egafd.com

I?m fairly selective about what charities I give to. I won?t give to victims of natural disasters ----- famine, tsunamis and the like ----- they?ve always occurred, unfortunate but a fact of life. I do give to some of the ones that shouldn?t need it, the RNLI for instance. I?m sometimes an easy touch for beggars, usually when I?m on holiday and relaxed but when I?m working I?ll ignore them completely.
I get really annoyed with the crowd that knock on the door at supper time and expect me to cheerily run for my wallet whilst my supper grows cold.
Am I alone in being selective or am I just a miserable bastard?

I remember watching a news item several years ago where it showed the first plane load of supplies coming into to land, I think it was Somalia or somewhere like that. It showed the usual starving kids, mothers and babies all at deaths door. The next clip showed the supplies laid out on the market stalls for sale to anybody with money.
I think nowadays it's just commandeered by the most powerful warlord to feed his troops.
If I thought my money might actually help the needy, I might be more generous, but as it is now, I'll give them nothing.

!Cool!

When I was in the Kate I met a fellow corporal who had served on HMS Fearless. In those days REME provided electrical and mechanical support before the bootnecks were trained up to take over.
The first supplies into the new Bangladesh after a devastating hurricane were from HMS Fearless and my mucker told me that the supplies, food, tents, medical supplies etc were taken from the jetty where they were landed and placed into government warehouses. The fucking place was devastated yet the people the supplies were for went without.
As for charity, I donate to the Earl Haig Fund, (Poppy Day) and the RNLI. Oxfam and the like can go and fuck emselves. Over 90% of donations go to the administration of those charities.
My charitable donations through Freemasonry go directly to those who need it without paying some bastard to collect it.

[quote]I won?t give to victims of natural disasters ----- famine, tsunamis and the like ----- they?ve always occurred, unfortunate but a fact of life.[/quote]

Everyone's entitled to give their money to whomever they deem most worthy but I find the logic behind your decisions a little baffling. According to your logic, then, a lung cancer sufferer is more worthy of help than someone who's lost everything due to a natural disaster? After all, lung cancer hasn't always been a problem while tsunamis, earthquakes and volcano eruptions have.

If you really twisted my arm in choosing the most worthy then surely the tsunami victim had less influence over his/her plight than, say, someone who developed cancer due to their own doing.

[quote]Oxfam and the like can go and fuck emselves. Over 90% of donations go to the administration of those charities.[/quote]

Are you sure of this, Rodders? That seems an awful lot and I'm certain our media would have made more of this if they found out. Can you point us to any articles backing up your claim?

But a cancer charity doesn't pick and choose what patients they treat with the donated money, do they? So giving to a cancer charity will help a lot of people who didn't have the will to help themselves. I don't think this is the case with, say, the victims of hurricane Katrina or the earthquakes that rocked China and Pakistan in recent years.

I'd have thought that someone who proposes to have studied psychology would have the brain-power to work this out for himself, though, and I'm perplexed that I had to point it out to you, Keith.

L o L

My mother died of cancer so it's actually one of the charities I donate to.
I still wouldn't call cancer a natural disaster though, it also has always occurred.