'Charities'

[festive]

Am i the only one that mumbles 'fck off' to most charities on the TV? For example now we have 'children with cancer' (i mean how can you trump that to tug on the purses of the 'non needy') 'please help children with cancer during this pandemic' .. then go on to show lots of children with cancer etc just to tug on those heart strings a bit more. Why not just use Cancer research or Marie Curie? Oh no because that's not for those children?

What about all the charities for starving homeless abroad etc etc.. each one starts with the sad piano and then abused starving dying long stares into the camera.

They then go on to claim they have no assistance from the government, how they are charities ie non profit organisation.

Lets for example take a look at 'non profit' Just Giving and Captain Tom Moore.

JustGiving was not able to give a final total of how much it had kept from the donations to Captain Tom to pay for operating costs, as the amount donated is still rising, but a spokesperson said it was fair to assume it was around 1% of the total donations. If Captain Tom’s fundraising total reaches £30 million, as it seems likely to do, this means JustGiving will keep around £300,000

That's just one charity 'thread' on Just Giving.

'none profit' or charity still are allowed to pay their employees and directors a salary and expenses.. hmmm. Whilst i know they must make a living still, there is a conflict of interest here for shareholders and directors.

 

[Ihavenojob]

Am i the only one that mumbles 'fck off

No

 

[crystal ball]

This makes for interesting reading

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CEO_compensation_among_charities_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

[Mottie]

Regardless of the amount, 1% of the take from a charity collection is a very small account. Tin rattlers that you see outside your supermarket can take as much as 25% of the collection. That doesn’t even take into consideration the operating cost of the charity. British heart foundation spends nearly 75p of every pound raised on costs alone.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Charities are big business.

 

[festive]

This makes for interesting reading

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CEO_compensation_among_charities_in_the_United_Kingdom

Indeed and this doesn't take into account their expenses plus all the other known unknown methods...

Was reading this report

https://assets.publishing.service.g...ttachment_data/file/422600/Fraud_strategy.pdf

"Financial crime and abuse in the charity sector The commission continues to see, and has to act on, serious problems arising in charities in relation to poor financial management and inadequate financial controls, accounting and record keeping. In 2010-11, out of 1,912 completed compliance assessment cases, the proportion involving serious concerns about fraud, theft and other significant financial and fundraising issues increased from 16% the previous year to 26%1 . 1 Figures for subsequent years can be found in the commission’s annual publication Tackling abuse and mismanagement Charity Commission strategy for dealing with fraud, financial crime and financial abuse of the charity sector 3 of 14 In relation to fraud, the National Fraud Authority (NFA) in its Annual Fraud Indicator Report 2012 estimated annual losses of £1.1 billion or 1.7% of annual charity income during 2010-11. The NFA’s 2011 report estimated annual losses of around £1.3 billion or 2.4% of annual charity income. The NFA also concluded that there is a substantial under-reporting of fraud by the charity sector.2"

 

[festive]

Regardless of the amount, 1% of the take from a charity collection is a very small account. Tin rattlers that you see outside your supermarket can take as much as 25% of the collection. That doesn’t even take into consideration the operating cost of the charity. British heart foundation spends nearly 75p of every pound raised on costs alone.

25% of 100quid is much less than 1% of 30million when it's split between a few shareholders via various routes of lets say 'cascading back-doors'.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

Am i the only one that mumbles 'fck off' to most charities on the TV? For example now we have 'children with cancer' (i mean how can you trump that to tug on the purses of the 'non needy') 'please help children with cancer during this pandemic' .. then go on to show lots of children with cancer etc just to tug on those heart strings a bit more. Why not just use Cancer research or Marie Curie? Oh no because that's not for those children?

No, you are not alone, my attitude to them is the same. They are massive businesses and pay their top people very good salaries. Their top people should work for the benefit of their charity, not to line their own pockets. I only help the small charities, run entirely by volunteers.

We had so many chuggers disturbing us at home, a few years ago I put a sign on my gate which said 'CHUGGERS NOT WELCOME'.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/04/secret-life-chugger-charity-fundraiser

 

[festive]

No, you are not alone, my attitude to them is the same. They are massive businesses and pay their top people very good salaries. Their top people should work for the benefit of their charity, not to line their own pockets. I only help the small charities, run entirely by volunteers.

We had so many chuggers disturbing us at home, a few years ago I put a sign on my gate which said 'CHUGGERS NOT WELCOME'.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/04/secret-life-chugger-charity-fundraiser

OK that's a new one on me 'chuggers' - had to google that for anyone else going 'uhh what's a chugger?':

'The person standing on the street corner with a sign or a damn annoying bell, and a sad story to tell. These people are unavoidable blocking paths and doorways or walking up to the open window of your car on a hot summer day. They make you feel like a bad person because there are starving children, ****ty schools, ****ty parents, and all these horrible things in the world. And you just ate a cheeseburger and bought your fourth cell phone this year.'

Luckily we don't get many actually any knocking here, but yes had that been the case i too would put a sign up. How do we stop them flooding the tv's how do they afford all the advertising? I wonder if they get 'preferential treatment' if they chose a particular agent to advertise through.... no surely not. Such a cynic.

 

[festive]

No

penny dropped i love your dryness..

 

[JP_]

All charities have overheads. I agree with this in part though, having known a person involved in a new charity which was not doing anything different from many others. Many charities pay big salaries to their board.

But, the wonderful thing about charity, is that people are free to give to what they want, whether its British homeless, starving Africans, endangered bumble bees or safe houses for domestic abuse victims. These charities are arguably better organised than a state operated system. But, some do feel that a state operated system would be better, including some funny Germans.

 

[fillyboy]

 

[Ihavenojob]

 

[pete50]

No you are not the only one. I don't give to any charities these days unless they are prepared to take a one off, small, cash donation. I even refused to donate to the Army Benevolent Fund because they wanted me to make a standing order rather than have a single donation and I am an ex squaddie. These charities that are asking for a monthly committment have shot themselves in the feet in my opinion. If I gave £3 pound a month to all the charities that ask for that I would soon be destitute myself consquently none of them get my money.

 

[Mottie]

OK that's a new one on me 'chuggers' - had to google that for anyone else going 'uhh what's a chugger?':

I call them chunts.