Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

shyguy09

Salvation Army Now In Charge Of

39 posts in this topic

Not sure if this has already been posted here. The good news is that Eaves Housing/Poppy Project no longer has the duty on protecting victims of sex trafficking who abused that duty by including people who made the decision to become sex workers in order to make paying for sex illegal. The bad news is that it is given to The Salvation Army, now while it is a charity that does do good work it is an anti-secular and homophobic organisation that is anti-sex especially anti-sex work.

Why can't any political party in the UK give the duty of protection of sex trafficking victims to a sex positive organisation who also wants to protect the victims of sex sex trafficking and who can tell the difference between a victim of sex trafficking and someone who has become a sex worker on their own free will? Oh wait they can't since the anti-sex movement is in all the political parties here in the UK.

Here is the link to a Guardian article on the news.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/apr/11/eaves-housing-trafficking-salvation-army

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It reminds me of the saying:-

"The Salvation Army saves fallen women."

Save one for me please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its ironic that two moral supremacist groups are both rivals in the fight to gain control of government funding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well of all the various churches the Salvation Army is probably the least judgemental of them all. Not That I have any interest in "imaginary friends" etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well of all the various churches the Salvation Army is probably the least judgemental of them all. Not That I have any interest in "imaginary friends" etc

I too have a very good image of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too have a very good image of them.

The Salvation Army has a history of helping "fallen women" and I think it will concentrate on helping those who have been trafficed (not just for sex) rather than producing distorted propaganda.

A look at the SA website bears this out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But not getting much sympathy from the readers via the comments!

I very much liked the one who noted that the article gave an aggregate figure for sentences for trafficking but did not quote the number of convictions

I especially liked the comment which posted the link to the story in the Guardian itself which exposed what a sham Pentameter 2 was:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/20/government-trafficking-enquiry-fails

In this case I think the Guardian is being hugely hypocritical.

I also liked the comment comparing sex trafficing to satanic abuse - both very evil but largely exaggerated with not enough evidence...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It I think a good statement of the situation as I think it is, but I doubt that many (of the ordinary reasonable) women on Mumsnet or everyday liberal guys read the Anthology. They are more likely to read and be influenced by this sad story.

Interesting that there was no opportunity for comments yesterday. Could that have anything to do with where the weight of comment lay after Sunday's piece?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not That I have any interest in "imaginary friends" etc

I saw a documentary a while ago that showed how the Sally Army spent its ( or rather someones) money.

The top dog is on a fortune. They have very plush office space, and are quite authoritarian. I think the fact that they dress in an unmistakably Victorian style says it all for me.

I wouldn't trust them with my milk bill.

My first thought when I read they were getting themselves involved was..........Oh dear imaginary friend please no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a documentary a while ago that showed how the Sally Army spent its ( or rather someones) money.

The top dog is on a fortune. They have very plush office space, and are quite authoritarian. I think the fact that they dress in an unmistakably Victorian style says it all for me.

I wouldn't trust them with my milk bill.

My first thought when I read they were getting themselves involved was..........Oh dear imaginary friend please no.

Charity fund raising is a big business. The Sally Army has funds of almost £500 million and an annual income of almost £150m... I don't know what sort of salary you class as a fortune but for that sort of size organisation/income, I would expect the MD to be on a salary of at least £100k, maybe £150k.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some time ago, there was post highlighting their funding and exposing the Poppy/Eves spent the vast majority of the cash they received on political campaigning and not on providing help to victims. I tried searching but didn't find it perhaps it was lost with the forum update.

Did anybody keep a the copy/link/source? Now would be the perfect time to feed it to journalists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure the Poppy Project would spend a lot less on bureaucracy and are far more suitable than a group of righteous religious Victorian throwback Christian crusaders.

After all we know the Churches feelings about WGs isn't exactly charitable and its track record isn't a shining example to anyone. Let those who know the problems deal with them. Not a huge 'corporate 'charity'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure the Poppy Project would spend a lot less on bureaucracy and are far more suitable than a group of righteous religious Victorian throwback Christian crusaders.

After all we know the Churches feelings about WGs isn't exactly charitable and its track record isn't a shining example to anyone. Let those who know the problems deal with them. Not a huge 'corporate 'charity'

Are you sure you can be sure? This comment from a member of the SA in the Guardian comments was both surprising and convincing, I found:

"Sorry but at my Salvation Army church we have a cross dressing man (nails to die for!!), people who live together and aren't married, same sex couples living together and who we have no business enquiring as to the nature of their relationship etc.

We also get given "sex lessons" as part of marriage preperation - excruciatingly embarrassing but hilarious when you next see the minister at his most religious!

Any church will have people on the left and right (unfortunately!!) of the political and supposed spiritual divide, but I can tell you hand on heart that at most of the Salvation Army churches I know, you could turn up drunk as a skunk with an invite to a swingers' party and a splif hanging out of your mouth and we'd be glad to welcome you!

That may not be a Positional Statement of the Salvation Army (!!!!) but it's certainly my experience of a church that sometimes gets things wrong but always strives to do the right thing.

The other important thing to remember is that The Salvation Army is also a registered charity. The Charity Commission would soon be on our back if we weren't working for the benefit of those we were charged to care for.

BTW, I can also vouch (thought not personally) for the work the SA does currently with women (and men) in the sex trade - whether voluntarily or not. If someone wants help we will give it, if they don't then we'll be their friend anyway - if that sounds too good to be true then I'm sure it sometimes is but if you ever want to meet the amazing people involved in this, just go to Kings Cross of a night time - the SA peeps are the ones in the less revealing outfits!!!!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Salvation Army have an outreach project in Edinburgh and are trusted and respected by other similar projects which are not faith based, and by the people who seek out their services. They have for a long time had facilities to help those who have been trafficked and are keyed in with other bodies, so I'm presuming they have a good track record and will be monitored.

If what's listed on the Salary Survey here is anything to go by, I was suprised how little the Salvation Army's head is paid.

Looks like next year more tenders will go out to deliver services and in my opinion it could be a good thing - in the case of Eaves/Poppy they used their funding inappropriately to further their own political agenda and by influencing the lawmakers to bring in 'strict liability' if the person is trafficked, or coerced may make it less likely that a client finding a women he feels may be in trouble will contact the authorities.

I'm sure all those who have made vast sums and built their careers on the raid and rescue industry will be more than happy to dip into their own pockets to help Poppy out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charity fund raising is a big business. The Sally Army has funds of almost £500 million and an annual income of almost £150m... I don't know what sort of salary you class as a fortune but for that sort of size organisation/income, I would expect the MD to be on a salary of at least £100k, maybe £150k.

He's on just over £10k, gets a house thrown in and think he has his Council Tax paid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If what's listed on the Salary Survey here is anything to go by

Considering it's a list of charities funded mainly by peoples generosity, some of the salaries are obscene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure the Poppy Project would spend a lot less on bureaucracy and are far more suitable than a group of righteous religious Victorian throwback Christian crusaders.

After all we know the Churches feelings about WGs isn't exactly charitable and its track record isn't a shining example to anyone. Let those who know the problems deal with them. Not a huge 'corporate 'charity'

The Poppy Project an Eaves funded research, and interpreted that research to pursue their political agenda of banishing the sex industry totally. Te salaries of the management of these organizations was also rather obscene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a link to a 2002 Guardian article which pretty much reiterates all that:

http://www.guardian....y/2002/sep/25/8

Strange then that they advertise A resource development officer job at over twice that amount!

Resource Development Officer (Primary)

Salary: £25,997 per annum Employer: The Salvation Army UK Location: Southwark Contract Type: Full time Contract Term: Permanent Closing Date: 16 July 2010

Employer website The Salvation Army UK

Resource Development Officer (Primary)

£25,997 per annum

35 hours (minimum) London

Original source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's on just over £10k, gets a house thrown in and think he has his Council Tax paid.

Here's a link to a 2002 Guardian article which pretty much reiterates all that:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2002/sep/25/8

Strange then that they advertise A resource development officer job at over twice that amount!

Resource Development Officer (Primary)

Salary: £25,997 per annum Employer: The Salvation Army UK Location: Southwark Contract Type: Full time Contract Term: Permanent Closing Date: 16 July 2010

Employer website The Salvation Army UK

Resource Development Officer (Primary)

£25,997 per annum

35 hours (minimum) London

Original source

£10k is peanuts if it's true. Maybe he really does it for a the greater good...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If what's listed on the Salary Survey here is anything to go by, I was suprised how little the Salvation Army's head is paid.

Considering it's a list of charities funded mainly by peoples generosity, some of the salaries are obscene.

Nearly all the Chief Execs listed earning over £100k are heading up major charities with income in the hundreds of millions, employing a lot of people. How much do you think they should be paid?

Just because it's a charity, it doesn't mean that its employees have to work for peanuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nearly all the Chief Execs listed earning over £100k are heading up major charities with income in the hundreds of millions, employing a lot of people. How much do you think they should be paid?

Just because it's a charity, it doesn't mean that its employees have to work for peanuts.

Having said that, the Chief Execs of the Princess Diana Memorial Fund and National Art Collections Fund would appear to be paid a lot of money for charities with a relatively tiny income.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites