Charities...what's it all about. (Alfie)

[wolfy 12]

I'd like to know what peoples views are on this because to me, most charities are basically designed to fill the pockets of the well off whilst the cause receives an absolute pittance paid out compared to what's taken in.

 

Now my understanding was, that charity is exactly that...'charity', meaning people give up their time and money to aid a cause, so that cause receives the maximum benefit, yet it's just not the case is it.

 

Most of the money is swallowed up by greed with the top bosses raking in over 100 grand a year, plus people going round doors getting 6 or 7 quid an hour to collect in money, plus admin and the rest of it.

 

Now I can understand there has to be a certain kitty for expenses, yet it's not expenses only is it, it's expenses plus a proper wage, yet these are supposed to be charities.

 

What's everyone's thoughts on this?

[Monroe Transfer 0]

Do you never go down the pub to discuss these pub topics?

[Sonatine 11174]

A mate of mine volunteered at a charity shop for a bit when he was out of work, and he said the charity itself only got about 15p in the pound from all the profit they made. The rest went to the company that ran the chain of shops. Makes you wonder....

[wolfy 12]

Do you never go down the pub to discuss these pub topics?

I go to the pub but I don't go to discuss topics like this, I leave that for forums.

[wolfy 12]

A mate of mine volunteered at a charity shop for a bit when he was out of work, and he said the charity itself only got about 15p in the pound from all the profit they made. The rest went to the company that ran the chain of shops. Makes you wonder....

Exactly. This is what makes me sick about charities as they make out that virtually all of your money goes to the cause when the fat cats are creaming it off as a frigging business.

 

It pisses me right off.

[Howmanheyman 31991]

Anyone knocking on my door (usually a young'un being paid a small wage), wanting my bank details so I can donate X amount a month to charity will be politely told to fuck off.

 

A little old lady shaking a tin in the street will get something. (cue 'how do you know she's legit etc, etc.)

[wolfy 12]

Anyone knocking on my door (usually a young'un being paid a small wage), wanting my bank details so I can donate X amount a month to charity will be politely told to fuck off.

 

A little old lady shaking a tin in the street will get something. (cue 'how do you know she's legit etc, etc.)

You don't know she's legit. You either put money in or walk past.

 

There's plenty of opportunists that take advantage of people's generosity but it's not about them, it's about the genuine registered charities that are basically a law unto themselves who are creaming peoples hard earned cash into their own bank accounts whilst the charity they collect for gets a pittance.

[Monkeys Fist 41458]

[Howmanheyman 31991]

You don't know she's legit. You either put money in or walk past.

 

There's plenty of opportunists that take advantage of people's generosity but it's not about them, it's about the genuine registered charities that are basically a law unto themselves who are creaming peoples hard earned cash into their own bank accounts whilst the charity they collect for gets a pittance.

 

I'm not sure about charities 'creaming' hard cash but as an aside, I came into some money myself the other day by foul means. I spunked up in wor lasses purse.

 

And I now depart this thread.

[Kid Dynamite 6873]

Ive always been advised by people 'in the know' to avoid donating to cancer charities if you get the choice as they have such a big monopoly on charitable donations and very little progress is being made in finding cures.

 

Could be bullshit like

[sammynb 3205]

Wolfy at his best once again.

Indeed you have to wander about the "major" charities but the truth is most charity organisation are not major.

They are not for profits run by people who take nothing and give more than they can afford, in money and spirit, for those they are helping.

 

Let me regale you with two stories.

 

Around the mid 1990s a "major" charity here in Sydney that helped families in need ran a educate program for underprivileged children, as just one of their many ways of assistance.

They were donated a seven figure sum by one of the countries wealthiest businessmen specifically for the educate program, so the CEO & No.2 decided to buy a chux cloth manufacturing facility with the money instead.

Now these same people also received dividends depending on how profitable the business arm of the charity was doing - which was quite nicely thanks to the 100% profit they were about to make from the purchase of said plant.

They then had the gall to take the philanthropic business man to their new chux cloth plant and show him what his money had bought.

When told his money had been spent here and not on the educate program for kids, he told them they would never receive another cent from him and he stormed out.

That year both men received large bonuses for the charity's profitable year but were then moved on a few years later for things lesser men have been gaoled for and the philanthropic business man donated on average between 3 and 5 million a year to a competing charity for the next 5 years.

 

The other more typical side of the coin.

For the last 12 months I have been involved with a not for profit charity that is a dance school for mentally disable students.

It is run by a woman, a recently divorced mother of two, who set up the charity/dance school because her son suffers from cerebral palsy and he wanted to join his sister's dance class but couldn't.

The organiser of the charity is at the point where she has to find a job so she can support her family but she refuses to neglect the dance school, which now has around 100 members (who pay nothing), which takes up as much time as a full-time job. She earns nothing and gives everything.

Obviously she's nothing but a greedy twat!

 

btw vote for this short film - hopefully they can win this competition and the money will cover 6 months of their costs (or her trip to the Bahamas according to Wolfy).

http://www.focusonab...Ability_86.html

Edited October 13, 2012 by sammynb

[wolfy 12]

I find it laughable how charities come round your house and get you to sign up to their lottery and stuff, then come round on a weekly basis to collect.

Once the charity has built up, the fat cats at the top then decide they need to cut costs, (obviously they need more money for bigger and better cars for themselves)..so they decide that it's a fortnightly collection, which eliminates one weekly wage for each collector.

 

Not content with that, they then save more money by doing a calender monthly collection, basically telling the householder that it's now £5 a month.

They know some people will cancel but they also know they still save a fortune for their own pockets because now the collector is only paid one weeks wage a month, usually spread out.

 

There should be a legitimate sheet given to all people that donate that depicts what has been took in and what has been paid out in expenses and what not from top to bottom and also what amount has actually went to charity, which should be available to check if anyone wished to do so.

 

The RSPCA naturally is a great charity that does a lot for animals but why should it even be a charity. It should be par for the course in life, like police, Paramedics e.t.c that people pay for through taxes.

 

It's like them saying," well, if you don't put money into this charity then we will allow the cruelty to go on"....

 

If someone comes to my door collecting for charity, I politely tell them I already donate.

I walk past anyone collecting for charity who shakes the tin at me or gets in my face because I know, for them to do that, in most cases, there is obviously more than the charity motive involved and it's more like they are doing it for their commission.

 

Don't get me wrong here...I know there are genuine people who stand there and collect for nothing more than the comfort of knowing they are providing their services to help a charity they believe in.

 

I also have a lot of time for those that do charity walks, runs, bike rides, parachute jumps, e.t.c and would happily donate, even though I know that although the person doing the charity runs and what not fell they are being sponsored, I know that there are those at the top...the cigar smoking thieves at the end of it that coin it in by saying, ' one for you, five for me, two for you, ten for me.'

 

There are plenty of people out there that would willingly give up a portion of their time for no more than expenses and do it from top to bottom, meaning the cause gets the full benefit and only the cause gains, no one else.

 

If this was done,(and I won;t hold my breath), then no charity would ever be in bad need as they would be extremely efficient with what they receive.

[wolfy 12]

Wolfy at his best once again.

Indeed you have to wander about the "major" charities but the truth is most charity organisation are not major.

They are not for profits run by people who take nothing and give more than they can afford, in money and spirit, for those they are helping.

 

Let me regale you with two stories.

 

Around the mid 1990s a "major" charity here in Sydney that helped families in need ran a educate program for underprivileged children, as just one of their many ways of assistance.

They were donated a seven figure sum by one of the countries wealthiest businessmen specifically for the educate program, so the CEO & No.2 decided to buy a chux cloth manufacturing facility with the money instead.

Now these same people also received dividends depending on how profitable the business arm of the charity was doing - which was quite nicely thanks to the 100% profit they were about to make from the purchase of said plant.

They then had the gall to take the philanthropic business man to their new chux cloth plant and show him what his money had bought.

When told his money had been spent here and not on the educate program for kids, he told them they would never receive another cent from him and he stormed out.

That year both men received large bonuses for the charity's profitable year but were then moved on a few years later for things lesser men have been gaoled for and the philanthropic business man donated on average between 3 and 5 million a year to a competing charity for the next 5 years.

 

The other more typical side of the coin.

For the last 12 months I have been involved with a not for profit charity that is a dance school for mentally disable students.

It is run by a woman, a recently divorced mother of two, who set up the charity/dance school because her son suffers from cerebral palsy and he wanted to join his sister's dance class but couldn't.

The organiser of the charity is at the point where she has to find a job so she can support her family but she refuses to neglect the dance school, which now has around 100 members (who pay nothing), which takes up as much time as a full-time job. She earns nothing and gives everything.

Obviously she's nothing but a greedy twat!

 

btw vote for this short film - hopefully they can win this competition and the money will cover 6 months of their costs (or her trip to the Bahamas according to Wolfy).

http://www.focusonab...Ability_86.html

Typical for someone to take me right out of context.

 

Try reading what I write and absorb it before going off on one, eh.

[Monkeys Fist 41458]

Typical for someone to take me right out of context.

 

Try reading what I write and absorb it before going off on one, eh.

The fucking cheek of you posting that!

[wolfy 12]

For the record, just so some people are clear on my issue.

 

I know there are people out there that give up their whole lives to help others for nothing more than the satisfaction of seeing their hard work pay off in front of their eyes. These people are saints, the salt of the Earth.

 

Unfortunately they are in the minority because money breeds greed and charities are the perfect foil for the greedy to exploit, knowing that the majority of people want to help.

 

This is how it is and how it will always be, until some legitimate accounting is put into place to oversee it.

[sammynb 3205]

The RSPCA naturally is a great charity that does a lot for animals but why should it even be a charity. It should be par for the course in life, like police, Paramedics e.t.c that people pay for through taxes.

 

You mean the same RSPCA that euthanises animals it decides are are unplaceable?

[Monkeys Fist 41458]

"Unfortunately they are in the minority because money breeds greed and charities are the perfect foil for the greedy to exploit, knowing that the majority of people want to help."

 

Got any proof of this Wolfy?

[sammynb 3205]

Typical for someone to take me right out of context.

 

Try reading what I write and absorb it before going off on one, eh.

 

as usual you make an uninformed generalisation.

[JawD 99]

Yep, maybe more would converse with you if you didnt just spout uneducated generalisations.

 

first, I agree that some charity outlets or schemes will not have as much of the donation going to where we would like. However, you need to understand the mechanic first before you go up in arms about that and the politics where appropriate and then also realise that some charities out there operate as not for profit at all. Even that doesnt paint the whole picture.

 

Now, I work with a few small charities and let me give a few examples.

 

The wingate Centre in cheshire is something I support through work. I work with a charity football side who arrange matches for charity and other evenings entertainment and so on. Each player and person involved takes not so much as a penny. Then they give whatever they generate to the wingate centre (and a few other causes). Now, the wingate centre is a registered charity as well but that employs paying staff. It has to. It needs carers and physios and qualified management. Its a full time job. you have to realise that running a charity itself needs people in there who know about accounts, fund raising, management, and so on. Ill say again its a full time job. So you pay people to run the charity. The cost of this comes out of the fundraising and the balance in this case goes towards rehabilitation for disabled kids. Its a fantastic place. You do get volunteers who work in there now and again and they also make a big difference as without them they would need to employ a couple more full time workers. so you need a mix. But you cant rely only on volunteers else you might have no one on some days.

 

How about having a word with Scottish Mag off here and see what good work they do (Cahonas Scotland) and give more of an example of your lack of understanding in this?

[Happy Face 29]

When they come up with a cancer cure, how much of a return on their investment do the charities/donors get? Basically a scam to fund privatised research and create more wealth in the pharma market.

[CleeToonFan 1]

That's why I donate to the charities that need it most.

Public schools

[wolfy 12]

Yep, maybe more would converse with you if you didnt just spout uneducated generalisations.

 

first, I agree that some charity outlets or schemes will not have as much of the donation going to where we would like. However, you need to understand the mechanic first before you go up in arms about that and the politics where appropriate and then also realise that some charities out there operate as not for profit at all. Even that doesnt paint the whole picture.

 

Now, I work with a few small charities and let me give a few examples.

 

The wingate Centre in cheshire is something I support through work. I work with a charity football side who arrange matches for charity and other evenings entertainment and so on. Each player and person involved takes not so much as a penny. Then they give whatever they generate to the wingate centre (and a few other causes). Now, the wingate centre is a registered charity as well but that employs paying staff. It has to. It needs carers and physios and qualified management. Its a full time job. you have to realise that running a charity itself needs people in there who know about accounts, fund raising, management, and so on. Ill say again its a full time job. So you pay people to run the charity. The cost of this comes out of the fundraising and the balance in this case goes towards rehabilitation for disabled kids. Its a fantastic place. You do get volunteers who work in there now and again and they also make a big difference as without them they would need to employ a couple more full time workers. so you need a mix. But you cant rely only on volunteers else you might have no one on some days.

 

How about having a word with Scottish Mag off here and see what good work they do (Cahonas Scotland) and give more of an example of your lack of understanding in this?

I'm well aware what good work many charities do for nothing. I've already stated this in my earlier posts.

If people don't want to converse with me, that's fine, I'm simply asking what other peoples thoughts are on this.

[JawD 99]

Ok I'll wind my neck in a little as you make part of a good point. I agree in some charities there is greed. These tarnish the real ones. But I can see both sides. If you work as a door collector imo it should be free. Volunteered. But if no one will I can see why they have to pay someone.

 

The problem is also where a charity starts doing good work so the person at the top decides he or she deserves more. There is two arguments for that as well:

 

- its a charity so they should take as little as they can

- if it wasn't for the expertise and paying top dollar they wouldn't generate as much.

[wolfy 12]

I agree that all charities can't always run on total freebie staff, especially the larger organisations and it's only fair that people who do give up their time can at least be rewarded by some small token for their efforts.

 

I know that many people would willingly give up their free time on various days to help charities out, yet I also know that there isn't really enough of these people that are willing to do it for nothing and require some kind of payment, yet to be fair, I don't begrudge the person who gets paid minimum wage to run around, it's the higher up admin and top bosses that I have the real issue with because in some organisations they are taking in something like 100 grand a year, plus, which to me is sick.

 

If a charity is to benefit to it's fullest then all costs have to be kept to a minimum, yet it's the opposite where large organisations are concerned.

 

We all know books can be cooked and expenses fiddled and all kinds of shenanigans can be used to make things look like it's a major cost to run, yet in reality it could be run miles more efficient using people who are unemployed who have the basic skills to do the admin work and book keeping.

 

The problem is, top people in their field are hired to oversee stuff like this and on top money as if it was a company making profit.

 

As we all do...I know a few lasses that help run a charity shop and they do it for nothing other than to get out of the house and have a natter whilst meeting people and feeling like they are helping, which they are.

The problem is...whilst they are doing that, you have a bloke from HEAD office coming down to see how things are going and how well they are doing and what can be improved e.t.c, which is fine if it wasn't for the fact that these people are being paid ridiculous amounts of money to run about in their flash cars, on expenses plus a very comfortable living wage.

 

The point is, there are people out there on the dole that can go and do the same job for minimum wage plus travelling expenses who will be just as...if not more capable than the suited smarmy individual that usually comes into places like that.

 

Not all are smarmy but plenty are and yes I've seen it first hand for those who said I know nothing all about what I'm saying.

 

The crux of the matter though is.... all the hard earned cash that people put into the bigger organisations is eaten up by greed and bad management by SOME people at the top that don't give a rats arse about the cause, just their bank balance and their own face.

 

Just to clarify to anyone who says not all charities are like that, I'll say once again, ' I know a lot of small charities do a fantastic job and it's not about those, it's about what happens once that money is handed over.'

[BigWalrus 0]

Having worked with a number of charities, the vast majority are not simply lining the pockets of the wealthy. Most are run by people who care about the cause and are generally remunerated less than they would have been in the private sector in similar role.