Having yesterday looked at the ridiculous anti-male march that the Fawcett Society are undertaking, I thought I'd dig around a bit more.
Their 2008/09 annual accounts (could not find any more recent) make interesting reading.
Firstly, the society states it believes in equality between men and women and these are its founding principles (page 2) but nothing it does actually means that - it is about special treatment and extra rights for women.
Its charity commission entry is far different. It says:
FAWCETT IS THE UK'S LEADING CHAMPION OF WOMEN'S RIGHTS. OUR ROOTS ARE IN THE CAMPAIGN FOR THE VOTE AND TODAY OUR AUTHORITATIVE, RESPECTED AND VIBRANT CAMPAIGNS ENSURE THAT WOMEN'S RIGHTS ARE HIGH ON THE POLITICAL AGENDA. OUR CAMPAIGNS AIM TO: ELIMINATE DISCRIMINATION, VIOLENCE AND HARASSMENT AGAINST WOMEN AND ENABLE WOMEN TO PLAY A FULL AND EQUAL PART IN DECISION MAKING, EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT.
During the year it had 14 staff and only two were men - how gender neutral.
The most important issue is about where it gets its money from. Page 16 shows they received money from the Cadbury Trust, Lloyds TSB, Barclays and BT.
Page 17 reveals they also received £80,000 from the Electoral Commission (paid for by taxpayers - those heinous men going out to work), £64,000 from the Unison trade union and £17,000 from London Councils. It seems there is little central government funding. It had £158,000 off of the Electoral Commission between 2007/08 and 2009/10 - for what?
They got £70,000 for their Sexism and the City campaign in 2009 from the City Parochial Fund.
There are no figures for 2009/10 but don't think that means they have no influence. According to coalition government records, since May 2010, they have met officially - Lynne Featherstone once, Theresa May thrice and the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, once.
It would be great to get hold of the 2009/10 or 20110/11 annual accounts but the Fawcett society seem reluctant to publish them. Is that because they don't want to reveal, and the government does not want to reveal either, how much money they get off of the taxpayer to fund their anti-male campaigns.
Posted by Skimmington
I really enjoyed how you highlighted the contrast between their website and their submission to the Charity Commission. I expect the Commission has stricter rules and associated penalties in reference to honesty and accuracy therefore forcing them to tell the truth in their submission.
Posted by: John Kimble | Monday, 24 October 2011 at 03:15
They won't like the stone under which their real agenda hides being unturned, but as you say John they may be forced to declare it to the Charity Commission.
Though to be frank I wouldn't be surprised if the Charity Commission wasn't heavily infiltrated by feminists and this declaration of their bias wouldn't actually get them MORE funding.
Posted by: Bob | Monday, 24 October 2011 at 18:40
There funders should be targeted and painted as anti-male for funding them.
Posted by: ZimbaZumba | Friday, 28 October 2011 at 12:24