|
|
By  David Craig, on December 8th, 2014 You might be aware that there is a 2-week Global Warming (or Climate Change or whatever it’s called this year) jamboree going on in Lima (Peru) in preparation for another junket in Paris next year. The aim of the Paris knees-up will be to push through a “Universal Climate Treaty” with two main parts:
1. A plan to reduce CO2 emissions and the use of fossil fuels which will lead to massive increases in energy costs in the developed countries and the loss of hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs
2. An agreement to transfer tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars from the developed countries into the already bulging bank accounts of the kleptocrats running some of the world’s most corrupt and thus poorest hell-holes supposedly to help them fight ‘runaway Global Warming’.
Apparently there are about 9,000 delegates at the Peru conference. With only 198 countries in the world that makes around 45 delegates per country! Assuming each delegate is costing at least £1,000 in flights, hotels and meals (I suspect the real cost of these junketers is higher) then this 2-week beanfeast is costing over £9,000,000.
Luckily for the Greenies attending this fiesta, very few people have actually read and analysed what’s in the latest ‘we’re all going to die’ scaremongering report from the totally discredited Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
If anyone did actually read the IPCC report, deep within the small print they’d find this:
Box 9.2: Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global-Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years
The observed global-mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years (Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.20, Table 2.7; Figure 9.8; Box 9.2 Box 9.2 Figure 1a,c). Depending on the observational data set, the GMST trend over 1998–2012 is estimated to be around one-third to one-half of the trend over 1951–2012 (Section 2.4.3, Table 2.7; Box 9.2 Figure 1a,c). For example, in HadCRUT4 the trend is 0.04 ºC per decade over 1998–2012, compared to 0.11 ºC per decade over 1951–2012. The reduction in observed GMST trend is most marked in Northern- Hemisphere winter (Section 2.4.3, (Cohen et al., 2012)).
Let me translate. At the current rate of warming from 1998 to 2012 – 0.04 ºC per decade – it would take 100 years for the earth to warm up by 0.4 ºC. Or, if we take the rate of warming from 1951 to 2012 – 0.11 ºC per decade – the earth would only warm up by 1.1 ºC over the next 100 years
These are their figures. So it should be – panic over.
I suspect you won’t find the BBC’s supposed ‘science correspondent’ – the (IMHO) warmophiliac David Shuckman – talking too much about these figures as they don’t quite fit in with the BBC’s quasi-religious belief in the ludicrous myth of Man-Made Global Warming. In fact, this little gem seems to have been missed by all the mainstream media. Nor will any of our political leaders, apart from perhaps someone like Owen Patterson, dare stand up to the Anthropogenic Global Warming bandwagon.
So, in spite of the scientific evidence produced by the IPCC itself showing that global warming is actually almost negligible, we can expect the Peru and then Paris jamborees to result in an agreement to cripple the economies of the world’s developed countries and pour hundreds of billions into the waiting pockets of some of the most corrupt rulers in the world.
And there’s one other thing you can be sure of – our ludicrous balding buffoon, Energy Secretary Ed Davey, will be leading the charge when it comes to deciding how much of our money to throw at the world’s biggest thieves.
You couldn’t make it up!
(I hope some readers find this blog informative and useful. If so, it would be nice if a few more of you would support this website by buying copies of my books. And remember, although my latest book THE GREAT CHARITY SCANDAL is only available as an ebook, you can download a free app from Amazon here https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/feature.html?docId=1000425503 to read the book on any device – computer, tablet or phone)
By David Craig, on December 7th, 2014 Our Isl*mophiliac media and rulers keep telling us that, if only Israel wasn’t so nasty to the peace-loving Palestinians, then there would be joy and happiness and everlasting peace in the Middle East.
But here’s the Hamas covenant which explicitly calls for Israel’s destruction and does not distinguish between Israelis and Jews:
Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious… It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine… It is one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders…
The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: “The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say, ‘O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him'”…. There is no solution for the Palestine question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. Palestine is an Islamic land.
Regrettably, this is why “solving the conflict with the Palestinians,” or even recognizing a Palestinian State, will not bring peace and tranquility to the Middle East.
But our *sl*mic friends don’t just want to wipe Israel from the face of the earth. They have bolder ambitions. Here’s a map the *sl*mic State uses to plan its expansion (click to see more clearly)
Ooops, that’s something neither the BBC nor that nice, honest Mr Cameron ever mentioned.
A few weeks ago, we were being told how Britain’s glorious Royal Air Force – actually three clapped-out, ageing Tornados which should have been scrapped years ago – were really socking it to ISIS. But recently things have gone a bit quiet. Does that mean we’ve routed ISIS? Or does it mean that ISIS and its affiliates are actually winning in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Mali, Libya, Somalia, Nigeria and probably a few other countries.
Moreover, Lebanon looks like being the next domino to fall to ISIS. And after that, what do you reckon? Tunisia? Morocco? Algeria? Maybe even Egypt?
I have a feeling that we’re getting dragged into a long and unremitting religious war. There’s an old Arab adage “A man who gains his revenge after 40 years is acting in haste.”
And I have a feeling that we’re losing.
By David Craig, on December 6th, 2014 I just came across something called Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy. Apologies if you already knew about it.
This Law states that in any bureaucratic organisation there will be two main kinds of people:
1. First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organisation. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers, many of the engineers, launch technicians and scientists at NASA, some doctors and nurses in the NHS, many charity workers, a few (very few) BBC reporters, front-line soldiers in Afghanistan and so on.
2. Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organisation itself and more specifically to their own careers, self-importance and well-being in that organisation. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many teachers’ union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, most of the NHS’s 40,000 overpaid, over-pensioned managers, council bosses increasing their own salaries and allowances while firing lower-level staff, the almost 100 BBC managers who earn more than the Prime Minister, the military bosses who looked after their own careers and got their peerages while knowingly and cynically sending our troops without proper equipment to be slaughtered in Afghanistan, thousands of over-paid, over-pensioned charity bosses and 99% of our lying, cheating expenses-thieving MPs and Peers.
The Iron Law states that in every case the second group – those dedicated to promoting their organisation’s growth and power and also advancing their own lousy careers within the organisation – will gain and keep control of the organisation. This second group will thus write the rules, control the strategy and decide promotions within the organisation favouring those like themselves to the detriment of those genuinely trying to provide a front-line service.
This is why most bureaucratic and public-sector organisations will continue to grow their scope, size, expenditure and salaries and perks of their managers and free-riders while their level of service declines and regardless of the need, if any, for their services
We can see this in almost every aspect of our bloated, useless, wasteful public sector.
– Our MPs and Peers continue to increase their own salaries, expenses and number of support staff in spite of handing over ever more power to the regional assemblies and the corrupt, undemocratic EUSSR.
– We were promised a ‘bonfire of the quangos’ – in fact their numbers and budgets have been shooting up even during supposed ‘austerity’. For example, Ofwat, the utterly impotent regulator for the water industry increased its spending on itself from £11.5m in 2006-07 (just before the financial crash) to £17.4m by 2010-11. Ofgem, the completely supine supposed regulator for the energy industry, doubled its spending on itself from £38.8m in 2006-07 to £78.7m by 2010-11
– And in our ostensibly cash-strapped NHS, we had 200,000 hospital beds and 25,000 managers in 1997 (8 beds per manager) when New Labour first came to power. By the time of the 2010 election there were less around 140,000 hospital beds and over 40,000 managers (3.5 beds per manager)
So, is it any wonder our national debt keeps rising while our public services fall apart supposedly through ‘lack of money’ even though the amounts of our money they spend on themselves is forever increasing?
By David Craig, on December 5th, 2014 Christmas is the time of year for a tsunami of charity appeals by our bloated, self-serving charities with their over-paid, over-pensioned bosses. One cause they repeatedly ask us to donate to is helping poor refugees. This year it’s Syria:
And, every year for the last 50 years, it’s also been Africa:
But what are refugees? Victims? Or people who are so stupid, corrupt and intolerant that they have wrecked their own countries, most of which would be rich and peaceful if it wasn’t for the corruption, bigotry and pig-ignorance of their people?
And, of course, there will be huge pressure on our Government to allow thousands upon thousands of refugees and supposed asylum seekers to come to Britain.
But what happens when they come here? Are they grateful to us? Do they ever thank us? Or do they forever claim we discriminate against them as we fill their pockets with benefits? And do they hate us and try to impose their rather unbritish ways on us?
And then do they try to kill us, either in Britain?
Or by joining those who seek to destroy us?
In 10 to 20 years, historians will look back in amazement at how one of the most tolerant, prosperous and peaceful countries in the world committed cultural, religious, economic and social suicide by allowing itself to be swamped by hordes of people who loathed everything that country represented.
By David Craig, on December 4th, 2014 The politically correct are quick to pounce on anybody who dares suggest that immigration is catastrophically out of control. And anyone who claims that their town is ‘swamped’ by immigrants is immediately called a ‘bigot’ and a ‘waaaaccciiiissstttt’ and browbeaten into making a grovelling apology.
So, here are just a few words we’re not allowed to use when talking about immigration – ‘a flood’, ‘a deluge’, ‘a tsunami of immigrants’. As I see ever more Somalis and Darth Vader lookalikes crowding every town I visit, I can’t see how anyone can suggest that the current levels of immigration are sustainable. After all, around 43,6000 new National Insurance numbers are issued to immigrants every single month entitling them to huge amounts in benefits even if some of them actually do bother getting jobs.
I normally try to produce my own charts for this blog. But this picture from the Daily Mail was so clear about the effects of uncontrolled immigration, that I thought it worth reproducing here (click to see more clearly, then if you click again it should enlarge it enabling it to be read more easily)
It shows the number of people in the main counties that were born abroad (orange), the percentage of the population born abroad (blue) and the rise since 2004 in the number of people born abroad (green).
In Greater London an incredible 36% of the population are immigrants. For Bedfordshire it’s 31% and for Berkshire it’s 27%. But this is only those who were born abroad. If you then add in the children who were born in Britain to immigrant families, who knows how high the level of newcomers really is? Certainly over half of London’s, Bedfordshire’s and Berkshire’s population would be direct immigrants or first-generation children of immigrants.
So I believe we’re more than entitled to talk about ‘a flood’, ‘a deluge’, ‘a tsunami of immigrants’ or our towns being ‘swamped by immigrants’ even if the politically-correct try to crush anyone daring to question their bright new future of Britain as an overcrowded, concreted-over, crime-ridden, squalid, multi-cultural, Third-World region of an economically-sick, declining European empire run by a bunch of corrupt, wasteful, self-serving, champagne-quaffing bureaucrats in Brussels.
By David Craig, on December 3rd, 2014 In 2007, I ghost-wrote and published at my own cost a truly amazing (in my humble opinion) book called WHO CARES? It tells the story of Midland housewife Amanda Steane’s husband Paul.
Paul Steane went into hospital for minor surgery. After repeated mistakes and neglect by inexperienced doctors and over-worked nurses in filthy wards, Paul emerged a helpless invalid. In constant pain and unable to walk, communicate or breathe properly, he took his own life to spare his family the burden of looking after him.
Hospital management tried to avoid responsibility by claiming that key parts of Paul’s medical records were ‘lost’. But a nurse, outraged at how Paul was treated, sent Amanda copies of the ‘lost’ medical records. These showed that hospital managers were probably lying and the police started to investigate.
(It’s a great story and would make a wonderful Christmas present)
In the years since the book’s publication, Amanda has been invited to give talks to over 10,000 nurses in several countries. But I have totally failed in interesting an organisation/charity – The Patients’ Association – in Amanda’s story and in the help she could provide them. Every time I contacted The Patients’ Association, I was fobbed off. It was as if they were behaving like overly pious, holier-than-thou would-be saints desperate to protect their territory from any outsider intruding on their chosen stamping ground.
When researching my latest book THE GREAT CHARITY SCANDAL I found the people I talked to at our larger charities arrogant, self-important, sneeringly morally superior and very self-defensive. Oxfam were the worst.
Recently our flame-haired prince of passion, Prince Harry, was asked what he had learnt from running one of his charities. One answer he gave was that he had found that many people were only in the charity business to boost their own egos.
A couple of days ago, I was contacted by the founder of a small charity (£180,000 a year) dealing with a condition affecting older people. Her experience was that the major charity in that area (turnover £70m a year) saw her charity as a threat to their dominance of that sector. I’ll let her explain:
“My particular nemesis is (name of a major charity) which is about as bloated and wasteful as they come. You should see all the expensive and extraneous merchandise they give away at conferences. We’re so mean that there has to be a good reason for us not to charge for a wristband.”
“At the big national dementia conference in Brighton the other week I learned from Prof ……….., who is an eminence gris of geriatric psychiatry, that (name of the major charity) is now totally corporate with no volunteers in any position of responsibility.”
“They have always been hostile to us. The previous CEO actually once referred to me as “the enemy” . Shortly after I started our charity, they changed their tag line to “leading the fight against dementia”. They were given the secretariat of the Parliamentary Working Group on Dementia and refused to allow us a place as a stakeholder. I don’t know how they can possibly feel threatened by us.”
So, beware the holy, the pious, the morally superior, the judgemental, the self-righteous. Often they’re just greedy, self-serving, egotistical cowards hiding behind their cloak of feigned altruism in order to boost their own careers, social standing and sense of self-importance.
By David Craig, on December 2nd, 2014 So, the great Gordon Brown is standing down at the 2015 General Election. We’re told this is because he wants to concentrate on his role as a UN representative for education and not because he’s afraid he’ll lose his seat to the SNP.
And as this supposed colossus retires to spend the millions he’s amassed at our expense, droves of politicians are being interviewed by obsequious TV journalists about what a towering political giant Brown was. Our rulers and their media sycophants seem to have short memories.
When I returned to the UK in 2006, everyone was blethering on about Brown being the ‘Iron Chancellor’, the tough Scot who wouldn’t waste a penny of taxpayers’money. So I wrote SQUANDERED How Gordon Brown is Wasting Over One Trillion Pounds of our Money to expose the lies and deceit used by Brown and his acolytes Ed Balls and Ed Miliband as they drove Britain into bankruptcy. I can’t condense 65,000 words into just 500, but here are just a few of Brown’s catastrophic decisions:
1. Overspending Although tax revenues were rising every year from 1997 to the 2008 crash, Brown spent more every year than was collected in tax
So, when the crash came and tax revenues collapsed our national debt doubled from £350bn to over £700bn
2. NHS Idiot Brown more than doubled NHS spending from £45bn to over £100bn. Yet when New Labour came to power in 1997, we had 200,000 hospital beds and 25,000 managers (8 beds per manager). By 2008, we had 140,000 hospital beds and 43,000 managers (3 beds per manager). And, of course, managers’ salaries more than doubled. We also have around £300bn in overpriced PFI contracts that are now bankrupting many hospitals. And doctors were given massive pay increases while getting new contracts that meant they no longer had to do home visits
3. Educational disaster Brown increased spending on education from £38bn a year in 1997 to £73bn by 2008, yet during that time Britain constantly fell further down in the PISA educational rankings. Plus, let’s not forget the £45bn PFI Building Schools for the Future programme that we’ll be paying back for the next 20 years or so
4.Giving away our gold Hopefully everybody remembers how Brown sold off much of our gold when gold was at the lowest it had been for hundreds of years. Moreover, when other central banks want to sell gold, they do it surreptitiously through agents so as not to collapse the gold price and enrich speculators. Idiot Brown announced his sales in advance and the gold price fell to what those in gold trading call “the Brown Bottom” losing us billions but making those buying our gold at knock-down prices very rich indeed
5. Hiding real unemployment by allowing hundreds of thousands of healthy people to claim disability benefits
6. Massively increasing our taxes
7. Destroying one of the best private pension schemes in the world
8. Squeezing military spending so that many of the 453 who died in Afghanistan did so unnecessarily because there weren’t sufficient helicopters and there were almost no armoured vehicles to protect them from IEDs
A colossus? No, an incompetent, economically-ignorant, financially-incontinent bully and buffoon who should be reviled for the massive damage he did to our country.
By David Craig, on December 1st, 2014 I hate to be forever the doom merchant bringing bad news. But when much of the mainstream media fawns over every false promise and statistical manipulation made by our lying leaders, someone has to point out when we’re being conned. After all, just this weekend the Torygraph was full of articles praising Osborne’s ‘economic genius’.
Last week we had Cast-Iron Dave’s almost laughable effort on immigration. This week it’s George “Gordon-Brown” Osborne’s Autumn Statement telling us how we’re emerging from the gloom of Labour financial catastrophe onto the bright uplands of Coalition economic success. But it will all be distortion of the truth. Here are just three tricks to look out for
1. “The British economy is the fastest growing in Europe”. True. But Eurozone countries are only allowed to borrow up to 3% of GDP. Britain is borrowing 6% (£100bn) of GDP. Our supposed growth is about 2.7% of GDP – that’s £46bn. So our growth is really just our financially-incontinent rulers borrowing money and spending it on our bloated public sector and on benefits (largely for immigrants)
2. “Britain is creating more jobs than any other European country”. True. But most of these jobs are going to immigrants and most of them pay so little that British taxpayers are having to throw the horribly misnamed ‘tax credits’ (actually benefits) at all these immigrants on low-wage jobs. Here’s a chart I dug up from deep within the bowels of the Office for National Statistics (click to see more clearly)
It shows that the amount we pay in tax credits (benefits) has shot up in ten years from £16.4bn to £30bn a year. So, we are borrowing this £30bn each year to give to claimants (mostly immigrants) in low-paid jobs. With 5.7 million people getting these credits, that’s about £5,263 per claimant. Then if you add in say one million British people whose jobs have been taken by immigrants and who are getting say £10,000 a year in benefits and housing, then that’s at least another £10bn we’re paying. Oooohh look, our supposed ‘economic growth’ may actually just be our rulers borrowing over £40bn to give out in tax credits to immigrants and benefits to Brits whose jobs have been taken by immigrants.
3. We are becoming wealthier. True that our GDP is rising But as so many people are flooding into the country, we are all getting on average much poorer as the GDP per capita has collapsed (click to see more clearly)
And our debt per capita has shot up (click to see more clearly)
We’re not becoming wealthier, we’re just becoming ever deeper in debt.
Then when you consider that around 580,000 people per year are swarming into our country, our quality of life is deteriorating. Our schools are overcrowded, our roads are gridlocked, the NHS is collapsing under the strain, crime is rocketing and homes and rents are becoming unaffordable.
These are the real ‘bright uplands’ of the Coalition’s economic achievements!
(I’ll try to find something more cheerful for tomorrow)
By David Craig, on November 30th, 2014 Phew! Now we’ve had the much-heralded Dave “Cast-Iron” Cameron’s great speech on immigration. Dave was so sincere, like I mean really really sincere, that it almost brought tears to my eyes. Oh Dave, you pressed all the right buttons. Not.
But then Dave really is the ‘heir to Blair’ – a congenital, recidivist liar who would say anything to anyone just to squeeze out a few votes.
Podgy, balding Cast-Iron Dave has made many promises over the last few years. There was the cast-iron promise of a referendum on the EU. Here’s 1 minute 12 seconds of Cast-Iron promising us a referendum on the EU in 2009 just before the EU elections https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQ2n7oMcSi0 This was immediately abandoned until UKIP’s successes forced Cast-Iron to reinvent an imaginary referendum conveniently far out in the future.
Dave promised to reduce immigration. Now even immigration from the world’s worst (mostly M*sl*m) hell-holes, which Dave could have controlled, is higher than when he came to power.
In fact, Dave so likes making promises, that his 2010 election manifesto was puffed as a ‘contract’ (click to see more clearly)
Dave, your promises are about as ‘cast-iron’ as candy floss. Nobody believes you any more. You’re almost as much of a joke as Clegg or Miliband. That’s because you all resemble each other – spoilt, self-regarding, arrogant, self-serving, elitist brats who nobody can respect as you have never had a proper job in your gilded lives. Instead you’ve all relied on your connections, your glad-handing and your obsequious, sycophantic brown-nosing to get to where you are.
Still, I’m really looking forward to all the ‘cast-iron’, ‘rock-hard’ promises you’ll be making in the run-up to the May 2015 General Election. They should be good for a laugh.
By David Craig, on November 29th, 2014 After yesterday’s slightly graphic blog, I thought I’d lighten up today and blow my own trumpet by posting a review of my latest book THE GREAT CHARITY SCANDAL which appeared in MoneyWeek magazine.
Remember, although THE GREAT CHARITY SCANDAL is only available as an ‘ebook’, you can go here https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/feature.html?docId=1000425503 and download the ‘Kindle reading app’ free of charge onto any device – computer, PC, laptop, smartphone or whatever. Also, the book is quite short – 28,000 words compared to 65,000 words for a normal paperback, so it’s quite a quick read.
Anyway, here’s the MoneyWeek review.
Our charities aren’t working
There isn’t that long to go until Christmas. That means I’m already getting buried in a pile of invitations to charity shopping mornings. I love these. I love almost everything to do with Christmas. I love all the handmade crafty stuff and the luxury stuff that you buy at these events. And I love the social aspect of shopping among a group of friends.
But there’s one aspect of the whole thing I am not so sure about – the charitable aspect.
Many people will have seen stories in the press about salaries at the larger charities. Jasmine Whitbread, the chief executive of Save the Children, appears to be being paid £234,000 a year. And she is only one of 20 employees at the charity making more than £100,000 year. This isn’t unusual. The head of Marie Stopes International gets £290,000, for example.
You might think this is perfectly reasonable – after all, charities need talent as much as big companies, and talent costs money. But I wonder how much else you know about the charities sector as a whole. I suspect everyone should read a new book from David Craig: The Great Charity Scandal. It is not, as he is at pains to point out, an attack on charity itself (this is definitely a good thing). It is an attack on the UK’s charitable system which has allowed not far off 200,000 charities employing more than a million people and spending some £80bn every year.
What are the main charges against them?
First, massive duplication and inefficiency. What’s the point in having Breakthrough Breast Cancer, Breast Cancer Care and the Breast Cancer Campaign if they all have to prepare their own accounts and have their own very expensive bureaucracies? Why aren’t they forced to merge? And why are there at least four charities (and possibly more – I got bored of looking them up) devoted to red squirrels?
Second, the fact that so little of what they raise goes towards actual charitable expenses. I know of some charities who spend more keeping their final salary pension schemes (these are still bizarrely common in charity land) on the road than on their advertised activities. The pay problem is becoming increasingly common, too.
And third, what we think of as charitable activities are not the same as what many charities think of as charitable activities. Far too many of our big charities spend significant percentages of the cash we give them on political campaigning – think Oxfam (which spent more than £20m on this last year), the RSPCA and the RSPB – rather than helping the poor and sick (which, surely, is the point?).
None of this would particularly matter if the charitable sector was funded entirely by the post-tax income of private individuals. But it isn’t. According to Craig, 27,000 British charities are reliant on the government for three-quarters of their income.
And all charities are reliant on the taxpayer one way or another. We (and the EU) give them direct subsidies (£137m to Save the Children last year, says Craig). We give them tax relief on all their income from donations and investment returns, and capital gains tax relief too. And of course, we give them Gift Aid.
I’ve written about this before but every time you tick the Gift Aid box, the Treasury has to dig deep to reallocate tax (to the tune of around £1bn a year) already paid into its coffers to your favoured charity: at the margin, the money flows out of the hands of our struggling NHS.
Worse, the state has no control over the activities of these tax-revenue receiving organisations: they get our money and can do more or less what they like with it.
The key point is this: there are too many charities being at least part financed by the state which are not and should not be on the taxpayer’s priority list. We need to pay for the basics of good government before we pay for anything else.
So if we must have tax relief for charities at all (and I am not sure we should) it is, as I said last year, time to distinguish between what is a charity that fits into the brief of the state and is hence a tax-revenue deserving charity, and what is not.
Soup kitchens? Yes. Cancer research? Mostly. Macmillan Cancer Support? Yup. Literary festivals? No. Opera? No. Theatre? No.
You get the idea. If you are in any doubt, read Craig’s book.
|
|
