Add Comment

What I can never understand is why the likes of the Cyrenians are allowed to be called a charity when they are more or less totally funded from taxpayers money. To acquire charitable status I thought the bulk of income had to come from public subscription. I'm not making an assault on the Cyrenians as I know they do good work. It's quite shameful the hash Aberdeen City Council have made over the past years. The city with the largest investment income and they can't even get it right.

Doing the right thing, with regards to LAs, has left the SG as a hostage to fortune. Fortunately for the SG, Ms Fortune is the shape of Ms Alexander whose utterances are immediately dismissed by the people of Scotland.

The people of Aberdeen will pass judgement on the actions of their Council, just as the people of Paisley will pass judgement on their embarrassing MSP.

I thought that councils had an obligation to house the homeless. so i imagine that the council will need to find accomodation for them so for a spokesperson to say that "three accommodation projects for a total of around 25 people will have to close. We just don't know where these people are going to go ..." this is tosh they will have to be housed so the city will be housing them?

Karin I think Aberdeen Council will have emergency accommodation for the homeless but none with the counselling facilities of the Cyrenians.

That,s right Alex take money from a charity ,and at the same time announce how your going to save the world with your investment in Green power.Come on Nats he's no different from all rest .Robbing Peter to pay Paul all down to a badly structured Bodget plan.

If Labour had stopped their corrupt council executives handing allegedly dodgy contracts worth millions to their cohorts and buildings worth quite a bit more than £1 to their "friends" then maybe proper houses for homeless people in Scotland could have been built instead of smelly hostels that the councils themselves received the rents of over £100 per week per person for while the occupants lived miserable lives as the elite fuds spent fortunes on themselves and their friends at the expense of those you are now blaming the SNP of shafting then things would not have got into the atrocious state they are in in the first place EH?

We'll never have enough houses in this country. Our social structure is split. Too many relationships/marria ges break up resulting in single people wanting housing, too many teenagers don't want to stay with their parents, pregnant teenagers who expect a house etc. In another couple of generation's time the country will be full of one person homes. Not good for society or for raising children.

[quote][bold]stevie[/bold] wrote: That,s right Alex take money from a charity ,and at the same time announce how your going to save the world with your investment in Green power.Come on Nats he's no different from all rest .Robbing Peter to pay Paul all down to a badly structured Bodget plan.[/quote] You just don't get it Stevie do you, it's called local accountability. The people of Aberdeen will pass judgement on the actions of their SNP/Liberal Council and will ask questions why these actions are having to be taken whilst the council decides it's budget plan. Archie touches on the real problem, Labour's 'buy now pay later' philosophy to righting social ills.....if Labour had stopped their corrupt council executives handing out contracts worth millions to their cohorts and creating unsustainable charity foundation conditions, Aberdeen Council might now be in this mess...... Wait and see how the same 'credit crunch' is going to hit many of the PFI Programme and council expenditure, Labour have set things up so that council's funding is increasing going on the upkeep of contracts which are unsustainable. I don't know the details of the Cyrenian Tenant Service and the article doesn't tell us about there other activities/funding that they receive in Aberdeen The story appears to contradict itself. [quote]Almost 100 clients will be affected and more than 30 staff will lose their jobs if Aberdeen City Council's LibDem/SNP administration implements its planned £900,000 cut in funding to the Cyrenians charity.[/quote] Are the above numbers spin, who are they attributed too? [quote][bold]Paul Hannan, the charity's chief executive[/bold] , said: "The scale of these cuts means that three accommodation projects [bold]for a total of around 25[/bold] people will have to close. We just don't know where these people are going to go ... when homelessness is at an all time high in the city."[/quote] Let's hope that Aberdeen Council see's sense and ensures that the good work on Cyrenian expanded and not curtailed. The real answer however is in housing building which thankfully the councils in and around aberdeen have started to do again, not this unsustainable ghettoisation approach of the previous Labour Executive, whereby essentially private bodies such as Housing Associations benefit from outreach/care provision through rents.

£900,000 to house 25 people? Surely there's a mistake in the article. [quote]"... when homelessness is at an all time high in the city."[/quote] So is that an argument that even more of your money should be spent on tackling the root of the problem rather than putting out fires? No reasonable distributor of limited funds allocates to anything that is unsustainable. Or is it because the city is growing? Or are people coming to Aberdeen to seek aid specifically from the Cyrenians? What are the historic levels? Surely the article should have picked up on this and asked or reported on it instead of a series of quotes strung together to say nothing. We spend too much money in this country pulling at leaves to fell trees, and on the wrong things because they sound "nice". I hope one of the Cyrenians (a real one, not a fakey jakey) can post here and give some reasonable information. In a fair world, where the sky was both boy-blue and girly-pink to appease the more PC folks, a Scottish paper would exist which would have reporters ready to get off their backsides and find stories beyond their own desk. I suspect a number of people are concerned about the bigger picture of the appalling spending New Labour government and councils have been doing across Scotland, but have we seen some reasonable articles on it? Have we bug**y.

"Chief Executive Officer says that 30 staff will lose their jobs." Sounds more like a limited company than a charity.

I accuse Alex of being too generous. There, that cancels out Wendy's opinion. Next please!

This from Wendy Alexander whos party forced through massive cuts too supporting people? Pot , Kettle Black anyone? [bold]Is this woman so brainless that every utterance she makes hits her square in the face?[/bold]

BTW supporting people cuts was more than just one project. It is hundreds. [bold]She has one hell of a brass neck.[/bold]

[quote]£900,000 to house 25 people? Surely there's a mistake in the article[/quote] Thats what it costs once you've appointed a few directors and consultants from the Labour membership. The end user gets very little other than the security and peace of mind that a few less patronising gits are walking the streets.

So if 30 people lose their jobs , based on 25 clients being chucked out a hostel, which is costing us £36K a shot according to this, why not just put them up in a 5* hotel and save some cash. Something really dodgy with this article, sounds like jobs for the boys rather than a real charity.

Perhaps if Labour had spent more time and effort serving the people of Scotland during their eight years in power, instead of lining their own pockets, we would'nt have so many homeless people in Scotland today? Aberdeen City Council is in such a financial mess because of decades of mismanagement by successive labour councils. I think the new LD/SNP administration should be given time and space to sort things out before we judge them - four years?

Hehe I know juankerr, I was being a cheeky sod. ;) It's enough to make one spew, if they have the moral fibre.

The focus of attack on Aberdeen Council and the Nationalists by the Labour Party in Scotland could well be spin in an attempt to to distract attention away from Audit Scotland;s report that it will take decades for Scotland's State school estates to be brought up to a modern standard? The responsibility for this sad state of affairs does not lie with a 10 month old Nationalist government but with ALL the previous Labour and Tory administrations? The Tories brought in PFI to wash their hands of the failure of government to tackle this massive problem throughout the U.K. and save the Treasury shelling out vast capital sums. Labour have simply continued this policy with PPP. Both the Tory and Labour parties are banking on a period of sustained growth to meet these extraordinary final repayments? Yet, if recent events in the worlds financial markets are anything to go by these economic projections are by no means a certainty? Pawning the country's future will undoubtedly come back to haunt Tory and Labour politicians in 20 or 30 years time when the size of the huge capital repayments come home to roost!

Yes, there have been so many bandages used over the years, the gaping wounds have gone septic. A recent report revealed that the `voluntary sector` did not produce better value than public services (see below). The problem is that the involvement of the `voluntary sector` in providing public services was started under Thatcher, and there are, if anything, further moves to embed this sector within public services, even to the extent of using them as an offshoot of the police and social services. First of all, this presents with problems of accountability, as councils can shift blame onto these organisations for service standards - some of which are non-existent. Secondly, this adds to the levels of bureaucracy and hence to costs. Whilst pay levels for those workers who work `at the coalface` are often abysmal, the managers are often paid more than they would get in the private sector. This wholesale `contracting out` of public services is incredibly wasteful of tax payers money and results in a split in accountability and means that only a tiny proportion of people who really need services are getting them. It has also resulted in a failure by public services to set standards of competence and to build capacity in skills, so that they are sometimes entirely reliant on charities / voluntary organisations to train council staff, even in the most basic of services, such as school education. http://society.guard ian.co.uk/comment/st ory/0,,2106472,00.ht ml - Voluntary sector and the dangers of hype The report reveals that voluntary organisations are not as good as the rhetoric would have us believe Alison Benjamin Wednesday June 20, 2007 The Guardian It is a truth universally acknowledged that a government with a public service is in need of a charity to make its delivery more flexible, responsive and customer friendly. But a report today from the National Consumer Council (NCC) blows apart the belief that voluntary organisations show higher levels of responsiveness. http://www.theherald .co.uk/search/displa y.var.1975288.0.disa bled_man_choked_to_d eath_on_a_piece_of_t oast.php  -   Disabled man choked to death on a piece of toast ALISON CHIESA  January 18 2008  EXCERPT A SEVERELY disabled man died eating a piece of toast while his carer, unaware of his high choking risk, sat in another room, a fatal accident inquiry has found. The death in community care of Graham Rattray, 42, on Boxing Day two years ago, could have been avoided, according to the findings published yesterday. Only nine months earlier, Mr Rattray, who lived in Moodiesburn, North Lanarkshire and was under Quarriers care, had been saved by the Heimlich manoeuvre.

Well said Fiona. Contracting out responsibilty and blame. At the same time as Making sure your buddies are ina decent directorship or "homeless strategy unit" Meanwhile the folk who have to make the breakfasts, clean the puke, dodge the punches are left on £6 an hour if their lucky. Meanwhile their managers collect large salaries for sitting in a nice new office or housing association head office. The managers feed on their sense of vocation and care like vultures picking at a carcass. My Partner works in care. I see her crying every time a client dies or has received less than civil treatment from those above. The managements answer is use up the good will and replace them with another enthusiatic carer. until they run out of entusiams and the cycle of abuse continues until they pick up their bonus checks and productivity bonuses (e.g. cut services, and we'll give you a cut of the savings) [bold]MAKES ME SICK![/bold]

All my legitimate posts have been removed from hootsmon. [bold]That's what you get for noticing one of their journalists has a thing for puddles.[/bold] SO much for the online editor maintaining his freedom of speech BS. No wonder their circulation is rocketing down the cludgie. They cannot be relied on to even be fair , balanced or honest. [bold]Their journalists must really be the laughing stock of their proffession.[/bold]

I find the figures very strange - you appear to have 30 people looking after 25 homeless individuals - more staff than homeless.. When I worked in the Resettlement Agency in Glasgow we housed around 80 homeless individuals with around 20 staff. When the then Tory government closed the unit they gave a "charity" £4.9 million to house 50 individuals in the old Kingston Halls in Glasgow. This worked out at around £80,000 per individual bed. In 1996 this would have given every individual a 30bed-roomed house. On top of that the "charity" could claim a minimum of £400 per week to house each individual. I can only imagine that the Cyrenians can claim the same, if not substantially more for their "guests" so where does the money go? Perhaps your reporter can find out the figures and let us know - I imagine that most posters will be horrified by this largesse.

[bold]I suspect the next time they go for a job once the Hootsmon has dissapeared. They will only get a job writing copy for the classifieds.[/bold] As no self resecting editor could possibly risk credibility on their pathetic atemps at being journalists.

Mr Angry - I agree 30 people to house 25 at a cost of 900k. Perhaps more info is needed but taking the info from the article something seems amiss. Also, throwing money at the problem will not solve this from looking at those headline figures. From reading other posts, it may be that the charity does try to tackle the root cause of the problem, self-esteem problems, addictions - many possibilities but this is where the money should be going - possibly through thecharity above if it does this work. [bold]But 30 people to house 25![/bold]

Karin - it's the Chief Executive of the charity which said that, not the council. You are right that the council has a legal obligation to house homeless people. Interesttingly I believe that Aberdeen City Council is actually building new council housing so perhaps that is how they are planning to handle the situation rather than paying a charity to house people in hostels. We'll need to see how all these things pan out before a judgement is reached but services can't remain static forever.

[bold]Rodmac[/bold] I quite agree, the figures are quite disturbing. It's why I think criticism of the article is warranted, as is reserved criticism of the Cyrenians (until the figures can be accounted for). The only way a story like this can make me feel better is if I had the journalist stand at my desk with the original type so I can throw it at him and shout "[italic]Get out![/italic]" I also think Wendy should learn to shut her trap before one of the Scottish papers discover where they left their backbone and print the same number of articles (same size, same page and same days of the week) showing her scaremongering for what it was, party politics. The number of people she must have left scared out of their wits -- many of whom will have spent their last days worrying -- because of the woman's lowering of morals to replace her lack of abilities. This paper's pathetic support of those actions alone, and lack of initiative and moral decency to do some investigation, should worry anyone. Sadly it remains, for the moment at least, the best of a dreadful bunch. The moment another paper with some moral value comes to Scotland the better for all of us.

[quote][bold]juankerr[/bold] wrote: All my legitimate posts have been removed from hootsmon. [bold]That's what you get for noticing one of their journalists has a thing for puddles.[/bold] SO much for the online editor maintaining his freedom of speech BS. No wonder their circulation is rocketing down the cludgie. They cannot be relied on to even be fair , balanced or honest. [bold]Their journalists must really be the laughing stock of their proffession.[/bold] [/quote] They can, however, be relied upon to spell professional.

The headline bears no relation to the article. In what sense is Alex Salmond in a row over this? What does it have to do with him at all? 'Alexander tries to stir up row yet again' would be a more accurate headline. Perhaps the Herald should just come clean and change its name to 'The Labour Herald'.

Oh, so that's what he meant? The laughing stock of their professional. That answers one question but raises another. Their professional [italic]what[/italic]?

There are some serious questions that need to be asked about this project. 1) What is the total overall funding for the Cyrenians? 2) What is their staff to client ratio? 3) What % is spent on administration? 4) What is their wage bill, and how is it split between frontline and admin staff? 5) What % of money do they raise themselves and what % comes from other sources? (Council, government, benefits etc) 6) What is their chief executives salary? and how does that compare to the sector? Only if we ever get serious reporting with all the facts will we ever know if this is a worthwhile project, or if it was just so Labour "jobs for the boys scheme"

Good grief! £900,000 a year to house 25 people?? That's just a whisker under £100/bod/day! Who are they accomodating? - 25 Trish Godmans?!? No wonder the SNP Government was so confident of being able to make savings across the board. They just need to clean up the political landscape and clear out the jobs-for-the-boys nepotism of years of liebour in Scotland and they're there. No wonder the squealing is so loud! How much money were these charlatans being paid?!?

John Leven, John, as regards your question 5 I think you would be horrified to find out how much they can charge the Benefit Agency per individual especially if they can claim a disabiilty such as, yes, alcoholism. In over 25 years I only met a few people who were real alcoholics, i.e. had a dependeency on alcohol although I met hundred who were problem drinkers - not that they had a drink problem but displayed anti-social behaviour after drinking which is often mistaken for alcoholism and classed as a disability. I forgot to add that in the scenario above the Government would make up any short-fall in funding if the "charity" could not cope on the available funding. I have no reason to believe that this is no longer the case.

Does it all go back to the introduction of the care in the community policy I wonder?[

[quote][bold]juankerr[/bold] wrote: All my legitimate posts have been removed from hootsmon. [bold]That's what you get for noticing one of their journalists has a thing for puddles.[/bold] SO much for the online editor maintaining his freedom of speech BS. No wonder their circulation is rocketing down the cludgie. They cannot be relied on to even be fair , balanced or honest. [bold]Their journalists must really be the laughing stock of their proffession.[/bold] [/quote] Here's your pal, juankerr. Still, good riddance to bad rubbish. Though I'll still buy it now and again - when I run out of lavvy paper. As for your 8.40 the answer is YES[bold] And your 8.44. Jack McConnell's better than sliced bread Private Financial Initiative rearing its ugly £billions head.

The Council has responsibility for housing homeless people not the voluntary sector. The Council can fund groups like these if they provide a value for money service, which from what I am reading seems unlikely. It may well be that more voluntary sector agencies will lose out as councils decide their spending options as many of them will concentrate on their core statutory functions which is as it should be. Prepare yourself for more headlines but remember the services provided by the voluntary sector are additional to the services already provided and guaranteed by the Scottish Government, so clients will not be left with nowhere to go and nobody to support them - that's just a lie.

[quote][bold]GlasgowJim[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]juankerr[/bold] wrote: All my legitimate posts have been removed from hootsmon. [bold]That's what you get for noticing one of their journalists has a thing for puddles.[/bold] SO much for the online editor maintaining his freedom of speech BS. No wonder their circulation is rocketing down the cludgie. They cannot be relied on to even be fair , balanced or honest. [bold]Their journalists must really be the laughing stock of their proffession.[/bold] [/quote] They can, however, be relied upon to spell professional.[/quote] Well done Glasgow Jim. Your superior intellect astounds us all and your obvious abundance of wit makes us all in awe. Allthough your with said you canny spell "wee one" as it is too close to the bone. Like your member.

Like others I am interested in the many "charities" that have been crying foul recently as many of them do not appear to be any such thing. Just what is a charity these days? If they exist almost entirely on Government handouts surely they should be incorporated into Government departments?

Grassy Exactly correct. The reason for the proliferation of government funded "charities" or voluntary organisations is that any inadequate provision for homelessness cannot be blamed on the government but on the providers. The ill-conceived "Care in the Community" is a prime example. There have been numerous examples of mentally ill individuals committing crimes whilst being looked after in the community by charities and the inadequacy of that particular provision is high-lighted and blamed rather than any government department whether local or national..

The independent peoples republic of bannockburn utterly condemns this godforsaken executive and the cuts their tory policies have caused. The cynical apologists who would attack charities, the homeless - indeed anybody but them - deserve the contempt they are held in. I haven'y heard anything as nauseating on these posts since those dark days of Thatcherism when caring for the vulnerable was held in such contempt. When it was seen as weakness to help the less advantaged and indeed not in their interests to help them: tough love indeed. The posters here who would attack the public sector in defence of wee Alex's budget should be ashamed of themselves. They won't be of course, their only rationale is to break up the UK, not help those in need. From this bastion of working class solidarity we say this: AVANTI POPULO!

Hamish you numptie no one is attacking the public sector. In fact what councils appear to be doing is going back to the days when they provided those services directly which they have statutory responsibility for ,rather than in effect sub contract it to the voluntary sector. Rather good news for the public sector really, and good news for service users as there is more accountability with direct provision.

Hamish, None of my posts attack the charities or the homeless. It is a fact that Tory and Labour governments have hived off responsibilities on to what they term "voluntary organisations" for the reasons I stated. Another reason is that those who work for voluntary organisation are poorly paid compared to government employees - usually due to having no union representation. Voluntary organisation/chariti es should be an addition to government functions - not used to replace them. Hopefully a more enlightened government will address this issue.

Observer, Just read the tone of these posts and hang your head in shame. This is exactly the same keech that the tories peddled in the 80s. A nasty and vindictive 'I'm alright Jack' attitude permeates a lot of the posts above. The independent peoples republic of bannockburn rejects attacks on the working classes. We will take no lectures from service and job cutting nationalists who seek to blame others for their own spiteful cuts...Avanti

I'm currently trying to start some voluntary work -- I really am that nice folks -- but also share the reservations of government dependence and interference with charities. If it were up to me government interference would extend to "You're a charity, nah we don't need your cash round here you old mucker." We seem to be (and I have very good reason to believe this) moving more towards a government dependence on volunteers and charities. Rather like we did with the poor man's tax (lottery). Incidentally I firmly believe in local charity or volunteer work.

Hamish, perhaps you could start by explaining what this actually has to do with Alex's budget...

There's a lot talk here about ,how much it costs to house homeless people.Why don't you twats concentrate on how much it's costing us for parliaments of fools with houses to spare.Who cares what it cost's would you rather have the poor sods on the street.Politicians of every shade up and down the land, are living it up.and your banging on about closing a shelter.What next ?.

[quote][bold]Hamish McKropotkin[/bold] wrote: Observer, Just read the tone of these posts and hang your head in shame. This is exactly the same keech that the tories peddled in the 80s. A nasty and vindictive 'I'm alright Jack' attitude permeates a lot of the posts above. The independent peoples republic of bannockburn rejects attacks on the working classes. We will take no lectures from service and job cutting nationalists who seek to blame others for their own spiteful cuts...Avanti[/quote] If there were anti public sector Thatcherite posts on this thread then I would have challenged them Hamish like I always do. it is very unfortunate if anyone loses their job but given the very tight settlement councils may have to concentrate on core services rather than funding the voluntary sector, they should perhaps have been looking for other sources of funding rather than being over reliant on local authorities.

stevie, glasgow I would prefer Wendy not scaremonger other poor sods up and down the country, or for a decent paper to show her for what she is. I would prefer £900k to be spent properly, like on preventing these people from becoming homeless in the first place. I would prefer the limited amount of cash available to the less fortunate was spent on helping the less fortunate, rather than paying champagne socialists. I would also prefer our ministers have a little more decency in the way they run their lives, and I said as much just last Sunday. When I run for president, I'll sort the shower of fools out. Until then, I'll criticise both the big stuff and the small stuff from the sidelines.

Sorry to break the string but I was telling Wullie Fae Eberdeen. There's a wee Romanian lady in the Bearsden precinct,selling Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon Fridge magnets. Has anybody else seen these. You can get them full bodied or just the head.

Dear All Yet again the guilty leader of the Labour Party, Wendy Alexander seeks to spread fear, alarm and misinformation. This has nothing to do with Alex Salmond. This is a council matter. Yours sincerely George Laird The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

To John Leven, Leven Fife. You can find their annual reports and financing at this address. http://www.aberdeen- cyrenians.org/ I appreciate that many charities do a goos job but quite a few raise only a tiny amount of their income from the piblic. Cyrenians are mainly financed by Aberdeen City; Aberdeenshire and other government funded agencies make this up to almost their entire income. Maybe now it is time for councils to take a look at who is doing what and how many organisations are duplicating work. After all many of them are limited companies, registered as charities and not required to show the word "Ltd" in their title.

Juan Kerr WTF is happening on the Hootsman? Every time you post & I refresh, your post is gone. Somebody there doesn't like you.

JohnJ Edinburgh, thank you for the link. I am puzzled however how can this be called a charity? If most of its funding comes from Aberdeen City Council etc, this must be an outsourcing company like any other that does work for councils. Even though they probably do good work. why can the work that they do not be done by the council. If nothing else it would save one level of administration.

Hamish do you seriously not think that valid questions can be asked about the figures in this article? Albeit we may not have the full picture but it does on the face of it look pretty extraordinary. Perhaps it is time to look again at what services can best be provided by the voluntary sector and what services are best provided directly by councils.

John Leven - it's work that should be done by the Council. They have the obligation to look after and support the homeless. Since the SNP brought in the council tax freeze and abolished ring fencing we seem to see more services being delivered directly instead of being in effect contracted to the ''voluntary'' sector. Many of these agencies did start out as genuine charities but have now become service providers and there is actually quite a lot of competition between them for funds. I think a number of these agencies are going to be big losers as councils bring more and more of what they do back ''in house''. And we can expect Wendy to go running to the press every time to try and give a misleading impression that services to vulnerable groups are being cut. That of course is rubbish. And there are a lot of Labour types involved in the voluntary sector, that is not a myth it is true.

[quote]quote[/quote] Posted by: juankerr, Scotland on 10:05am today Well said Fiona. Contracting out responsibilty and blame. At the same time as Making sure your buddies are ina decent directorship or "homeless strategy unit" Meanwhile the folk who have to make the breakfasts, clean the puke, dodge the punches are left on £6 an hour if their lucky. Meanwhile their managers collect large salaries for sitting in a nice new office or housing association head office. The managers feed on their sense of vocation and care like vultures picking at a carcass. My Partner works in care. I see her crying every time a client dies or has received less than civil treatment from those above. The managements answer is use up the good will and replace them with another enthusiatic carer. until they run out of entusiams and the cycle of abuse continues until they pick up their bonus checks and productivity bonuses (e.g. cut services, and we'll give you a cut of the savings) MAKES ME SICK![quote]quote[/quote] Juankerr - unfortunately, I would have to agree with what you say. The Scottish Government is currently conducting a Review of Direct Payments, and I think that what you are saying, and what your partner has experienced would be of value to that review. The fact is, that local authorities have been only too happy to split what should be their sole responsibility and to hand over services lock, stock and barrel to charities. It's obvious from some of the comments above that most people have no idea how many charities function these days - with many being service providers. When it comes to the most vulnerable people, such as people with learning disabilities and Autistic Spectrum Disorder, it seems that most people accept as normal that services for these groups should be rationed, with no standards and provided by charity. While many worthwhile and worthy charities started out providing services to these groups, because the state would not provide, we are now living in an era when many `extras` are provided from taxation for the bulk of the population. Why should that be acceptable when basic services for people with disabilities are so obviously designed to fail (because this will extinguish demand)? He who pays the piper ca's the tune, and those charities whose `charitable activity` consists of providing services for which they are paid upfront by local authorities and health boards cannot afford to fight for those they claim to represent. I have even been told by a worker for one of these organisations that she could not mediate between my local authority and my family because she `needed a friendly face` to speak to on the council. The most disgusting thing about such a situation is that, when these changes were first made during the Thatcher era, it was acknowledged that the unstated aim was to neuter the charities as organisations who would fight for the people they claim to represent. That is the lasting effect - that we now have no=one who will contemplate fighting even some of our battles.