Child Abuse and Cover up in the UK education system exposed by Kathleen Simpson

Having really enjoyed my work for the previous 5 years working with pupils in a Local Authority EBD (Emotional & Behavioural difficulties) School, I never would have imagined that morning what would later transpire and how it would change my life irreversibly.

I worked with pupils on a one to one basis to help them catch up, as many had either truanted, been excluded or had been unable to keep up in the classroom.

Just before it began, I felt as happy in my work as anyone could. Believing that I worked among honest, trustworthy and professional colleagues. Some I would have considered to be friends that I trusted.

I was soon to find out that this was far from the case.

I had noticed one boy, ….. had been out of class a lot. So when he came in to do his work with me I raised this with him. It went something like this..

Me: “What the heck are you doing being sent out of class, when we are working for you to catch up?”

Him: “I only get sent out of English”

Me: “English Matters!”

Him: “If I stay in English, I’ll be gay”

Me: “How will English make you gay?”

Him: “Mr ………. is a child molester, so I throw a chair as soon as I go in so I get sent out then he can’t touch me.

Me: “Do you want to tell me about it?”

Him: “He makes me, …. and …. sit at the back of the class on 3 separate desks, he sits on the chair next to us, pretends to look at our work and touches us under the desk”

Me: “Don’t worry, you’ve done the right thing. I do have to pass this on though”

I advised him to just finish his work, told him that I’d be back in a few moments because I had to inform the Child Protection Officer who was also the DH (Deputy Head). I reported this disclosure to DH who said he would inform H (Headteacher) and that H could go back to my work, which I did.

I had no sooner re-seated myself at my desk when H burst into the room, pointed at me and angrily directed me “You, My room. Now!” Following him to his room, I was thinking, Somehow he’d gotten the wromg end of the stick, that he thought the allegation was about me. So I was not too bothered at that point.

Into his room we go and I’m starting to explain “The allegation isn’t about me!” He pointed at me and spoke in a threatening tone “Shut up and forget about it if you value your job”  I was shocked beyond shocked. the ground had just disappeared. I tried reasoning that my contract of employment clearly stated that I must comply with the Child Protection Policy and ensure any disclosure is reported and recorded. He said “So you’re snowballing this and putting yourself outside of my team?” I told him I couldn’t just forget it, I needed it to be recorded. As I left work that day, I felt in an impossible position. I didn’t know quite what to do. It troubled me greatly throughout the whole night. I decided to take the day off (the day after the disclosure) I felt quite ill actually and called in sick. I took myself off to the UNISON office as I was a member of the union. I spoke to a man there who was very helpful, he advised me to write the account down, to give it to them, they would then stamp it with the union stamp and send it on so it could not be ignored. I did as he advised, thinking that the union involvement would help resolve all this. As I left the union office, the man I had been dealing with told me to keep him informed and to let him know should anything happen as a result of the letter.

The next day I went into work, H took me into his office stating “This is not a punishment but you are not needed in that job anymore” He was smirking “You will just go wherever you are needed or photocopying” telling me that another member of staff would do my job from now on.  Bear in mind that I was the only person who held that position in the school.

What a difference a day makes. I now found myself going into a workplace where suddenly my friendly colleagues wouldn’t even look at me, let alone speak to me. I would be sent to a classroom to be told by the teacher “I don’t need you in here” emphasis being on the word ‘you’.

I also contacted Social Services (the pupil that had made the initial disclosure was in Local Authority care), the Police, who told me to leave it in the hands of the school and called the NSPCC, they also said to leave it in the hands of the school. I had applied to be a foster carer and had just completed the vetting process successfully. The process had involved interviewing my colleagues, line managers and employers. I was told I had received glowing references. Now, only weeks later H was claiming that I had an attitude problem, that I was hostile and aggressive with staff, pupils and parents. H stated he did not like my attitude. In fact H and DH took me into my room to tell me this, they later stated that this was a disciplinary.

My job had been taken from me, a job that I’d earned praise from OFSTED shortly beforehand. So I went back to the union after work to see the rep who was dealing with my case. Surprisingly I was told he didn’t work there any more, he had moved. The day before he had told me to go back to see him if anything happened but now he wasn’t there. I had a new union rep appointed who arranged a meeting in the council offices with a member of staff from the Department of Education. My doctor had declared me unfit for work due to work related stress due to the various symptoms I was suffering.

As I waited in the meeting room I overheard some talking outside the door, the LEA (Local Education Authority) representative was a woman whom I heard speaking quietly to the rep “We can’t sack her while she’s on the sick, you need to get her back to work” They came into the room and after the initial niceties the rep advised me to go back to work. I left the meeting and rang the GMB union desperate for advice, who kindly offered to take on the case. The GMB area rep arranged a meeting with H at the school.At this meeting one of the issues the rep attempted to resolve was that H had stated that I had been in school the day after the disclosure when an investigation had taken place. I had in fact taken that day off sick and visited UNISON. The rep and I were both shocked to hear H brazenly laugh as he told us “I am the boss of this school and the staff here will say whatever I tell them to say”

As we left the meeting the rep advised me to resign, this was a clear case of constructive dismissal he believed. I followed his advice and resigned. It was impossible to continue working there anyway. The list of things that my colleagues did to make my life unpleasant I will leave out to shorten this rather lengthy story. Colleagues who had appeared to be compassionate and caring people now telling me (in secret) that they had mortgages so they couldn’t do what I was doing, they didn’t want what was happening to me to happen to them. I did remind them that I was a single parent who also had a mortgage but that failed to sway them to tell the truth.

The GMB union appointed a solicitor to take the case to tribunal. The case took two days during which time I believed the case would be easily won. The contradictions were obvious, one example, DH was asked whether I had been in work the day after the disclosure. He said that I had. It was then pointed out to him that in his written statement he had stated that I had not been in work the day after the disclosure. He was asked why he had written that I had not been in work if he was now saying that I had, his reply was “Because I felt like it at the time”. These contradictions happened repeatedly throughout the two days hence I believed that justice would prevail. How wrong I was.

The verdict was that I had decided to leave.

Basically that I had tried to damage a colleague’s career and take a tidy sum with me. As we left the court the union rep, who had always been very supportive was astonished at the verdict saying “We should have had the press in there, they would have had field day”. I was advised to appeal but my application for an appeal was refused.

I had done nothing wrong, I was now jobless, could not pay my mortgage, could no longer afford a car. The prospect of getting another job after taking your employer to tribunal and losing is not good.

Worst of all, I fear I left a clear playing field, it was now obvious that no other staff member would speak up. The boy told me he wished he had never told me, because now they would get rid of me. Now I feared that none of the pupils would dare speak up again.

The story has been compacted because it is so long.

A whistleblower’s life is not a happy one. They do shoot the messenger.

Other points.

I believe the school closed for around 18 months afterwards for ‘refurb’. And that I have to date reported the disclosure 4 times  to the police. The last time was around 2 years ago and followed my repeated online reporting.  Two officers came and took a statement and nothing since.
There was also a strange ‘leaving’ of the teacher who preceded the teacher named by pupils.  She was a very professional older  Scottish woman who was really good with the kids, strict but fair.  She stopped coming in to work, when I asked if she was ill, she was rarely off work.  I was told never to mention her again as she wouldn’t be coming back.  I was told to empty her desk into a box and to put the box outside the main doors.  I wondered what the heck she could have done, I couldn’t imagine her doing anything wrong at all.  My stuff was put outside in a box outside also, and I wasn’t allowed through the doors either.
By Kathleen Simpson

A thousand charity shops and yet the homeless are still everywhere!

I come from a poverty stricken (for the most part) city called Wolverhampton. I spent most of my life living around poverty lucky for me my family was not really affected by the poverty that surrounded us. A few years ago for the sake of my family (my kids at least) I decided that the time has come to get out of Wolverhampton. We moved to a lovely posh area of natural beauty called Church Stretton. Church Stretton is a place of high wealth and low intelligence high ignorance but low compassion and so on. Most of the people that live in Church Stretton have a Country Bumpkin mentality, the place is under the Ludlow constituency and is a Tory safe seat.

The youth in Church Stretton have lots of money but they would shit bricks if faced with the average city or even town. I hated it! Nowadays I live in Shrewsbury, Shrewsbury is known to be posh (at least compared to where I come from.)

Yet if you were to walk around Shrewsbury you would still witness much homelessness and shocking levels of poverty. Not as bad as Wolverhampton or Birmingham but still pretty bad considering the money that many people in Shrewsbury have.

Shrewsbury also has a HUGE selection of “charity shops.” Despite these many Charity shops the homeless in and around Shrewsbury are still offered no support or help whatsoever. Why is this the case? I believe its pretty simple. Charity shops are a fucking rip off! They are ripping off the naive that donate. These Charity shops are collecting for Hope House, Cancer Research, British Heart Foundation, British red cross, Oxfam, Shropshire Cat rescue (literally a crazy old woman that has loads of cats in her house and collects charity for them and STILL sells the cats at a profit as well) and many others.

So in a town that is full of homelessness and poverty (in places) these “charities” are collecting for animals that can survive without charity. I can not think of a single charity shop in Shrewsbury that actually collects for the homeless. I do not believe these people should have to rely on charity but we live in Tory Britain so they do.

The charity shops in Shrewsbury are usually overpriced (considering they live off donations) and NOT working at all (at least not for the people that need charity.)

This is what the corporate takeover of charity has caused, these people/shops do not care one little bit for the homeless all they care about is money. I find it disgraceful that animals and corporations like Cancer research (oppressors of natural remedies and sales people for corporate made drugs that are usually equally as dangerous as cancer) are prioritized and the poor are still ignored.

That is why I believe a full blown boycott of these “charities” is required instead of giving your old clothes to these PARASITES you would probably be better off giving them straight to the homeless or at least find a small charity that has not yet lost their soul.

 

 

Four ridiculously corrupt “charities” that operate in the UK.

Charity is merely a sign that the system is not working if it was there would be no need for charity, I was going to call this top four corrupt charities but I can’t do that because there are thousands of them and many of which I have never heard of so instead of calling it top four charities that are corrupt I will simply call this post; Four ridiculously corrupt “charities” that operate in the UK.

Cancer Research

Cancer research is a terrible “charity” that makes profit from oppressing natural drugs that have been proven to be effective over and over again. Why do they do this simply because corporate made drugs are more profitable. Thats not all Cancer research has also been attacked and targeted by the animal rights organization Animal Aid in a publicity campaign involving a series of advertisements in British newspapers urging members of the public to stop giving donations to organizations that fund medical research involving animal experiments like Cancer research do. A disgraceful “charity” that only care for money.

National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children also known the NSPCC

Endorsed by none other than Sir Jimmy Savile wikipedia tells us; The NSPCC documented allegations of Satanic ritual abuse in 1990, with the publication of survey findings that, of 66 child protection teams in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, 14 teams had received reports of ritual abuse from children and seven of them were working directly with children who had been ritually abused, sometimes in groups of twenty. An investigation into SRA allegations by the British government produced over two hundred reports, of which only three were substantiated and proved to be examples of pseudosatanic abuse, in which sexual abuse was the actual motivation and the rituals were incidental.

The NSPCC also provided a publication known as Satanic Indicators to social services around the country that has been blamed for some social workers panicking and making false accusations of sexually abusing children. The most prominent of these cases was in Rochdale in 1990 when up to twenty children were taken from their homes and parents after social services believed them to be involved in satanic or occult ritual abuse. The allegations were later found to be false. The case was the subject of a BBC documentary which featured recordings of the interviews made by NSPCC social workers, revealing that flawed techniques and leading questions were used to gain evidence of abuse from the children. The documentary claimed that the social services were wrongly convinced, by organisations such as the NSPCC, that abuse was occurring and so rife that they made allegations before any evidence was considered.

 

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals also know as the RSPCA

A disgraceful “charity” with a long list of criticism on wikipedia and in mainstream news.

Fund-raising in Scotland

The RSPCA has been criticised by the Scottish SPCA for fund-raising in Scotland and thereby “stealing food from the mouths of animals north of the border by taking donations intended for Scotland.” The RSPCA insists that it does not deliberately advertise in Scotland but that many satellite channels only enabled the organisation to purchase UK-wide advertising. In a statement, the RSPCA said it went “to great lengths” to ensure wherever possible that adverts were not distributed outside England and Wales, and “Every piece of printed literature, television advertising and internet banner advertising always features the wording ‘The RSPCA is a charity registered in England and Wales'”. “All Scottish donors, who contact us via RSPCA fundraising campaigns, are directed to the Scottish SPCA so that they can donate to them if they so wish.” The Scottish SPCA changed its logo in 2005 to make a clearer distinction between itself and the RSPCA in an attempt to prevent legacies being left to its English equivalent by mistake when the Scottish charity was intended.

Sheep slaughter

In September 2012 the RSPCA euthanized 40 sheep, based on the decision of the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, and were accused of using the photographs to further their campaign against animal exports.

The RSPCA stated that they were present at the request of the Port Authority, Thanet District Council, to ensure that animal welfare laws were fully implemented in the operation headed up by DEFRA. The animals were all checked by several independent vets including two Defra vets, and the decisions on the day to slaughter the sheep was taken by Animal Health, and not by RSPCA inspectors.

However, the National Farmers’ Union said that it “still leaves many questions to be answered, by both AHVLA and the RSPCA”, and that “The NFU also still has questions about why the method of slaughter used resulted in so much blood in the photographs”.The RSPCA responded to this by stating that the amount of blood shown in the photographs was caused by ‘moving the dead bodies to an area where they were piled up pending collection for disposal’.

Badger culling and politicisation

The RSPCA’s opposition of a badger cull has been commented upon; in 2006 there was controversy about a “political” campaign against culling, with the Charity Commission being asked to consider claims that the charity had breached guidelines by being too overtly ‘political’. The charity responded saying that it took “careful account of charity law and the guidance issued by the Charity Commission”.

Slaughter of sacred cow

On 13 December 2007 the RSPCA unlawfully trespassed onto Bhaktivedanta Manor Hindu temple and unlawfully slaughtered the sacred cow Gangotri. The cow was under veterinary care and was recovering from an illness. 200 people protested at the RSPCA headquarters about the killing, and the RSPCA was sued by the Hindu monks of Bhaktivedanta Manor Hindu temple. On 13 December 2008, the RSPCA admitted culpability, apologized for the killing of Gangotri, and donated a pregnant cow to the sanctuary representing a symbol of reconciliation.

Heythrop Hunt

In 2012, the RSPCA spent £326,000 on a successful magistrates’ court prosecution of the Heythrop Hunt. The charity reported: “We believe that this was the first ever prosecution of a traditional hunt as a corporate body. The Heythrop Hunt pleaded guilty to four offences of intentionally hunting a fox with dogs on four separate occasions.” The huntsman and hunt master involved also pleaded guilty to the same offences. The relatively large amount spent in securing a prosecution (£6,800 in fines were imposed) led to criticism by the trial judge, who was later investigated for his comments, the media and some MPs, who accused the charity of breaching its “duty of prudence”. The RSPCA said in response that “the overwhelming support from our supporters and the public confirms that the vast majority of people are right behind us. They want us to speak out and stand up for all animals – farm animals, pets, animals used in research and wildlife – by bringing those who abuse them to justice.”

Allegations of discrediting of witnesses

On 7 August 2013 the BBC Radio 4 Face the Facts radio program broadcast an episode called “The RSPCA – A law unto itself?” The program presented a number of cases of where the RSPCA has sought to hound vets and expert witnesses who had appeared in court for the defence in RSPCA prosecutions. In one case it sought to discredit the author of the RSPCA Complete Horse Care Manual (Vogel) after he appeared as an expert witness for the defence team in an RSPCA prosecution. The RSPCA later released a statement saying that this is untrue and that they do not persecute vets and lawyers who appear for the defence and as defence experts. There have been thousands of lawyers taking defence cases against the RSPCA and they have only ever made a complaint about one.

Deputy chairman raises concerns over ‘political’ allegations

In September 2013 the RSPCA deputy chairman Paul Draycott said that ‘too political’ campaigns threatened the charity’s future and could deter donors. Draycott said that the RSPCA could go insolvent “We have spent months discussing where we want to be in 10 years time, but unless we develop a strategy for now we won’t be here then”. In response the chairman Mike Tomlinson said “The trustee body continues to place its full support behind the RSPCA’s chief executive, management and all our people who do such outstanding work”. The accusations of politicization remain unsubstantiated.

Paul Draycott also warned that the RSPCA fears an exodus of “disillusioned staff” with “poor or even non-existent management training and career paths” for employees. In response the RSPCA’s chief executive, Gavin Grant denied suggestions in the memo that there was “no strategy” in some areas, stating that there was no difficulty in attracting trustees or serious internal concerns about management.

Whistleblower suicide and Charity Commission investigation

In May 2013 former RSPCA employee Dawn Aubrey-Ward was found hanged at her home when suffering from depression after leaving the animal charity. Aubrey-Ward had been a whistleblower against RSPCA bad practices. The RSPCA subsequently had a meeting with the Charity Commission over its approach to prosecutions.

Advertising standards violation

An advertisement published by the RSPCA in the Metro newspaper said: “The UK Government wants to shoot England’s badgers. We want to vaccinate them – and save their lives.” But more than 100 people complained to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), saying the use of the term “exterminate” was misleading. The advertising standards watchdog judged that the advert was likely to mislead the general public who had not taken an active interest in the badger cull saying, “The ad must not appear again in its current form. We told the RSPCA not to use language that implied the whole badger population in the cull areas would be culled in future advertising.” An RSPCA spokesman said it “welcomed” the judgement of the ASA to dismiss three of the areas of complaint about their advert but “respectfully disagreed” with the complaint which had been upheld.

Small animal shelters

In November 2013 the RSPCA was accused of instigating police raids on small animal shelters with insufficient evidence that animals were being mistreated. The owners claimed that they were being persecuted because of their “no kill” policy of only putting animals down if they cannot be effectively treated. The RSPCA stated that their inspectors will offer advice and guidance to help people improve conditions for their animals, and it only seeks the help of the police where it considers there is no reasonable alternative to safeguard animal welfare.The RSPCA also stated that whilst a few of their own branches operate “no kill” policies themselves, that many of its branches still puts down excess animals, with the RSPCA killing half of the animals that enters its care.

Countryside Alliance criticism

In December 2013 the Countryside Alliance stated that the RSPCA had moved away from its role of promoting animal welfare and was now interested only in animal rights. General Sir Barney White-Spunner said that the RSPCA has turned into a “sinister and nasty” organisation and urged members of the Countryside Alliance to stop donating to the RSPCA the “once great institution”. White-Spunner also said that RSPCA inspectors have been given intrusive powers with no proper basis in law. In response, the RSPCA accused the Countryside Alliance of being out of touch with public opinion and denied that it had departed from its original remit.

Comparison to the holocaust

In June 2014 RSPCA campaigner Peta Watson-Smith compared the conditions livestock are brought up in across the country to that of the Jews during the Holocaust. The comments were condemned by countryside campaigners and Jewish groups.In 2015 Peta Watson-Smith was elected to the RSPCA ruling council saying more money should be spent prosecuting farmers. At the same election the RSPCA members also voted to give a seat on the ruling council to Dan Lyons, who has previously called for pet owners to sit an exam.

Cat euthanasia, false prosecution, media errors and an apology

In August 2014 it was reported that, following a review by the Crown Prosecution Service, the Director of Public Prosecutions had exercised her powers to take over and drop all charges brought by the RSPCA against the owners of a cat for causing it suffering due to having matted fur and being thin. It was reported that the RSPCA euthanised the cat because its hair was too long. A spokesman for the charity said it had been concerned for the cat’s welfare. The owners claimed that the RSPCA had refused to defer the euthanasia to allow their children to say good-bye to the pet they had owned for 16 years, a claim initially denied by the RSPCA on BBC radio. The family accused the RSPCA of lying over the facts of the case to try and justify its actions. In October 2014, the family met with senior RSPCA staff and their Independent Reviewer Stephen Wooler CB. They presented a recording taken at Wendover Heights Veterinary Surgery on the day the cat was euthanised. In November 2014, the RSPCA issued the following apology to the owners of the cat: On 16 May 2013, an RSPCA inspector responded to a call from a member of the public concerning ‘Claude’, an elderly cat belonging to Mr and Mrs Byrnes. Claude was removed from the family home and euthanased by a vet the following day against the wishes of Mr and Mrs Byrnes. The RSPCA acknowledges that the way in which it intervened in taking Claude from his home and the subsequent treatment of Mr and Mrs Byrnes at that time was disproportionate and insensitive and fell short of the standards of compassion the public are entitled to expect of the RSPCA. Specifically, the RSPCA accepts that its decision not to defer euthanasia so that Mr and Mrs Byrnes’ children could say goodbye to the pet cat they had known their entire lives caused great and unnecessary distress to the whole family. In November 2013, the RSPCA began legal proceedings against Mr and Mrs Byrnes. They were individually charged with two offences under section 4(1) (unnecessary suffering) and section 9(1) (duty of person responsible for animal to ensure welfare) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Following a review of the charges by the Crown Prosecution Service, in August 2014, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) exercised her powers to take over and discontinue the prosecutions because they failed to meet the tests set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. The RSPCA accepts that it failed to apply the evidential and public interest tests correctly prior to bringing legal proceedings against Mr and Mrs Byrnes and that it was wrong to have commenced prosecutions against them. The decision of the DPP to discontinue the prosecution received widespread media attention in August 2014. The RSPCA acknowledges that it made a number of unfortunate errors in its public responses to this coverage which could have been understood to cast doubt on the correctness of the DPP’s decision to discontinue the prosecutions. The RSPCA accepts that the cumulative effect of these errors presented Mr and Mrs Byrnes in an unfavourable light to the public. The RSPCA sincerely apologises to Mr and Mrs Byrnes and their family for the mistakes made in its original intervention, in its incorrect decision to prosecute them and for the errors in its media responses and for the resulting upset and deep distress caused both to them and their children.

A review marked “confidential” carried out by Stephen Wooler, a former chief inspector to the Crown Prosecution Service, concluded that the cat “Claude” had been removed without any lawful authority and that “Respect for due process and the rights of individuals was largely absent.”

Wooler report

In October 2014 the RSPCA Council set up an independent review of the society’s performance so that it might listen to and learn from any feedback, including criticism and complaints. The report that followed, conducted byStephen John Wooler CB, highlighted the unique remit of the RSPCA as a successful prosecuting animal welfare organisation, whose prosecutions team “enjoys good standing before the courts for the effective manner in which its cases are presented.” While it also stated that the RSPCA operates in an “unstructured and haphazard” environment, the report also asserted that the society is not only making a huge contribution to animal welfare, it is also “fulfilling a very significant constitutional role” whose contribution in terms of expertise and resources is huge and “simply too valuable to be lost.”

Horse euthanasia

The RSPCA admitted that in 2014 it had euthanised 205 healthy horses. In one particular case 12 horses from a Lancashire farm that had been assessed by vets as being “bright, alert and responsive” and suffering no life-threatening issues were killed by the RSPCA. In a 2016 court case the RSPCA admitted that in 2015 it had illegally slaughtered 11 healthy horses, and attempted to charge the owner for 100 days of stabling fees for the period after the horses were already dead. The charge was overturned in a court decision.

Apology from new CEO

In 2016 the new head of the RSPCA, Jeremy Cooper, made a dramatic, public apology for the charity’s past mistakes and vowed to be less political and bring fewer prosecutions in the future. The new Chief Executive admitted that RSPCA had become “too adversarial” and will now be “a lot less political”. Mr Cooper said that the charity had alienated farmers in its aggressive campaign against the Government’s badger cull and disclosed that it would be “very unlikely” to ever bring another prosecution against a hunt.

Direct Debit donor recruitment campaign

In 2016 the Fundraising Standards Board upheld a complaint against RSPCA that in recruiting people to regularly donate money by Direct Debit had failed adequately to monitor compliance with the Code and had failed to comply with the requirements of fundraising sites, where owners had prohibited the collection of Direct Debit payments. The Fundraising Regulator is considering what further actions need to be taken arising from the report’s findings and recommendations.

Wealth screening

On 6 December 2016, the RSPCA was fined £25,000 by the UK Information Commissioner’s Office which ruled that the charity had breached data protection legislation by employing external bodies to analyse the financial status of supporters in order to appeal to them for further donations, a practice known as ‘wealth screening’, and by trading the personal details of its donors with other charitable organisations. The BBC reported that, “Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham said donors had not been informed of the charity’s practices, and were therefore unable to consent or object to them. She also suggested other charities could also be engaged in similar activities. ‘The millions of people who give their time and money to benefit good causes will be saddened to learn that their generosity wasn’t enough,’ Ms Denham added. The same BBC report noted that the charity’s chief executive had stated, “There is no suggestion that we lost or sold any personal data, but rather the ICO considered the information we gave to supporters on how their personal data would be used was inadequate. There has been one acknowledged contravention, through an inadvertent error, which we ourselves brought to the ICO’s attention.”

Resignation of CEO

CEO Jeremy Cooper resigned after just on year in charge, with the RSPCA’s governance being described as “utterly dysfunctional”.

National Federation of Young Farmers’ Clubs also know as the NFYFC

These sent me death threats in the past for simply exposing them well guess what I’m still alive (surprise, surprise) and I’m now going to expose them again. They describe themselves like this; We are one of the largest rural youth organisations in the UK dedicated to young people who have a love for agriculture and rural life. Sounds good doesn’t it? Except they seem to spend more of their time ripping of silly members (the bored and lonely youth of the countryside that just want fweinds.)

The reason I believe this “charity” is corrupt is simple, they are not a legitimate charity! Who the fuck do they help? The NFYFC should operate as a business not a charity and then people like me would have a lot less to moan about.

They encourage drinking and drugs to their young and stupid members and make a good profit from it at the same time. Charity is supposed to be there to help people the NFYFC help themselves, the fat cat owners and NOBODY ELSE.

 

EXPRESS AND STAR = LOCAL FASCIST AND CORPORATE PROPGANDA.

On Friday 23rd September the express and star (a government and corporate propaganda tool based in the West Midlands) printed this typical ignorant bullshit headline and story.

expressandstar-logo600

Shoppers told: Don’t give cash to beggars and help the homeless

Shoppers are being told not to give to beggars in Wolverhampton, under a scheme designed to stamp out nuisance begging but help the homeless at the same time.

beggers-1Wolves captain Danny Batth with some supporters of the new scheme (Silly over paid puppets that know nothing of poverty.)

According to the article only 19% of beggars are homeless the other 81 per cent were found to be begging were using profits made to buy drugs, alcohol or simply to fund their lifestyle.

The article insist we should give money to homeless charities instead of homeless people. The biased, hate filled Express and Star fail to mention how much of the money donated to charities go towards paying for the rich charity owners lifestyles and the Express and Star forget the NSPCC is great according Jimmy Savile.

I am disappointed and shocked that the editors believe it is OK to attack homeless people, beggars and the poor but remain silent when it comes to criticizing charities that profit from peoples willingness to help.

I ignore the media and I give money to homeless people if I believe they are genuine. I have a bigger distrust of corrupt charities and businesses than I do people. I have no trust whatsoever in greedy propaganda machines like the Express and Star that make profit printing corporate and government propaganda and lies, attacking the poor while at the same time completely ignoring the greedy actions of corporations and governments. Important local issues like poverty are hardly ever mentioned.

I read the Express and Star occasionally as there is not much choice in local media, one thing I have noticed about the Express and Star is they consistently attack the poorest people in the West Midlands. I have read them propagating bailiff companies, government agendas, police harassing drug users and the homeless. The Express and Star is just another pro Tory, pro austerity, pro business, anti people load of shit avoid it like the plague unless you are looking for mind numbing celebrity gossip and near fascist government propaganda in that case carry on reading this shit.

british-prime-minister-margaret-thatcher-with-jimmy-savile-at-an-nspcc-fundraising-presentation-6th-march-1980

FULL ARTICLE HERE http://www.expressandstar.com/news/local-news/2016/09/23/shoppers-told-dont-give-cash-to-beggars-and-help-the-homeless/