Why would a non-profit show up on the Charity Commission Register? They are, by legal definiton, different things.
Indeed. The concept of non-profit seems to confuse people. Many seem to think it implies charitable aims but legally has no real meaning. This one is incorporated as a plain'ol limited company with it's articles unpublished. So no real tranparency regarding it's purpose, or how it'll distribute any surplus funds. If it were a charity, things would be clearer and it'd be more tightly regulated. In theory anyway.
The results made me dubious given they're rather different to the more professional polls. The way the site is set up and it's somewhat less than honest claims make it look like it's simply harvesting contacts for it's other projects.
LOL at the councillor up a tree! You couldn't make it up. Plus recycling has gone down 16% since they took over and there's been a massive increase in rubbish.
Indeed. The concept of non-profit seems to confuse people.
It clearly confused you. Perhaps you should have checked before asking the daft question why Vote For Policies - a non-profit - did not appear on the Charity Commission's website? A charity and a non-profit are not the same thing. You were clearly inferring VFP were up to no good when, in fact, you simply got the wrong end of the stick.
You call the site out for 'Less than honest claims about funding? What. like crowdfunding? Asking ordinary people - not big business - to help fund a project? You see that as a problem? How would you like it to be funded? By the kind of sleazeballs and tax dodgers the main parties snuggle up to?
As for - 'The results made me dubious given they're rather different to the more professional polls'.....really? The results of half a million online surveys as opposed to the 1000 or so usually undertaken by pollsters? And how is Vote For Policies 'harvesting contacts'? There's no need to put an email address in or any personal details if you don't wish to.
If you are trying to sling mud at Vote For Policies, you don't appear to be very good at it.
You were clearly inferring they were up to no good when you simply got the wrong end of the stick.
Nope.
You call the site out for 'Less than honest claims about funding? What. like crowdfunding? Asking ordinary people - not big business - to help fund a project? You see that as a problem? How would you like it to be funded? By the kind of sleazeballs and tax dodgers the main parties snuggle up to?
Do you know who's funding the site? But it said-
Vote for Policies receives no funding at all, and has no connection with any organisation - political or otherwise - or any candidates running for election.
Yet raised £25k via 'crowdfunding' including some larger donations that offered cross-promotion as a benefit. And it still continues to solicit donations from unknown sources. And in it's FAQ it says-
Is Vote for Policies politically biased?
No! This site is completely non-partisan. This project is completely unfunded (i.e. we're doing it for free), and we don't have any kind of connection with any organisations - political or otherwise.
Obviously the bit in bold is a lie given it has been funded.
And why would any 'ordinary person' want this perk-
GET ON YOUR SOAP BOX: The platform you've always dreamed of! Your opinion shared with 100,000 readers of Blue & Green Tomorrow
4 anonymous donors paid £500 for access to that market..
And how is Vote For Policies 'harvesting contacts'? There's no need to put an email address in or any personal details if you don't wish to.
But it encourages people to. Then as it's privacy policy states..
If you have consented to receive marketing, we will use your information to send you marketing communications relating to Vote For Policies and carefully selected third party supporters, which we think may be of interest to you.
How can it have 'third party supporters' when it claims to have "any kind of connection with any organisations - political or otherwise"?
The Greens want to create a world where life is good where people live so they do not need to go to other places for a good life.
But in doing so, they also believe that the world is there for everyone, so everyone should be free to travel where they want to go, without needing a passport or an identity.
The Greens want to create a world where life is good where people live so they do not need to go to other places for a good life.
But in doing so, they also believe that the world is there for everyone, so everyone should be free to travel where they want to go, without needing a passport or an identity.
This is very much a long-term aim which no one should quarrel with. Whether it could ever happen is another matter!
Not really. Not being a charity means donations aren't tax deductable, or the site gets no tax benefit from donations either.
Donations. Not funding by people or businesses with a political axe to grind.
So why offer the £500 donors their 'soap box' to address 100,000 subscribers?
What exactly, do you think is being hidden from you? What darkness do you see in Vote For Policies that has you so half-crazed?
Have you bothered reading the posting rules?
Hidden? Identity of their donors. And how would you reconcile this claim "This project is completely unfunded" with the fact that it was funded by £25k's worth of money through the crowd funding site, and continues to solicit additional funding? I know Greens tend to have a tenous understanding of financial matters, but are you claiming donations aren't money, or funding?
You've twice highlighted 4 anonymous donors paying £500 for access to potential marketing prospects. £2000 has you up in arms? How far do you think £2,000 will go? Will it support mass insurrection? Or the cost of printing some posters?
These are the people whose donations are the most ruinous and the ones you should be asking about....
How far do you think £2,000 will go? Will it support mass insurrection? Or the cost of printing some posters?
The crowdfunding site looks like it raised £23,551. How does that fit with the site's claim that it "receives no funding at all" and "This project is completely unfunded"
One could also wonder why the site is hosted in Miami..
These are the people whose donations are the most ruinous and the ones you should be asking about....
....though I doubt it serves your agenda to bother to do so.
The crowdfunding site looks like it raised £23,551. How does that fit with the site's claim that it "receives no funding at all" and "This project is completely unfunded"
£23,551 scares you enough to think there's something evil going on yet you're not at all bothered by.....
'Using analysis from the Electoral Commission and Companies House databases, the researchers found City donations in the 12 months to July (2011) accounted for 51.4% of the £12.2m of funds received by Central Office. Hedge funds, financiers and private equity firms contributed £3.3m – 27% – while 50 City donors paid more than £50,000. All donors contributing this amount or more become members of the Leader's Group and qualify for a face-to-face meeting with the prime minister.'
£23,551 scares you enough to think there's something evil going on
Not scared, not necessarily assuming evil. I think they're simply astroturfing. How do you reconcile that £23k in funding with their claim to be unfunded?
I can't understand how a so-called "Green" party would think these are good ideas and that we need no border controls! How is even more people in an already crowded country good for the environment and how can they talk about protecting greenbelt areas while coming up with such ideas? Absolutely hypocritical and doesn't make any sense. They even want housing for immigrants potential family to move over among other worrying ideas.
A great shame really cause a lot of their other policies are actually quite appealing. Anyway, read on...
Not scared, not necessarily assuming evil. I think they're simply astroturfing. How do you reconcile that £23k in funding with their claim to be unfunded?
Astroturfing - the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g. political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participant(s).
Astroturfing - the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g. political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participant(s).
Yes, I was aware of the term, hence why I used it. So those £500 donors who bought access to 100,000 participants.. And the funding that isn't funding..
What upsets you most?
Nothing much. It simply demonstrates that things aren't always what they seem in politics. Curious why you're so defensive though. Would you like to declare an interest? Otherwise I think we've done this one to death here and I'll wait and see what DBIS has to say.
Otherwise I think we've done this one to death here and I'll wait and see what DBIS has to say.
Eh and eh? Have you no self-awareness at all?
I'm not a member of The Greens and don't canvass for them, but my vote did go to the party at the last election. That decision was based solely on their policies. Some I don't like. But most of them make sense. I can't say that for any other party in England. Which is why I'll be voting for The Greens again in 2015.
Comments
Compared to some of the other parties, they're completely sensible.
Indeed. The concept of non-profit seems to confuse people. Many seem to think it implies charitable aims but legally has no real meaning. This one is incorporated as a plain'ol limited company with it's articles unpublished. So no real tranparency regarding it's purpose, or how it'll distribute any surplus funds. If it were a charity, things would be clearer and it'd be more tightly regulated. In theory anyway.
The results made me dubious given they're rather different to the more professional polls. The way the site is set up and it's somewhat less than honest claims make it look like it's simply harvesting contacts for it's other projects.
Are they though? I just watched this video of how the Greens have run Brighton and it sounds like an absolute mess: https://www.youtube.com/embed/hiEOWjdRpMY
LOL at the councillor up a tree!
It clearly confused you. Perhaps you should have checked before asking the daft question why Vote For Policies - a non-profit - did not appear on the Charity Commission's website? A charity and a non-profit are not the same thing. You were clearly inferring VFP were up to no good when, in fact, you simply got the wrong end of the stick.
You call the site out for 'Less than honest claims about funding? What. like crowdfunding? Asking ordinary people - not big business - to help fund a project? You see that as a problem? How would you like it to be funded? By the kind of sleazeballs and tax dodgers the main parties snuggle up to?
As for - 'The results made me dubious given they're rather different to the more professional polls'.....really? The results of half a million online surveys as opposed to the 1000 or so usually undertaken by pollsters? And how is Vote For Policies 'harvesting contacts'? There's no need to put an email address in or any personal details if you don't wish to.
If you are trying to sling mud at Vote For Policies, you don't appear to be very good at it.
Nope.
Do you know who's funding the site? But it said-
Vote for Policies receives no funding at all, and has no connection with any organisation - political or otherwise - or any candidates running for election.
Yet raised £25k via 'crowdfunding' including some larger donations that offered cross-promotion as a benefit. And it still continues to solicit donations from unknown sources. And in it's FAQ it says-
Is Vote for Policies politically biased?
No! This site is completely non-partisan. This project is completely unfunded (i.e. we're doing it for free), and we don't have any kind of connection with any organisations - political or otherwise.
Obviously the bit in bold is a lie given it has been funded.
And why would any 'ordinary person' want this perk-
GET ON YOUR SOAP BOX: The platform you've always dreamed of! Your opinion shared with 100,000 readers of Blue & Green Tomorrow
4 anonymous donors paid £500 for access to that market..
But it encourages people to. Then as it's privacy policy states..
If you have consented to receive marketing, we will use your information to send you marketing communications relating to Vote For Policies and carefully selected third party supporters, which we think may be of interest to you.
How can it have 'third party supporters' when it claims to have "any kind of connection with any organisations - political or otherwise"?
http://s9.postimg.org/v6iof8s9b/Capture_VFP.jpg
Donations from £2 and up. £2! The maximum donation is £100, either as on-off payment or a monthly contribution.
Donations. Not funding by people or businesses with a political axe to grind.
What exactly, do you think is being hidden from you? What darkness do you see in Vote For Policies that has you so half-crazed?
But in doing so, they also believe that the world is there for everyone, so everyone should be free to travel where they want to go, without needing a passport or an identity.
This is very much a long-term aim which no one should quarrel with. Whether it could ever happen is another matter!
Not really. Not being a charity means donations aren't tax deductable, or the site gets no tax benefit from donations either.
So why offer the £500 donors their 'soap box' to address 100,000 subscribers?
Have you bothered reading the posting rules?
Hidden? Identity of their donors. And how would you reconcile this claim "This project is completely unfunded" with the fact that it was funded by £25k's worth of money through the crowd funding site, and continues to solicit additional funding? I know Greens tend to have a tenous understanding of financial matters, but are you claiming donations aren't money, or funding?
They are Labour's left wing.....with recycling.
They are far more radical than Labour.
Any different to anywhere else? The privacy policy is here: http://voteforpolicies.org.uk/content/privacy-policy
You've twice highlighted 4 anonymous donors paying £500 for access to potential marketing prospects. £2000 has you up in arms? How far do you think £2,000 will go? Will it support mass insurrection? Or the cost of printing some posters?
These are the people whose donations are the most ruinous and the ones you should be asking about....
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/sep/30/city-conservatives-donations
....though I doubt it serves your agenda to bother to do so.
They are nothing to do with Labour.
I was referring to these ones-
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/announcement.php?f=249
and your 'half-crazed' comment.
The crowdfunding site looks like it raised £23,551. How does that fit with the site's claim that it "receives no funding at all" and "This project is completely unfunded"
One could also wonder why the site is hosted in Miami..
No real need. See-
https://www.conservatives.com/donate/donor_clubs.aspx
and I belonged to one.. But stopped donating due to the party's green policies.
£23,551 scares you enough to think there's something evil going on yet you're not at all bothered by.....
'Using analysis from the Electoral Commission and Companies House databases, the researchers found City donations in the 12 months to July (2011) accounted for 51.4% of the £12.2m of funds received by Central Office. Hedge funds, financiers and private equity firms contributed £3.3m – 27% – while 50 City donors paid more than £50,000. All donors contributing this amount or more become members of the Leader's Group and qualify for a face-to-face meeting with the prime minister.'
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/sep/30/city-conservatives-donations
If The Greens have people like you so rattled......and they clearly have rattled you....then more power to them.
Not scared, not necessarily assuming evil. I think they're simply astroturfing. How do you reconcile that £23k in funding with their claim to be unfunded?
WTF The Greens policies are just as bad as UKIP's policies
The two can't really be compared.
"WTF" seems a bit unnecessary btw!
Astroturfing - the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g. political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participant(s).
It is a site with no political ties?
If it has any ties at all - you'll find them here: http://blueandgreentomorrow.com/
What upsets you most? The fact that some of us can now see beyond idiotic tribal politics and want Tory and Labour ruin undone?
what Greens want will be just as bad as what UKIP want as unlimited immigration will be bad for the U.K ,just as no immigration would be bad.
Yes, I was aware of the term, hence why I used it. So those £500 donors who bought access to 100,000 participants.. And the funding that isn't funding..
Nothing much. It simply demonstrates that things aren't always what they seem in politics. Curious why you're so defensive though. Would you like to declare an interest? Otherwise I think we've done this one to death here and I'll wait and see what DBIS has to say.
Eh and eh? Have you no self-awareness at all?
I'm not a member of The Greens and don't canvass for them, but my vote did go to the party at the last election. That decision was based solely on their policies. Some I don't like. But most of them make sense. I can't say that for any other party in England. Which is why I'll be voting for The Greens again in 2015.
DBIS? What's that?
The Department of Business, Information and Skills. Used to be known as DTI. Not suprised a Green would be unaware of it's existence or purpose(s).
That's what I wondered. But why would you 'wait and see what DBIS has to say'? Are you a Tory shill? Or are you in Nige's pocket?
I sent a complaint about that site.. I wasn't going to bother but your staunch defence of it changed my mind.