Government service provider. Nearly 90% of the income for the NAS comes from the government. Almost all of it is ringfenced for individual people and used to pay for NAS run special schools for children who qualify for them or residential care services.
So are you saying they are 90 per cent funded by the government and also told by the government which few people they have to spend it on, whilst the same government refuses to support anyone else on the spectrum, particularly if physically over a certain age? Does that not make the NAS a mainly government run department?
So are you saying they are 90 per cent funded by the government and also told by the government which few people they have to spend it on, whilst the same government refuses to support anyone else on the spectrum, particularly if physically over a certain age? Does that not make the NAS a mainly government run department?
I’m not actually sure I would entrust a child to a specialist school anyway. How does that help them reach their true full potential? I guess that really is a separate issue, but am genuinely concerned for the young ones too.
Without technology we’d be in the dark ages. Without lawyers we’d all be a lot better off! So technically means ‘truthfully’ whilst legally means ‘through the loop hole.’ Is a quango a business that just makes a select few rich off the backs of others? Please excuse my ignorance. I am learning fast.
About 10 years ago government funded charities were often labelled (in a derogatory way) as fake charities but undeniably they are quangos.
IMO both the government and the executives of the charity are exploiting a loophole in the law. Government funded charities superficially have a charitable aim but in reality they are shadowy outposts of the public sector. Some government funded charities are engaged in activities that are potentially controversial or highly questionable use of public money.
