Opinion column: Martin Crewe

I have a friend who recently left a charity that had grown from a few million quid turnover to tens of millions. He was made redundant when he wasn't playing ball with his new financial "targets". I would contend that the CEO's of these charities measure their personal success in terms of the revenues of their organisations. This leads to them making decisions that are coloured and certainly may be sub-optimal for society as a whole.
 

Admin

Administrator
A few more recent comments have appeared on this article, but Martin hasn't been back to "debate" the alleged benefits of GIRFEC (for anyone who isn't a vested interest).

Good Reason

Wednesday July 24, 2013, 03:04
So is this an opt in system, an opt out system, or a can't opt out system? If the last, this is truly Orwellian.

vet

Wednesday July 24, 2013, 06:00
"It will also strengthen the corporate parenting of children..." A quote from the above opinion. Hmmm, "corporate parenting" - a "named person for each child"?

Why do we need "parents"? Only "breeders" will be necessary if someone else is "parenting". We take your kids; we will indoctrinate... oh I mean "raise" them to be the best "citizens", and now the "family" or "parents" will no longer get in the way of our "advancement" and "progress". Simply put - SCARY

Patrick Conway

Wednesday July 24, 2013, 12:33
Wallace must be rolling in his grave. I always believed that I was descended of a free and intelligent people. Crushing to see the truth.
 

Elaine Kirk

Super Moderator
Well the years have passed and Martin still hasn't replied to my question �� but... He is still around as he has popped up in the comments on this article
.
So a reminder of the question I asked
@Martin Crewe, could you please clarify your statement

"Barnardo's Scotland does not anticipate gaining any additional funding as a result of the bill".

I ask because I note from your 2012 accounts that you receive monies for the provision of intervention services from e.g. Inverclyde and I wonder whether you anticipate there will be no further demand for such services or whether you class income from them in a separate category to "funding", or even whether you anticipate a growth in the intervention services market regardless of whether the bill passes or not?
I obviously can't answer the question for him but I have had a browse of Barnardo's annual reports 2011- 2015/2016 and it is interesting.
.
Firstly to explain many council services are delivered by charities and although funding from statutory authorities seems fairly meagre it does get bolstered by charitable giving.
So to keep this 'clean' I asked
.
@Martin Crewe, could you please clarify your statement

"Barnardo's Scotland does not anticipate gaining any additional funding as a result of the bill"
.
As I haven't had a reply I have used the accounts to gather figures myself I am giving England figures alongside the ones for Scotland as I find it interesting that with England having 10 times the population of Scotland you would expect with a UK charity that the would be possibly ten times the funding from English authorities.
.
Funding from statutory authorities
.

2011
England £477,200 Scotland £646,204
2012
England £2 million (estimate) Scotland £1,100,269
2013
England 2,138,630. Scotland £1,444,790
2014
England £330,495 Scotland £ 1,042,845
2015
England £982,439 Scotland £1,429,812
.
And this figure is from the 2015/16 annual review
Scotland £3,021,829
 
Last edited:

Admin

Administrator
Several people have complained that their comments have not been published on the TFN article by Lesley Scott. They are either stuck in a moderation queue or have been censored.

Meanwhile on Twitter we have witnessed a blatant attempt to discredit a reputable charity, Tymes Trust, because it has refused, like us, to bow to state diktat.



MC's (taxpayer funded) comment:

Alternatively it could be that 'state guardian' is a totally misleading term for health visitors and school teachers who already have a role in looking out for the wellbeing of our children. What is certainly misleading is the quote form the Supreme Court judgement which was a background observation not related to the specific issue of named person (technical term is obiter dictum). The unpalatable fact for Tymes Trust is that all of the main children's charities in Scotland have continued to support named person, wellbeing and early intervention as we believe it will improve the lives of those children who need support. Tymes Trust does not speak for Scotland's children's charities on this issue.
And he and his pet sock puppets sure as hell don't speak for any of us. :blabla:
 

Elaine Kirk

Super Moderator
I do wonder if he changed the wording after being told that he doesn't speak for Scotland's children's charities..
 
Top