Via Longrider, read this, and then consider the nature of any organisation, its real aim, and the lengths it will go to in order to protect its existence and expand:
Visitors to the website of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals are told that more than half of the charity's annual income – which totalled almost £120m in 2008 – comes from legacies in wills. "We're incredibly grateful to these thoughtful animal lovers and, as with any donation, their gifts will be put to good use," the site says.
John Mason, whose brother George bequeathed more than £480,000 to the charity when he died, would probably disagree. The 85-year-old, from Enfield in north London, recently joined a growing list of people who have been dragged through the courts by the RSPCA after disagreements with the charity.
In his will, Mr Mason's brother divided his £1m fortune between the charity, his brother and two of his closest friends, Norman and Patricia Sharp. But, under Britain's complicated tax laws, the RSPCA was concerned it was going to have to pay inheritance tax on its share of the estate. So it took Mr Mason and the Sharps to court to try to get them to pay some of the tax out of their bequests.
Well. Anyone would have though that Mr Mason - an incredibly generous donor - had absolutely nothing to hide when he made his will. But he, his family and friends certainly had something to fear, didn't they?
My opinion of the RSPCA was sealed after I listened to a radio programme in which certain officers revealed themselves to be precisely as malignant, megalomaniacal and exacting of revenge as I had previously suspected. The only charity whose officers have enforcement powers, the RSPCA deftly illustrated its obsession with pursuing the vulnerable through the courts to punish those who stood up to it or who failed to comply with its subjective "acceptability" criteria. All this rather in the manner of the recent cases of state-sponsored kidnap - so I suppose we should be greatful that the NSPCC doesn't (yet) have the same far-reaching remit. Because as we know, it behaves in a similarly unsavoury manner - that is to say it lies to get what it wants: Our money and any lucrative government contracts that land in its welcoming lap. And let us not forget another children's charity, Barnado's, whose chief executive, Martin Narey - without any empirical evidence whatsoever - heartily advocates that more children are taken into care without hesitation in order to avoid harm. Then there's Graham Badman, leader of the serious case review into Baby P, who is of the same profoundly anti-family, warped view:
There will be times when (professionals) have to grasp the nettle, using professional
judgment, in the knowledge that they may be proved to be mistaken.
Better that than the harm that the child will have to experience
instead.
That these people are invoking the protection of animals or children is wholly irrelevant, a mere distraction; none of it means that the actions they are advocating are moral or acceptable.
Just because the government or a fake charity somebody who has superficially convincing credentials says something, it ain't necessarily so. An enquiring mind is definitely a bonus when, for example, one is considering the reasons why the NSPCC might start yet another campaign to highlight prolific abuse in yet another hitherto unmolested relationship type: this time teenagers in love.
Just because an organisation calls itself a charity, that does not mean that it is, in fact, performing what you might deem to be "charitable" acts.
Just because it purports to be there for the fluffy kittens or the little children, that does not mean that it - as an organisation - would benefit if harm to fluffy kittens or the little children was eradicated. Quite the opposite. Full stop.
Just because I criticise the NSPCC or the RSPCA, it does not mean that I don't care about children or animals, or that I don't want to help them.
And just because I oppose a licensing and inspection scheme for parents, it does not mean that I don't care about other families and their children.
But implementing such measures is wholly disproportionate; it will cause more harm than good through gross intrusion into private, one-upon-a-time-safe family life; and it will undoubtedly put many more children at an increased risk of abuse by predatory experts and expert predators.
Another sledgehammer to crack another nut is something we really don't need.
