elrond

Eaves project continues their campaign to criminalise the purchase of sex

30 posts in this topic

Eaves Project features on the Fake Charities website, based on the fact that, unlike a real charity (e.g. the RNLI, Mountain Rescue, RSPCA etc etc) it received 69% of its funding from the taxpayer, not from those who sympathise with its aims

http://fakecharities.org/pages/posts/eaves-housing-for-women136.php

We have an absurdity here, whereby the Home Office and other government agencies and Councils give money to an organisation whose raison d'etre is to lobby the said government ..... Does the governement fear it cannot think for itself... or is it a way of doling out our dosh to particular friends of ministers? In any event it would seem to be a good target for a public spending cut in the coming austerity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lets not be complacent. The Eaves project and Object are launcing a new campaign to criminalise the purchase of sex at a meeting in Parliament.

Entitled

Launch of Demand Change! - Eaves and Object - 24th June 2009

http://www.womeninlondon.org.uk/2009/06/event-eaves-object/

As usual they can't stick with the facts they have to exaggerate everything. In the link you provide they name Sweden, Norway, Finland and (soon) Iceland as having the law already. Sweden clearly is accurate, and I believe Norway also has an outright ban - however Finland's law requires force to be proven and is not a "ban on paying for sex" per se. It's very similar to the proposed laws that are currently being debated in the Lords.

I don't think they're going to get too far in any case. JS dropped the idea very early on for a reason. She knew there was too much opposition in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that Fiona McTaggart is TBC. Reading the website it looks as it is worded that some of the speakers TBC are expected to turn up just because we invited you.

Wednesday is PM question time. It may be that Fiona McTaggart has more pressing business, especially as she was one of the small group who told Gordon Brown to resign.

What do these people hope to achieve? The amended clauses have passed both houses and there is just the question of strict liability to be discussed. I read through the Lords debate and they seemed more concerned about other matters, in particular Police powers to remove alcohol off people in the street.

Harriet Harman on TV this morning talking about Royal Mail admitted that the timetable for future business is already very congested. It is her job as leader of the house to set the timetable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one of many familiar names on the list: Mary Honeyball MEP

some have obviously voted for labour since she was just re-elected as

Labour MEP for London...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see that Fiona McTaggart is TBC. Reading the website it looks as it is worded that some of the speakers TBC are expected to turn up just because we invited you.

Wednesday is PM question time. It may be that Fiona McTaggart has more pressing business, especially as she was one of the small group who told Gordon Brown to resign.

What do these people hope to achieve? The amended clauses have passed both houses and there is just the question of strict liability to be discussed. I read through the Lords debate and they seemed more concerned about other matters, in particular Police powers to remove alcohol off people in the street.

Harriet Harman on TV this morning talking about Royal Mail admitted that the timetable for future business is already very congested. It is her job as leader of the house to set the timetable.

well nothing's passed the Lords - the re-worded clauses are no more accepted than strict liability. We've no way of knowing what will be altered in the Committee meetings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone noticed that the most common mistake that these groups makes (both the religious groups and the feminist fundamentalist groups) is that they never mention men being 'victims' in their campaigns? I mean many men don't really care about ladies magazines with men in them, male escorts/ prostitutes, porn that focuses on men, male strippers and so on. Those things could make men look like sex objects yet we don't care but these groups think that the female side of it is sexist and treating women like sex projects. When it comes to domestic violence as well men are victims as well but they never mentioned that.

Why these groups don't use those things on the men side of these things they campaign against is beyond me, which is one of the reasons why in some countries they keep on failing yet in some countries they have succeeded. Shows really that one, these groups are sexist towards men and two they make up so many facts especially the ones that are government and/or religious funded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

eaves is connected to the poppy project which received a taxpayer funded wage bill for 2008-9 of £529,403

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eaves is connected to the poppy project which received a taxpayer funded wage bill for 2008-9 of £529,403

You can multiply that by 10. Their income in 2008 was about £5.2m p.a., 69% of it from the taxpayer in one way or another (Though, for reasons best known to itself Body Shop gave them £10000). Their accounts are on http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registeredcharities/ScannedAccounts/Ends48/0000275048_ac_20080331_e_c.pdf

Curiously, they do not seem to split out how much they spent on lobbying and propoganda, mixing it in with myriad other activities. A query to the Charity Commisioners or (since the Govt is engaged in the curious activity of spending taxpayers' money to lobby itself), to the National Audit Office may be in order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(Though, for reasons best known to itself Body Shop gave them £10000).

LOL, you couldn't make that sort of thing up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can multiply that by 10. Their income in 2008 was about £5.2m p.a., 69% of it from the taxpayer in one way or another (Though, for reasons best known to itself Body Shop gave them £10000). Their accounts are on http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registeredcharities/ScannedAccounts/Ends48/0000275048_ac_20080331_e_c.pdf

Curiously, they do not seem to split out how much they spent on lobbying and propoganda, mixing it in with myriad other activities. A query to the Charity Commisioners or (since the Govt is engaged in the curious activity of spending taxpayers' money to lobby itself), to the National Audit Office may be in order.

I don't know if there's a connection, but feminists see brothels as body shops

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can multiply that by 10. Their income in 2008 was about £5.2m p.a., 69% of it from the taxpayer in one way or another (Though, for reasons best known to itself Body Shop gave them £10000). Their accounts are on http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registeredcharities/ScannedAccounts/Ends48/0000275048_ac_20080331_e_c.pdf

Curiously, they do not seem to split out how much they spent on lobbying and propoganda, mixing it in with myriad other activities. A query to the Charity Commisioners or (since the Govt is engaged in the curious activity of spending taxpayers' money to lobby itself), to the National Audit Office may be in order.

Actually it is there buried in Note 4 to the accounts - p22 on the pdf.

What is interesting is that the voluntary donations only account for 2% of the overall revenue and related costs wipe out even that ludicrously tiny figure. This is a charity in name only, because there is no effective charitable giving from the general public.

I know that the Charity Commission has some defining parameters, including the max %age of overhead, but I cannot believe that the above falls within those.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually it is there buried in Note 4 to the accounts - p22 on the pdf.

I still can't see the line for lobbying costs but what does strike me from the Table on p22 is that, out of their total budget of £5.2 million, £2.5 million goes on staff costs, and £232,000 on 'Head Office Costs' plus £209,000 on Office Rent vs. only £295,000 on housing (plus perhaps the £422,000 on RSLs, which are not defined but appear to have something to do with councils and accommodation). For an organisation that is supposed to be in the business of saving and housing 'rescued' wgs this is a peculiar spending profile... Over 60% of the total goes on Eaves's staff and their offices.... At best they are grossly inefficient and, at worst, a sham. The former, allowing the extent to which they depend on the taxpayer, is a matter for the NAO, the latter for the Charity Commissioners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.... only £295,000 on housing (plus perhaps the £422,000 on RSLs, which are not defined but appear to have something to do with councils and accommodation).

Ah, got it now, an RSL is a Registered Social Landlord, to whom they have sub-contracted provision of housing for ex-wgs. So, housing spend is £717,000, but income from charges to residents is then booked (p20) as £612,000 + £469,000 = £1,081,000, giving a profit of £364,000! How can a charity whose purpose is to house rescued wg's make a profit from them? How too do these ex-wgs pay the rent? From state benefits? If so, the proportion of Eaves total income that derives from the state is even higher that the estimate of 69% obtained by adding up all its direct grants from state bodies.

This really is a very strange charity.... Methinks I see good target for a spending cut in the coming austerity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How too do these ex-wgs pay the rent?

Go back on the game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still can't see the line for lobbying costs but what does strike me from the Table on p22 is that, out of their total budget of £5.2 million, £2.5 million goes on staff costs, and £232,000 on 'Head Office Costs' plus £209,000 on Office Rent vs. only £295,000 on housing (plus perhaps the £422,000 on RSLs, which are not defined but appear to have something to do with councils and accommodation). For an organisation that is supposed to be in the business of saving and housing 'rescued' wgs this is a peculiar spending profile... Over 60% of the total goes on Eaves's staff and their offices.... At best they are grossly inefficient and, at worst, a sham. The former, allowing the extent to which they depend on the taxpayer, is a matter for the NAO, the latter for the Charity Commissioners.

I'm presuming it's 'promotion' - usually is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still can't see the line for lobbying costs but what does strike me from the Table on p22 is that, out of their total budget of £5.2 million, £2.5 million goes on staff costs, and £232,000 on 'Head Office Costs' plus £209,000 on Office Rent vs. only £295,000 on housing (plus perhaps the £422,000 on RSLs, which are not defined but appear to have something to do with councils and accommodation). For an organisation that is supposed to be in the business of saving and housing 'rescued' wgs this is a peculiar spending profile... Over 60% of the total goes on Eaves's staff and their offices.... At best they are grossly inefficient and, at worst, a sham. The former, allowing the extent to which they depend on the taxpayer, is a matter for the NAO, the latter for the Charity Commissioners.

It enables them to pick up a salary and probably additional benefits like pension for doing sod all, and at the same time they can still feel good about themselves because they are rescuing women from beastly men.

I'd be interested to know, in any given year, how many women they have actually rescued, how many of them were genuine sex slaves, how much re-housing rent they are paying to the 'charity', and how they are financing it i.e. what work they are now in.

As the staff they have is also a matter of public record, one could then work out true 'effectiveness' ratings such as cost per woman rescued and number of women rescued per member of staff and I bet that they would be shockingly inefficient by any standard.

I say this because a close relative works for a Charity. She previously came from a local government background where effectiveness ranged from people who worked incredibly hard and successfully to the inevitable deadwood of clockwatchers and time-servers. But she was shocked at what she found in the third sector. Of course it may be the exception but....

Of course we all are against sex slavery. Mechanisms for rehab of genuinely rescued girls are needed. But I would have thought the social services were the obvious route. At the very least the government, via the NAO, ought to be doing a bit more due diligence into an organisation into which they effectively pump £3.6m per annum, or is it that monitoring is falling between the two stools of NAO and the Charity Commission?

The irony is that their campaign to end sex slavery by criminalising demand would, in the highly unlikely event of success, render them all redundant and presumably gutted. They are the ones who need the trafficking to continue, not us. They can also be included among the ranks of those who gain from the existence of controlled girls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It enables them to pick up a salary and probably additional benefits like pension for doing sod all, and at the same time they can still feel good about themselves because they are rescuing women from beastly men.

I'd be interested to know, in any given year, how many women they have actually rescued, how many of them were genuine sex slaves, how much re-housing rent they are paying to the 'charity', and how they are financing it i.e. what work they are now in.

As the staff they have is also a matter of public record, one could then work out true 'effectiveness' ratings such as cost per woman rescued and number of women rescued per member of staff and I bet that they would be shockingly inefficient by any standard.

I say this because a close relative works for a Charity. She previously came from a local government background where effectiveness ranged from people who worked incredibly hard and successfully to the inevitable deadwood of clockwatchers and time-servers. But she was shocked at what she found in the third sector. Of course it may be the exception but....

Of course we all are against sex slavery. Mechanisms for rehab of genuinely rescued girls are needed. But I would have thought the social services were the obvious route. At the very least the government, via the NAO, ought to be doing a bit more due diligence into an organisation into which they effectively pump £3.6m per annum, or is it that monitoring is falling between the two stools of NAO and the Charity Commission?

The irony is that their campaign to end sex slavery by criminalising demand would, in the highly unlikely event of success, render them all redundant and presumably gutted. They are the ones who need the trafficking to continue, not us. They can also be included among the ranks of those who gain from the existence of controlled girls.

Agree absolutely. On one report to the Charity Commissioners they indicate a staff of 81! Dividing £2.5 by this gives an average cost of £30,800 each.....& that average includes part timers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agree absolutely. On one report to the Charity Commissioners they indicate a staff of 81! Dividing £2.5 by this gives an average cost of £30,800 each.....& that average includes part timers.

There is a serious issue of corruption here. They get the bulk of their money from central and local government. Some of it they use to rehab the victims and so act in lieu of social services, albeit without any of the governance controls to which a properly constituted ministry department would be subject.

But some of it they use to conduct 'research', and I use that term in its very broadest sense. This is propaganda with which they then use to lobby the government, the same government that paid them to do it! You couldn't make it up, even as a plot line in Yes Minister.

I have wondered what they are like, and in a way would love to be a fly on the wall of their offices. Envision them as split 50/50 between carpet munchers, indifferent to men sexually, and munters too unattractive to pull men so frustratedly turning to hating them instead.

It's easy money and they can coast along under the radar, obsessing about food, and slagging off all us beastly men, knowing the gravy train will continue to chug along the track as long as there are still some Blair babes around, with pull, who are happy to listen to their lies and distortions. Professional man-haters working a diseased system, because it's far easier than doing a real job.

They can pity their victim referrals thinking 'there but...' - They can hate the controllers and blame the punters and delude themselves into believing that this is how 99% of the industry works rather than the 1% which is really the case.

But ultimately they don't want the trafficking to end. They'd have to go and do a real job if it did, God forbid. They just hate men and don't like the idea of men having the option to pay for sex when they want/need it. Although relatively new to punting I intend to continue regardless of the legislative outcome at least partly just to stick two fingers up to them.

Anyone with an ounce of nous knows that the legislation, if it goes through as is which is by no means now certain, would drive certain elements of prostitution further underground, making it more attractive to organised crime traffickers not less. Demand might fall in terms of the absolute number of WG/punter encounters, but trafficking will increase in terms of the absolute number of victims out there.

I'm not suggesting that this monstrous regiment of wimmin are collectively so venal as to wish for that outcome, but I'd not be entirely surprised if a few of them experienced a scintilla of relief that there continues to be a steady trickle of victims needing rescuing, enabling them to continue their cushy but 'worthwhile' careers.

Edited by bottom liner
correct a grammatical error

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm presuming it's 'promotion' - usually is

Promotion (£50000 in 2008) may well include some aspects of their propoganda/lobbying activity but cannot be anything like the true cost, since the pay of the people involved (the largest element) is hidden away in the £2.5m total staff cost, and is not broken out separately

What is needed and not provided is (a) an account of the number of unwilling/coerced prostitutes saved and rehoused (as Bottomliner says); (:D a clear statement of how much of their total spend, including staff time relates to different activities and © some clarification of why , as a charity providing housing to women in tragic circumstances they are apparently making a profit from this activity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/job/880747/female-exiting-prostitution-worker/

Combined salaries at lower end of scale are over £218k. All jobs are restricted to women. :D

B

I love the way that, without irony, these hypocrites can phrase a job advert:

"This post is exempt under Section 7 (2) (d) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and therefore we will be considering female applicants only.

Eaves is a feminist organisation, committed to equality of opportunity and encourages applications from all sectors of the community.

Why exclude gay men? They would be the least likely group to exploit the vulnerable women whom Eaves purports to help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CCAT allowed to enter schools and give their side of trafficking. Yes young adults should be made aware of trafficking, but this organisation is only looking at sex trafficking and is not tackling the wider issue of trafficking in hotels and farming. The organisation want to close down all brothels in Croydon irrespective of whether the women are trafficked or economic migrants. So whats wrong with a menu of services, I do find a menu rather tacky myself. Its the way much in the industry works.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1199420/Schoolchildren-given-sex-slave-lessons--including-graphic-recording-menu-brothel.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Taxpayers' Alliance has just released "a major report looking into the extent of taxpayer funded lobbying and political campaigning in the UK. The report finds that nearly £38m - equivalent to the total cost of all the campaigns by the three main political parties at the last general election - was spent by government to lobby or influence government."

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/waste/2009/08/new-research-over-38-million-a-year-spent-by-government-lobbying-the-government.html

Pity that the report doesn't mention Eaves/Poppy as such, but the always reliable commentator AllyF brings them up further down this Grauniad piece:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/04/tax-lobbyists

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now