Charities

[mrmcfister]

The problem with this world is that there is so much,plague,famine,pestilence,greed and stupidity.However there are many decent,kind hard working people too.I think those more fortunate should take some sort of responsibility for the crap in the world.Morally it is right.

I do get angry when I see people rich beyond their needs failing to give a bit up.Richard Branson for one,is fabulously wealthy but doesn't give a lot away.(Read this in the Sunday Times Rich List a few yers back,may hve changed now).Bill Gates though,despite his faults is someone who gives away more than his fair share.

All those billionaires in the world could do a lot to make the world a much better place.

[welkram]

Like you I will not give to 'door knocking charities' nor will I put out clothes for collection - any that I get go to local charity shops.

However, what I do support is the ROTARY clubs my area by putting on and supporting events. Most if not all the money that is collected by them goes direct to the country/disaster area and is generally administered or the distribution is overseen by Rotarians from that area or as close to that area, and yes there are Rotary clubs in India, Pakistan, Iran and all across the underdeveloped and volatile regions of the world.

You may not be aware of it but ROTARY is the second largest NGO charity organisation in the world, and you may be even more surprised to hear that the largest is the LIONS.

Just one last plug for them, ROTARY are currently raising $100 million (which will be matched by the Bill Gates Microsoft Foundation) to finally eliminate Polio in the last few holdout area's.

Next time you see some older guys at your local Tesco etc collecting for ROTARY drop in a quid or two.

[Deano!]

For a start, charities that have a minimum donation amount of say $25 immediately look suspicious.

Giving money to 'medical research' often gets wasted on pointless overseas travel and 3000 dollar coffee machines - I know because I work in medical research and have seen it happen! One of the best ways around this is for charitable organisations or individuals is to buy specific pieces of equipment. The money is paid direct to the supplier and the machine gets delivered to the research lab.

I guess this is similar to beggars who want money for food, but don't want you to actually buy them any food. They only accept money. And we can guess what it's spent on.

[Sam Slater]

[quote]I think people with cancer will tend to approach the NHS. A charity isn't going to help them, a cancer charity will put money into research not individual treatment.[/quote]

So what are you saying? It's still a charity dedicated to helping a proportion of people that have more influence over their plight than, say, a hurricane victim. It hardly changes the point I made.

[quote]Your repost about psychology shows you haven't a clue about the subject, stop pretending to know what you don't know such as confusing the number the 9 with the number 10.[/quote]

Now, now, Keith, merely mentioning the word psychology is hardly a post 'about psychology' now is it? And if I'm 'pretending to know what I don't know' about the subject then please show me where because I must have missed it. As for numbering, I, if you'll allow me to use a youthful phrase, 'owned you' regarding numbering. I wouldn't bring it up again if I was you.

[SexDwarf]

" Oxfam and the like can go and fuck emselves. Over 90% of donations go to the administration of those charities. "

No they dont.

Bigger, well run charities only employ people when it is proven the increased professionalism eg a shop manager would bring would more than pay for itself in terms of raising more money.

Some money is spent centrally on advertising and local branches have the usual costs of rent, rates, utilty bills, and bizarrely inconsistent VAT rates on services, petrol and stock . This is not the charities choice it is other people poncing of them . If people understood this generally I think they would be pretty annoyed with big companies and governments who like to gain money through the day in day out practices of charities only to grand stand by giving a small amount back in various publicity exercises. Even so the sum total of these costs comes nowhere near 90%.

If someone is going to spend their time trying to achieve the goals of somewhere like oxfam or cancer research they will still need to survive to pay the mortage etc. Why should we only allow our money to go towards supporting people in the "private or public sector" whose work often furthers what has become a fairly nasty and narcissorsistic consumer culture or the goals of a hated dead duck government?

As I have been saying to anyone who will listen to me for years, with interest in the national lottery wayning the real answer is for western governments to institutionalize a celebrity sex lottery. Where-by people gain the chance to sleep with their favourite celebrity / adult film star if they have the winning ticket. Not only would it give a whole new meaning to the term "its a roll over" for the chance to bum carol vorderman or get a tittywank from sarah beeny I would buy enough tickets to feed the whole of Africa

[Sam Slater]

[quote]You know NOTHING about psychology as a subject because you wouldn't be pulling the 'If-you-knew-anything-about-psy...' line if you did quite honestly.[/quote]

But did I pull that line, Keith? What I actually said was: "I'd have thought that someone who proposes to have studied psychology would have the brain-power to work this out for himself,..." That's not questioning what you know about psychology, just your failure to comprehend my points (a person who spends his time studying theory of mind would do). And anyway, if I had used that line it wouldn't mean I know 'NOTHING' about psychology. Tbh I don't think a trained psychologist would need to capitalise the word 'nothing' to undermine another's education on something. But what do I know, eh? I know 'NOTHING' of it! L o L

Still, I believe you about knowing where the cheapest drinking haunts are, so that's something.

Oh, *cough* I'm wide awake now and realise I used 'proposes' in the place of 'professes'.