Who are they kidding?

James texted me in the week on the subject of NGOs, and whether they are "working for the forces of darkness," before technology failed him and he disappeared from the digital world almost completely.
By coincidence, the new Private Eye (1120, Nov 26)has a story illuminating just this issue:

"Why are children's organisations apparently so willing to cosy up to the modile phone companies?
The official advice from the UK's chief medical officers is still that if children and young people do use mobile phones, "they should be encouraged to use mobile phones for essential purposes only and keep all calls short".
That advice is based on findings of the Stewart report on mobile phones and health, and when it was first published the Mobile Operators Association pledged on behalf of its members that it would take a precautionary approach and review "marketing strategies and information literature" to stop targeting children.
However, the not-for-profit children's organisation Childnet International, which runs internet safety awareness campaigns, has just run the second Vodafone-sponsored Childnet Challenege, through which children in Belfast and Dublicn are encouraged to become...mobile phone pals and work together via phone technology on a project!
Meanwhile UK charity Save the Children has got into bed with the Norwegian mobile phone company Telenor, currently expanding across Europe, to start providing school visits that teach children all about mobile phone use. While the classes aim to give children the skills to avoid text messages from paedophiles, another message is clear: mobile phone companies are plugging their phones to youngsters and using kids' charities to do it."

And since I'm in the mood for copyright infringement, this is interesting too:

Financial Times (London, England)
November 27, 2004 Saturday
COMMENT & ANALYSIS; Pg. 13
Scaring voters is a high-risk strategy
By JEAN EAGLESHAM

Phoney fury or simply silly? The alliterative insults in this week's spat over claims that the public's fear of terrorism is being exploited for political gain bode ill for the quality of debate in the run-up to May's expected general election.

The furore over the government's claim that Britain is "safer under Labour" showed that the main parties have learnt the lessons from the US and Australian elections - and intend to apply them with brute political force.

There is a widespread Westminster belief that John Kerry lost the race for the White House because voters could not trust him to defend homeland security. Labour has lifted the twin Democrat election themes of opportunity and security for its own campaign. But it is determined not to repeat Mr Kerry's mistake of being outflanked on security.

The electoral link between bombs and votes was made explicit this week by David Blunkett. Voicing his party's concern that voters "turn to the far right, not the liberal left, when they are fearful", the home secretary said: "I don't pretend that I can win elections on improved security . . . butI could certainly lose it."

This calculation underscored Peter Hain's contentious claim that "Britain will be safer under Labour." The gaffe-prone leader of the Commons deserved flak for his characteristic lack of subtlety. To many, his claim translated simply as: "Vote for us or al-Qaeda will bomb you."

But Mr Hain has some justification for accusing his opponents of "phoney fury" in the outrage that greeted his remarks. The Tories' concerted attack coincided with the launch of their latest political party broadcast.

Portraying adults scared to leave their homes at night because of drunken yobs roaming the streets, the Conservative propaganda was a prime example of the "politics of fear".

In truth, most political messages boil down to an appeal to greed or fear, or both. Promises of tax cuts or higher spending are mixed with threats that the other parties will raise taxes or cut public services.

The most potent fear during much of the 1970s and 1980s was economic insecurity. Margaret Thatcher swept to power in 1979 on the back of "Labour isn't working" posters threatening mass unemployment. The "Labour's tax bombshell" campaign helped the Tories cling on to power in 1992.

But full employment and a fairly buoyant economy have robbed such threats of much of their potency. The main parties are now squaring up for an election battle where fears of terrorism, crime and immigration are central themes.

Much of this is politics as usual. But the parties run a risk in trying to ramp up concerns about yobs and terror in a country where the overall crime level is falling and there has yet to be a successful al-Qaeda attack. Trust in politicians is already at an all-time low in Britain. Election campaigns that stoke irrational fears can only fuel such scepticism.

The writer is an FT political correspondent