Becoming more astute over giving

ANDREW Vine’s piece (Yorkshire Post, February 25)) about the charity muggers, or “chuggers” as he aptly calls them, highlights a problem which concerns those who voluntarily work for charities and try to obey the rules.

Of course, the answer lies with the local authority to refuse a licence to those who behave in this way. The rule is that people are not to be approached and the collector is permitted only to stand in a convenient position without obstructing, approaching or haranguing any person. The council could take action against offenders.

Perhaps it could be a task for the local councillors of the ward to get out and about to observe.

The point is taken further in the way that charities have proliferated in recent times. Some are limited companies run as a business with a cut going to a named charity.

Nothing wrong in that one might say, but do people give their money to be top-sliced in this way? The size of the “cut” to the eventual charity could be debated, no more so than in the farce of doorstep bag collections which have been comprehensively invaded by opportunists.

It all goes to the heart of what the word “charity” means so far as givers are concerned. Are projects mainly funded by local councils really charities, as the money they provide comes from national or local taxation?

One can scarcely say that is “freely given” by the taxpayer donors.

A major charity might require certain qualified staff but has that gone too far? There may still be plenty of old-fashioned volunteers who are happy to give freely of their time and skills, but the sad fact is that generally there seems to have been an increase in those who are having their share of the money intended to go to the less fortunate.

Finally, the Charity Commission needs to be more astute in questioning those wishing to set up new charities which may duplicate tasks already being covered by others.

Advancing the cause

From: CC Grace, Church Close, Maltby, Rotherham.

I SEE that Lord Prescott has thrown his hat into the ring (or should it be trough) in an effort to become elected as Police Commissioner for Humberside. Should he be elected, I fear for the future of the police. Many years ago Prescott was sponsored by the National Union of Seamen in his studies to become an MP, and part of his remit was to advance the cause of the Merchant Navy in Parliament. Well, the MN does not exist any more.

Speaking as both an ex-seaman and ex-police officer, there is nothing wrong with the current system of police authorities as they are now. I would say leave well alone.

Tories again ruin country

From: Terry Palmer, South Lea Avenue, Hoyland, Barnsley.

remember David Cameron before the last election, beseeching us all to vote for him and his “caring” Tory Party? Remember his promise not to raise VAT, to sort out the immigration mess, to curb bankers’ bonuses, to amend the EU Human Rights Agreement, to enable us to get rid of would-be terrorists, not to give any more powers to the EU, to ensure the NHS would be safe in their hands?

Every one of these statements has turned out to be false, plus he has now given us, once again, record high unemployment figures which also include record unemployment figures for our young people who he believes should be used as slave labour, ie work without pay.

Of course, that is what the Tories are good at as proven over and over again – that was one of the reasons they were booted out of office the last time they ruined the country.

All Cameron does, whether speaking here in the UK or on the world stage, is waffle with no action taken at all. He blames everything on the fault of the last Labour lot yet when any foreign country asks for money he delivers.

Where does he get the money from if we are broke? I feel a bit like Jeremy Clarkson except to say: “Anyone that voted Tory should be taken out and shot.”

Cameron can only waffle that the Labour lot caused the mess, yet I remember in the 1980s a certain Prime Minister yelling from the roof tops that “greed is good” and promptly de-regulating the banks to do whatever they wanted.

Why doesn’t Cameron re-regulate them? I think we all know why. Who said the people deserve the government they vote for?

Safety under the cane

From: D Wood, Thorntree Lane, Goole.

IN reply to Mr Burslam regarding Great Britain being too small to survive on her own (Yorkshire Post, February 22), obviously, he has never heard of the island state of Singapore which will easily fit into Yorkshire three or four times, and yet manages to survive very prosperously without any outside help. They also still have capital punishment and the cane plus some heavy fines, and therefore an almost zero crime rate, and yet everyone is happy and feels safe there.

Contrary to Mr Burslam’s view out of the EU Britain can do very well on her own, trade will not stop even with the EU if we leave and we will not have to pay them huge amounts of money whilst allowing them to close down our industries while breaking all their rules themselves and protecting their own industries. Just think what we could do with the £15bn we pay every year to be members of this worthless organisation, not to mention what our businesses could do with the £100bn a year it has to spend complying with EU red tape. Britain might be small, but it has stood alone before, and it need never be afraid to do so again.