Well within the sector this is constantly debated. To what extent can one accept money from the state (be it central or local government) to provide statutory services without compromising your ability to be independant and critical of government. There are still lots of charities that are highly critical of government whilst also providing services funded by the state because they won the tender. On the other hand the example you have given is clearly an example of astroturfing, and the organisation concerned would be more honest in describing themselves as a quango.

But why limit this to charities?

What about private companies that do business with the state? Should they also be regarded as agents of the state?

Suppose, for example, I own a cleaning company and I win the contract to clean the council offices. The contract swiftly becomes 90% of my turnover. Does this mean I am now an agent of the state? The state is clearly in a position to have great influence over – say – my HR and recruitment policies…..

What about a pub strategically located next door to council offices? – clearly most of their trade will be employees of the state spending taxpayers money….

the question is really does taking money from the state mean you become part of the state?

!) Go to http://fakecharities.org/ and take your pick.

But for starters have a look at Alcohol Concern- less than £5K in public donations and over £500k from the Department of Health. Stated aims

“THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ALCOHOL POLICY; RAISING ALCOHOL AWARENESS; PROVIDING QUALITY INFORMATION ON ALCOHOL AND ALCOHOL-RELATED HARM; DEVELOPING THE KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS OF PRACTITIONERS AND OPERATING A SPECIALIST CONSULTANCY SERVICE; AND DELIVERING PROJECTS THAT BUILD THE CAPACITY OF THE SECTOR.”

That translates as lobbying and scare mongering.

2) I have no idea, but I doubt they will improve matters. For ironic effect, they’ll probably fund the TPA.

In my view, charities should have two characteristics.

Their aim should be to be helpful and the objective should be capable of scrutiny by the Charities Commission.

They should be funded exclusively by voluntary donations. Once they accept public funds, they become, to a greater or lesser extent, agents of the state.

1. What is your evidence that Government Departments set up “fake charities”? You know, to actually go out and discover individuals who wish to grasp the crown coin?

2. What criteria would a future Conservative or UKIP government apply to the worthiness of charities? Would government prefer to remain ignorant rather than to deny funding on the basis of politics?

Furthermore, said article has only one actual accusation: that northern businessmen (presumably not owners of satanic mills) paid money to PERT to undertake research favourable to them. But PERT’s stated role, noted in the report, is to fund research.

Other evidence for PERT’s political status is that it has political trustees. Wow. I’m convinced. No way on earth could these trustees simply support the expansion of knowledge with a slant towards their own political position, which is allowed under the rules.

Maybe I should introduce the staff of the Guardian to the rock group Snunkananse, and in particular their best refrain: ‘Of course it’s f***ing political, everything’s political’. PERT certainly is, as are most charities by nature of their missions. But if John Prescott talking to the Guardian and people paying a charity money to do what the charity says it will do with money is the only evidence of misconduct, then I doubt there is anything wrong here.

Bluntly, the only way this is a story is if the currently unidentified recipients of grants turn out not to be doing the research commissioned and pocketting the money for political purposes. Even if the TPA is commissioned to do the work, it is within the rules so long as the work is to expand knowledge.

Protest to much, much?

[insert 'tongue out' emoticon here - I know how arsey-prolix you're apt to get, but I don't have the time to play today]

The letter from John Prescott is a crock. It doesn’t even contain any allegations that would put PERT in breach of its charitable obligations were they proved to be true.

As I said above, if the TPA were a charity, I think they’d be sailing pretty close to the wind on the ‘political purpose’ front. But I don’t think they are a charity, and thus their political affiliations aren’t relevant here. PERT looks as though it’s been set up specifically as a way of carrying out non-contentious research. As such, it’s charitable.

Not having heard of PERT before today, I didn’t have a pre-conceived opinion. I just clearly know substantially more about Charity Law than a man who has been a legislator for over two decades.

Because I don’t think there’s anything to complain about: none of them are breaking the law as far as I can see.

The only thin I might complain about is the people screaming “Look, look, those nasty righties!” while their own allies get on with exactly the same behaviour every day.

Yes. Indeed I think it’s far, far worse.

Charity law needs a good look at but at least the TPA are privately funded.

Is it not worse that Government Departments set up and fund various fake charities to lobby them to implement policy changes (with which I may disagree) and they give them some of my money to do so?

The MIC donates substantial amounts of money to the TPA, which is not a charity, for research and analysis into politically contentious areas. On one occasion, the MIC were after research and analysis in a non-contentious area. The TPA advised them that in this case, the funds should be directed to their charitable arm. As I said above, that’s good practice.

And that’s basically it. The TPA are right-wing so it’s impossible that they could have a charitable arm without breaching Charities Law. Not much of a story I’m afraid.

Why not lodge a complaint then if you think there’s something to complain about Tim?

“Do you think that the impression of hypocrisy is lessened ”

I’m well aware of the “impression” of hypocrisy. That, I’m sure, is why the iriginal article at The Guardian was written. I’m very much less aware of the actuality of hypocrisy. As is said up thread, just about every think tank and campaigning group in the country uses the same structure.

“rank hypocrisy in the TPA making demands about how taxes are procured and spent, whilst seeking to avoid paying them altogether.”

Not sure you’ve quite grasped how this carity and tax thing works. The tax relief isn’t on the charity itself. It’s on donations to it.

I’m aware of how it works. Do you think that the impression of hypocrisy is lessened by the fact that the text exemption is on the donations flooding in from wealthy Tory donors, rather than on the body itself? You also appear to have forgotten that one of the directors of the TPA is not resident in the UK for tax…

Tim J is right: that’s the Smith Institute you’re talking about, not the Adam Smith Institute. Two entirely different organisations.

Well not long ago the TPA and right wing were doing similar with a left wing group – can’t remember who.

This can be explained by game theory – prisoners dilemna stuff. There are political organisations that are set up as charities linked to all the different political viewpoints. Ideally if nobody mentions their suspect charitable status they all gain from this, and if they all mention it everyone loses by the loss of charitable status that follows.

However if one wing mentions the other’s abuse of charity status without their own being found out then that wing gains from the other looking dodgy – so the incentive is to mention it – everyone mentions it and they all lose.

And that sounded a lot clearer in my head before I wrote it (office xmas lunch today).