Over the weekend, you may have seen headlines about Labour paving the way for a four-day week. Angela Rayner reassured the British public that it would be “no threat to the economy”, but you have to wonder if everyone feels the same way. Coincidentally (a bit too coincidentally, in terms of timing) Sadiq Khan has just offered Tube drivers a four-day week in return for them calling off industrial action scheduled for November 7th and November 12th.
As with so many of Labour’s proposed policies – such as the Assisted Dying Bill and farmers’ inheritance tax hike – they always have a random feel to them, as though sprung upon the electorate at a second’s notice. Before you have time to ask “who, what, where, why?”, Kim Leadbeater or whoever next has the first draft of her bill ready.
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a donor will also entitle you to comment below the line, discuss articles with our contributors and editors in a members-only Discord forum and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
All Religion is mind control. And socialism grew from religion. Evil. Atheism is rhe beast course.
Lucky the world has benefited from the peaceful atheism of Mao,Stalin and Hitler.
Not to mention the current example: North Korea.
Atheism never lasts: sooner or later it transforms into two possible outcomes: nihilism (a sort of self-destructive suicidal anarchy) or totalitarianism.
Of these two outcomes anarchy does not last for very long either (it can’t as it is by its very nature dysfunctional), so eventually the only possible outcome is totalitarianism. Which is just a form of bad religion, as it replaces God with the Fűhrer or the State.
So, like it or not, the outcome is always religious, the question is who or what society worships.
Anarchy simply describes a situation where there is no leader (Greek, an archos). It does not have be bad or chaotic or violent. It depends on the people, like everything.
Anarcho-Capitalism suggests an absence of STATE, but not an absence of Law and Order.
You still have a constabulary, courts and prisons, but not centralised state control. No taxation on production, only on consumption.
Anarchy does not have to mean violence and lawlessness.
Read Murray Rothbard for explanations. Also, F.A. Hayek.
The state in principle is not bad, but the reality, as we see every single day is terrible.
Agnosticism is the best course. It’s OK to say, “I haven’t got the foggiest idea, I am going to focus on doing what I believe is right in the here and now, instead.”
Atheism is just another religion, in my opinion. “There is no God” is just as dogmatic a view as the rest.
They should stick to porridge.
good one!
At least they’d get their oats that way.
Hasn’t porridge been highlighted as a “bad” food?
Thank you, Charlotte Gill, for once again exposing the activities of the Provisional Wing of the Enemy Within. Marxists masquerading in Quaker pointed-hats, getting the usual kicks out of Telling Other People What To Do.
Chocolate Money getting up to all sorts of mischief – descendents of the filthy rich assuaging wealth-guilt through God’s Work.
Meanwhile, as ever, the real guardians of modern civilisation – farmers, food-retailers, engineers, plumbers, electricians, builders, materials scientists, software experts, etc, etc, etc – go purposefully about their daily business.
Seems as of tomorrow, steel-manufacturing notionally to continue, albeit through the usual expedient of throwing other people’s money at it.
My family knew two Quakers, they were the most genuine, serious and peaceful people. Both Master Cabinet Makers, of the Arts and Crafts movement, and both Conscientious Objectors.
Yes, it seems there will always be people ready to infect good things.
From what I have read, I don’t want these people to succeed in whatever they are doing, but phrases like “undermining democracy” make me uncomfortable. They are playing the system, perhaps sometimes with help from the system itself. But it’s up to what should be the most important participants in “democracy” to wake the hell up and act accordingly. It’s good that Charlotte Gill, DS and others shine a light – shame the information is not yet spread widely and has not sunk in.
The original Quakers were largely anti-establishment. Now that they have aligned themselves with the state and its progressive left-liberal policies and its sectarian system of governance known as diversity, they effectively have no king but Caesar.
Charities (including religious orders which enjoy similar tax and reputations advantages) must be taken in hand. They must lose status when they become political campaign groups.
Hear, hear!
I tend to think that no special privileges should be given to “charities”
There are hundreds, possibly thousands, of small local charities that do excellent work and that couldn’t exist without things like tax exemptions. My dad ran one for over two decades, helping poor and working-class people in Stoke-on-Trent insulate and heat their Victorian terraced homes so they could save much-needed money. I don’t think they particularly made it into a political cause. Then there are the small local private schools that have been forced to close because of the VAT policy, leaving special-needs children without suitable education and the state school system under serious pressure.
Perhaps more rigorous vetting is required before granting an organisation charitable status, but that status shouldn’t be abolished completely.
I’m sure you are right about lots of them doing good work. My issue is that I think it’s inevitable that the vetting process will become corrupted. In any case, my thoughts and your thoughts may differ from other people’s regarding what constitutes a good cause. An alternative is to treat them all as not-for-profit concerns which also attract some tax exemptions.
As soon as they become “political” and/or “activist” they should have their charitable status revoked, so the likes of RSPB, NT and many others should be put on notice, ditch your ideology or lose your status.
Who would decide whether something was “political” or “activist”? Who would appoint the body that decides this? To whom would this body be accountable? Whose definition of “political” or “activist” would be used?
I accept this is difficult to achieve, there is a charities commission, and this needs to be populated with non-partisan members, with no political bias, no conflicts of interest, and no political alliances. Several people on here might qualify!
The National Trust exists to preserve our national heritage and protect national and historical properties and artifacts – it does not exist to flaunt its Woke credentials, virtue signal and dismantle our history and heritage by de-colonising properties and artifacts.
If these organisations stray from their purpose, or “forget” why they exist (their mission) they should be issued with an order to either get their house in order or lose their charitable status and benefits.
I think it’s impossible to achieve. I certainly do not qualify – I am very partisan. Who appoints the charities commission?
Well done to Charlotte Gill for shining a light into the strange dark world of Quakerism. Her article inspired me to find out more about what Quakers actually believe, and it turns out that they are so extremely tolerant and welcoming that there are Muslim Quakers, Jewish Quakers, Hindu Quakers, Humanist Quakers and every other possible kind, though very few these days are Christian Quakers. They don’t like music or people singing hymns or praying aloud. You’re supposed to just keep silent and meditate, unless there’s a visiting imam giving a Muslim talk. Their main belief is in SOCIAL JUSTICE.
The Quaker ideas about sin and evil have shifted “from evil within the individual, to the Revealing of Social Evils”.
“Specific evils and sins named are personal pride, the vain use of resources and economic inequality (20.29), exploitative relationships (22.38), torture and slavery (23.31/30), homelessness and unjust land owners (23.23), unemployment (23.69), war (23.92; 24.04) armaments (24.40), and nuclear weapons (24.41).”
What does ‘Quaker Faith and Practice’ say about sin and evil? – Jolly Quaker
Well that’s a relief to know that when you become a Quaker, you don’t have to worry about repenting your own sins, or not committing adultery or any other sexual sin, but just focus on “SOCIAL JUSTICE”. You also won’t have to worry about Hell, because they don’t believe in Hell or any kind of just punishment for evil, though they also don’t believe in Heaven, so I guess you’ll be stuck in the grey mist of purgatory. But you’ll be stumbling round there with the other Lost Souls, happy to know you did your bit for SOCIAL JUSTICE on earth.
I used to go to some of their meetings in York. This was thirty years ago but I have to say that there was nothing pushy or bolshy about them then quite the contrary. We used to wait in quiet contemplation until the correct spirit had entered into us before saying anything. Any talking that ensued was conducted with great humility I remember being struck by that.
Bravo Charlotte Gill, following the money. I hope mainstream journalists start to pay attention to her investigations.
It’s a shame they can’t be bothered to look into human rights abuse in the UK