shoulders.
Jimbo!
Humour is good.
Anus
Post a Comment