 Hei, gydigodd y byddai yn ymgyrch. Roedd i'n fwy oedd ydych yn fwy. Rydych yn credu'r gyrdd o'n cysylltu'n gweithio. Roedd yn gallu ei ddiddordeb, ond rydyn ni'n gyda'r gweithio, a'r gwybod i'r rôl yn meddwl. Mae'r gwaith y gallwn yw'r cyfnodd, ac mae'n gwybod i'n gael. Rwy'n gweithio eich cyfnodd, mae'n gweithio eich gweithio, roedd yn gwneud o'r tîr ddau os yw'r cyfnodd, Rwy'n ddweud yn gwybod i'w ddweud i ddweud o gael gwrthodraeth. A ydych chi'n ddweud, yn ddweud i'r ystafell. Mae'n ddweud yn ddweud i ddweud i ddweud, a'r ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud, a ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud i ddweud, felly llyfr oedd yn gwybod i'r ddweud. Felly, rwy'n gweinio wneud eich bod yn ei ddweud o'r ddweud. Roedd y ffordd ar hyn o'r ffordd, fod yw'r ffordd, bod yn ei ffordd, y byddwn i'r llwyddiad yn y ffordd, ond y byddwn i'n eu ffordd'r allan o'r ffordd. Yn hoffw'r ffordd, mae'n mynd i'r ffordd. Yn hoffw'r ffordd, mae'n mynd i'n meddwl'i, dyna'r ffordd, mae'n ffordd. 1. stepped 2. lawfully I'm obviously not allowed to sit here and read a book to you. because that would be if I read you a book then there would be no point in you going out and buying the book or atентher under the author and while my copyright law was so began an ended in law school I'm aware of the fact that I'm not able to sit in here and do a full book but I can read sections Fomnt for the purposes of education oedd yna'r gwaith yma, ac yn bwysig i gael gwybod i'r hwnnw, boi'r ddechrau'r llwythau, a dda'n gallu bod yn ddigonol'r hwnnw. Yr hwnnw'n ddiddordeb o'r cerddol yma yn y rhagleniol. Roedd beth sydd wedi gydag o'r bylion o'r wyf yn gwneud yr wych. Rhyw ddaeth David Craig. Ac mae'n ddiffen chi ei fod yn ei ddifachol iawn, felly mae'n golygu penderfeydd ac mae'n gweld amdano'r lle o'r bros ждuc yn ymddangos o y cerddsstywi'n b 갑od mennyddiant. Felly nid o'm hwnnw i'r llyfr yw hwnnw, nid o'n hwnnw i'r llyfr eu gweithio i'r llyfr a i'r llyfr o'r gweithio i'r llyfr er fydd y bach hwnnw. Y llyfr wedi y nich iddyn nhw yn gwybod eich undrall. Nid o'r llyfr yn llyfr i'r llyfr eich hwnnw ddannod drwy gweithio But the big charity that I've supported longest is the RSPCA. Regardless of the criticisms that they receive, I also know that they rescue thousands of dogs every year. And if they didn't rescue all those dogs every year, well, I suspect nobody would. So that's the reason I continue to support the RSPCA and other large-ish, maen nhw'n meddwl y cairtyn ymlaen chi'n mynd i'r un bod yna'r hyn sy'n meddwl yma. Rwy'n meddwl y gallwn y cairtyn, rwy'n meddwl, rwy'n meddwl y gallwn i'r cyfwyrdd y peth, yr ysgrifennu, yr yw'r gwerthau i'r cyfwyrdd yma'r ymgyrch. Mae yma'n meddwl yma'r cairtyn. Fe ydych chi'n gwoith'r llyfr y maen nhw hwnnw. Fy hwn oedd y rhan sy'n gwybod nhw'n gweithio'r llyfr yn llyfr o'i'r ysgolwyd ar y mae. Mae'n gweithio, mae hi'n gweithio llyfr. Ond efallai yn ddechrau sy'n gweithio'r llyfr o'r llyfr yn y llyfr o'r llyfr. Mae'r llyfr wedi'n gwneud ymarfer, ac mae'n ddysgu'n ddysgu'n gweithio'r llyfr. Rydym mi, dylai'r chyfwo i'n meddwl mancwyr yn ddigonol, ac mae'r cwrch yn olygu i rydymniadol. Yn dechrau ysbun, mae noddol o'r allan o hyn o'ch ffrindill argyfwyr i'r wneud. Mae'n gwerth negredu'r llyfech wynghoru cyntaf yn y bwysig ychydig. ac mae'n cael ei wneud bod hynny yn ystyried. Mae'r bobl a'r gwaith cyfnodd ac mae'r hyn yn hyn yn ystod a'u byddai'r lleol. Mae gennym ei gweithio. Ond rwy'n rhoi'n cael ei gweithio'n cael ei gweithio'n cael ei gweithio. Yn gyflwyno'r pwysig, mae'r gweithio'n gwneud o'r gwaith cyfnodd y byddai'n cerddau, Fundraising Fund is Chapter 4, that's about what's known as Chuggers, and about the agencies. Chuggers are the people with the little shaking tin, or they will come up to you in the high street with a clipboard and a pen and ask you for your bank details and tell you how they're saving all these poor, sad, fighting all these terrible things and want your bank details off you straight away. And there's been controversy over the years about how aggressive they are and local councils, some local councils have taken action against them, as they've been making people uncomfortable. Having a read of that will tell you how much money agencies get, agencies who supply the Chuggers. So there's a lot of middlemen, there's a lot of different organisations involved, a lot of expenses, and in many cases it's actually only a smaller percentage than its donors, I suggest. Realise that actually go for the fundamental charitable cause that the group represents, whatever charity, whatever they actually do to help people is actually a much smaller percentage of your money than you might think. OK, so I'm going to take you through some of Chapter 5, which is playing politics. And this one is what come as any surprise to anyone, but let me read just apart from it. In the middle of June 2014 there was a major outbreak of hostilities. This was not in the Ukraine nor in Iraq. This was in Britain and it was between the charity sector and its supporters on one side and the Conservative Party on the other. The flash point seems to have been the publication by Oxfam of a report titled The Perfect Storm, Economic Stagnation, the Rising Cost of Living, Public Spending Cuts and the Impact on UK Poverty. In its report Oxfam made a number of claims which understandably somewhat upset the Tories. For example Oxfam wrote, the economy is stagnating, unemployment is increasing, prices are rising, incomes are falling and spending on public services is being cut back rapidly. In addition the Oxfam report threw out some very spine chilling statistics. 13.5 million people live in poverty in Britain. The UK is one of the most unequal rich countries in the world. 5.5 million UK households are affected by fuel poverty. The UK has weaker protection for those in work than Mexico and so on. Oxfam accompanied its report with a tweet, mocked up film poster. Several times I've asked Oxfam for permission to include a copy of its poster and tweet in my book and each time Oxfam has refused. So I'll have to describe the mocked up film poster as I'm not allowed to show it. The poster depicted a rough foaming tempestuous sea under a dark gloomy threatening sky and the film title The Perfect Storm. Underneath the title was the text. Zero hour contracts, high prices, benefit cuts, unemployment, childcare costs. Some people might wonder why Oxfam seems to have adopted a fairly low profile when unemployment shot up by a shocking 55% from 1.62 million to 2.51 million from 2007 to 2010 under new labour while energy and food prices also rocketed. Yet Oxfam launched its campaign against poverty in the UK while unemployment was falling by 17% from 2.51 million to 2.08 million under the coalition and in spite of Oxfam's and the government's claims of public spending cuts public spending was still rising inexorably. So that's just part. So what have we learned immediately from that is that the charity, certainly this charity, is politically biased because at the time when the economic situation was worse under labour no such report was published by Oxfam when things are actually improving under the Conservatives Oxfam comes out with this report condemning the Conservative government while being silent on a worse performing Labour government. So what are we being told? We're being told that charity politically biased towards the left and it should come with as absolutely no surprise at all because it seems that the entire... the public sector, the education sector, the charity sector, the media all biased in favour of the left and charities are no different. We can see that immediately with a fairly standard example. Let me give you a couple more. A few pages down, headline, Politics or Us. Many other charities have also been tempted away from their main focus on relieving suffering into campaigning to change attitudes and the law. Christian Aid has been criticised for bias in favour of the Palestinians and against the Israelis. Once again, standard left wing stuff. And there's no reason, there's no reason for Christian Aid to express bias in favour of Palestinians and against Israelis. I'm not sure why that's their role. It goes on to say, moreover, in 2013 Christian Aid staff joined with ACT Alliance and other global partners at the United Nations Rio Plus 20 summit in Brazil to lobby the UK government on sustainable energy and putting down on tax avoidance and the concept of a green economy. Also in 2013 Christian Aid sent its tax justice bus around the country. By the end of its 53-day tour of Britain and Ireland, more than 5,000 people including 56 MPs have climbed aboard to hear how tax dodging hurts people both here at home and in the world's poorest countries. During the tour, 10,000 people signed the Tick for Tax Justice Action Cards which called on Prime Minister David Cameron to use his global leadership to tackle tax dodging. Many donors to Christian Aid might be surprised to learn that their money was being used to campaign supposed global warming or climate change or whatever it's called by the time this book is published to campaign for a higher planet saving green taxes or energy bills and to pay for a touring bus demanding a clap down on tax avoidance. Many donors may indeed wonder. But again, it's obvious, the bias in favour of left wing causes is absolutely obvious. He goes on to say that much love saves the children also got slightly burned when it tried its hand at politics. It had launched a TV ad with actors in it. Again, you wonder how much money is actually being paid out. Another aspect that he addresses is the issue of fake charities and that's what he calls charities which do not actually receive a great deal of public funding but instead government funding and you have to wonder and the question one of the questions he raises in this book is why if they are not supported by the public to the point where the public is willing to donate directly to them why are they being supported by the public indirectly through taxation so the public are essentially being forced to support charities that they don't support independently and they don't support without doing so indirectly through their taxes and charities do receive millions upon millions of pounds in taxpayers' money while raising very little independently and you do have to wonder why that is. Also the number of charities. There are hundreds of thousands of charities in this country. I kid you not, hundreds of thousands of them. Okay, back to some of the politics and moving on in the book. Britain's charities haven't always been so politically active. Prior to the arrival of new labour any form of political lobbying by a charity or campaigning to have laws changed could only be incidental or ancillary to its charitable purpose and could not be a charity's dominant activity. But in 2002 the Prime Minister's strategy unit advocated a loosening of the rules because charities perform a valuable role in campaigning for social change. The strategy unit proposed the guidelines on campaigning should be revised to encourage charities to play this role to the fullest extent. Sure enough in 2004 an obedient charity commission changed its rules to allow charities to engage in non-party political campaigning provided this activity was not the dominant method by which the organisation will pursue its apparently charitable objects. Quite unsurprising yet again that this happened under Tony Blair. So many awful things happened under Tony Blair. Like the opening of the borders for example the introduction of political correctness, the introduction of fearfulness, the introduction of hate speech laws and other divisive and fracturing policies and mindsets. But yes it happened under Tony Blair unsurprisingly because knowing full well that if charities were able to campaign politically while they may not be able to be obviously and overtly party aligned it's pretty obvious that when they bring out, when Oxfam brings out a report under the Tory government when actually the economic situation was improving it stayed silent under a Labour government. This is what they were always going to do and you will have groups and we have had groups like various different charities hope not hate, various different groups who are registered in various different ways but are absolutely engaged in political activism and political campaigning and it is in with the promotion of left-wing ideals in mind. Also within this book and I'm going to, I'll read just a little bit of this to you but I won't give it all to you because for the reasons I explained at the top. Okay so we're moving forward a little bit beyond the Labour government the Blair Brown Labour years to the coalition years so he writes possibly concerned by the growing extent of political campaigning by charities and other bodies in January 2014 the coalition introduced the transparency of lobbying non-party campaigning and trade union administration bill. The aims of the bill were quite modest it only required other than the short period from the dissolution of parliament up to the general election campaigning groups should register their spending with the electoral commission if it exceeded more than £450,000 across the whole of the UK or more than 9,750 in any single constituency the 450,000 was a reduction from the previous level of 988,000 these proposals were met with hells of anguished fury by many charities and the apologists one called the bill the charity gagging bill and said it would have a chilling effect on democracy. No, what has a chilling effect on democracy is charities that the public believes because those charities are presented to us as concerned for the thing they focus on for the issue they focus on so if it's a poverty charity we believe the public believes that they are concerned for charity and that they are politically unbiased that their purpose is to fight poverty is to use by charitable means to raise money through a registered charity and operating charity to fight poverty and that they will do that fairly and across the board with whichever government happens to be in power. This is what people expect and charities are invited on to television and to news programmes and current affairs programmes in that guise that they are presenting a objective analysis of a particular issue for example poverty so why they would hell infuri at simply having their spending reduced during the campaign period which is a short period and call it a chilling effect on democracy when the real chilling effect on democracy is that we are presented with something that is we assume to be unbiased but is actually itself engaging in political posturing and political campaigning for political parties that's what's chilling having a chilling effect on democracy because the people don't realise that these charities are party bias and they are because they go after the Tories but stay silent about Labour and we have groups like Christian Aid parroting left-wing causes also the same causes that are parroted by Labour that's where the real chilling effect on democracy is one thing I'd really really recommend that you read from this is the salary increases across the public sector in the last couple of decades I am absolutely, absolutely shocking I want to move on to foreign aid but I will before I finish up I wasn't going to give you these again for the reasons I said at the top of the thing I can't give you too much of what this fantastic writer has put together but I highly, highly recommend this book it is filled with information that I think you'll find very interesting so let's move on to foreign aid and political correctness political correctness has truly, truly spoiled so much hasn't it it has ruined our free speech it has ruined our politics it has ruined our politics in so many ways it has destroyed our media because journalists can't get work if they're in any way objective they have to toe the line but political correctness is also the reason for the extraordinary high levels of foreign aid that we are giving away while our own people are struggling so chapter 6 is the chapter on foreign aid I'll read you a small section of it the poverty problem when most people think of foreign aid they tend to imagine brave aid workers rescuing people from earthquakes tsunamis, floods, famines and other such natural disasters but this emergency aid accounts for an extremely small part of the foreign aid money we give either directly to charities or through our taxes to charities and various relief agencies perhaps just 5 to 6 billion of the 135 billion a year in foreign aid is emergency aid the other 95% or so 95% of charity and aid money goes to what's called development aid helping countries escape from poverty and putting them on the path to development in the last 60 years around $3 trillion has been donated by developed countries to help poor countries there have been some successes extreme poverty has been more than halved diseases like river blindness and smallpox have all but been eradicated and millions of lives have been saved from famine and conflict moreover many aid recipients have managed to break free from poverty and achieve rising levels of prosperity for their people move on a little bit but while most formally poor Asian and some South American countries have made significant progress on the road to development and modernisation too many countries particularly in Africa have stagnated or even become more impoverished over the last few decades in spite of being given more in aid than any other part of the world so that's the point made there is that despite all the money more money than any other part of the world is poured into Africa and despite that things are actually getting worse in Africa in Europe after the second world war the US sponsored Marshall Plan is generally credited for helping war ravaged European countries rebuild and become prosperous so some people have demanded a Marshall Plan for Africa there's only one problem with this demand Africa has already had its Marshall Plan several times over in the last 50 years Africa has been given the equivalent of around 10 Marshall Plans in today's money the 5 year European Marshall Plan saw about 100 billion dollars 20 billion a year being used to rebuild Europe after world war 2 in the last 50 years Africa has received over 1 trillion dollars in aid Africa received about the same every year 20 billion a year for 50 years that Europe received each year for just 5 years yet there's little evidence that those countries getting most aid have benefited from this aid and a quarter of Sub-Saharan countries including some of the world's recipients of most foreign aid are now poorer than they were in 1960 let me find where it talks in detail about corruption we are essentially what he argues is that money is being spent particularly in Africa not even remotely on attacking poverty just not a thing not a priority at all he's going to the pockets of warlords it funds tribal wars he goes in to great detail about the eye watering levels of money that is going into fight tribal wars in Africa and is going into the pockets of corrupt dictators but also the charity industry the anti-poverty industry and these people that work in this anti-poverty industry drive flashy Mercedes Benz Africa there's a name for them actually a nickname which refers to the cars that are driven by those who are supposed to be fighting poverty but it is the corruption and he talks in some detail about why and how we're not actually allowed to talk about this corruption why even though we know that money is going the vast vast bulk of the money is going to buy weapons and to fight wars and to keep in fact many ways to keep poverty going we don't require that the money is spent a certain way and we don't require it because that would amount to neopolonialism that's what we would be accused of look at the white people telling the black people what to do with their money he's absolutely right he's absolutely right but we are expected to hand over billions to these countries and we're not allowed to ask or require that money to be spent a certain way because that would be wait for it, guess what you got it didn't you racist absolutely of course it would so we have to be happy be happy with all our taxes going into the pockets of warlords fighting bloody tribal wars all over Africa because a small percentage of the money we pay may feed someone hungry when the warlords have had their lines share so in order we go along with this by the way we allow this to happen and we also pay to allow aid to go into hostile countries so they pay at the border they bribe at the border a large large if not most of the money is spent your money is spent just bribing to get the stuff into side of the country in the first place and we're okay with all this the people in charge are okay with all this because it's the price we pay billions just to get a small percentage through to people who are actually struggling and dying and we have accepted the fact that the vast majority goes into the pockets of warlords we know we know this and we still do it and by the way that's your money that is your money well you don't have a library or a community centre or the elderly people are living in shoddy care homes or disabled people are living on the bread line or kids living in poverty right here in this country you have to be happy with the fact that your money instead of going to our pensioners instead of going to our kids in poverty is going in to the pockets of already wealthy warlords is going to pay for weapons for African tribes and you have to be okay with that because a little bit of the money might get through to the poor people in that country that's foreign aid okay one thing one last thing I'm going to read from this but do get this book it's really really great the population explosion he talks greatly he talks a great length about the population of and again it's largely Africa how can a he asked the question and it's a very valid question how can you reduce poverty in a country where it's a population is exploding and exploding and exploding you can't and this is why I have argued and have been ridiculously accused of supporting eugenics for this I have argued that we need a reduction in birth rates among in various parts of the world I'm not suggesting eugenics for crying out loud and I'm not suggesting sterilisation either what I am suggesting is what Christopher Hitchens suggested which was access to contraception and the empowerment of women let women decide for themselves or at least have something as Christopher Hitchens argued over how many children they have because I guarantee you women don't want to be pregnant every nine months they don't want to be raising child after child with barely enough to feed themselves and if women had any say in any of this those birth rates would not be so high and we would not have this poverty but because of religious and cultural attitudes that women are walking uterus and she must have child after child after child religious and cultural objections to any sort of say by women cuts this thing down very sharply and you end up in a situation where people are just having baby after baby after baby and they already can't afford to feed themselves this is how you cure world poverty let women stop having babies when they want to stop having babies and I guarantee you most of them will he goes on to tell us some of the figures of this in 1984 the song do they know it's Christmas was released by Bandaid to raise money to help the starving victims of the 83 to 85 Ethiopian famine the record plus the following years live aid concert raised around 150 million in 1965 18 years before the start of the famine the population of Ethiopia was about 25 million in 1984 it had passed 39 million today today Ethiopia's population is around 96 million so during the 80s the famine of the 80s where live aid came from remember live aid the population of Ethiopia was 39 million today it's 96 million how on earth can we expect 150 million was actually pretty modest amount raised by the live aid concert how can that have any kind of impact in a country which population is growing that much that quickly the population problem is the problem other countries the same in 1965 the population of Somalia was 3 million today it's above 11 million in Sudan including South Sudan the 1965 population was 12 million today it's around 50 million here is a problem we need to bring down birth rates all over the world but you're not it's controversial even just to say it because someone is going to accuse you of something ridiculous like wanting sterilisation or whatever it may be I do want to find just a couple of these figures if I can as to the public sector pay increases no I'm probably going to because I wasn't going to give you these because like I said I didn't want to give away too much of the fantastic information included in this book wouldn't you know wouldn't you know I'm not going to find it at this point really irritating you and spending ages looking for you see this is the problem with these things this is one of the reasons I don't like reading on these things you can't mark pages it's really awkward I'll tell you what I'll do on my live stream next week I'll go through and find some of the figures and talk about this a little bit so I won't spend too long rummaging through it this evening it's okay okay so thoroughly recommend that book to you and you will find the most amazing information in there about where money goes and it's a difficult one because I don't want people to I don't want people to not give to poverty or to charity but I I also think we should know I think people deserve to know and this is an absolutely brilliant brilliant gathering together thoroughly detailed thoroughly detailed okay I found I found a little bit of what I wanted to read to you okay let's have let me read to you a little bit of this I won't read it all because it's unfair on the author just let me read you a little bit in 2007 just before the financial collapse and the recession there were in the region of 600 people in local councils being paid 100,000 a year or more 64 people on 150,000 a year and a couple of other figures right so in 2007 we had there were 600 people in local councils being paid more than 100,000 a year 600 yeah by 2013 so what's that 2017 to 2013 six years after years by 2013 after years of supposed we're all in this together austerity there were a more impressive 2,180 181 on 100,000 a year or more so we went from 600 people in 2007 to 2,181 in the space of six years in the public sector being paid more than 100,000 or more the over the same period the average remuneration package of the 10 highest paid council executives jumped from 203,000 a year to above 270,000 a year a rise of 33% during one of the worst recessions in British history once again this is leftism this is the fat category of the public sector that happens under left wing governance and I actually include the Tories in left wing governance at this point because it continues yes it all happened under new labour but it continues under the Tories the Tories ought to be taking to be taking a grip on this and I consider this to be wasteful public spending I really do and if we're going to get into I'm not suggesting that people in the public sector shouldn't be paid well it depends really, it depends on what they do I think doctors and surgeons in the NHS and nurses in the NHS should be paid a lot more it really depends on the extent of their work and what they do and how much they earn this and I'm not entirely convinced that everyone who earns 270,000 a year for example in the public sector is contributing if we look at local councils for example if they are doing a fantastic job for the local people are they is the question and you wonder how much the local people are suffering how many cuts the local people are being subjected to in order to pay this 270k to a council executive stuff to make the blood boil really when you think about it fascinating book highly recommended as I say nice short book nice easy read lots and lots of very interesting information in there that's it for me for this evening I shall be back in my own room back to normal back to live streaming next week rest of the week I am in London speaking at a protest to remove the disgusting rapists from Rochdale who have been deported they should be out of the country by now should be out of the country by now and yet they're not out of the country by now and we want to know why and we want them out of the country so if you're in London or near London this Saturday it's midday at Parliament Square Jenny is making herself now so time to start see you back on my live stream on Monday or if you're in London see you on Saturday in London take care until then