I'm sure Geldof is well-intentioned Stroller as are most of them but the publicity 'train' that surrounds the whole thing is what turns me off and Geldof's public dig at Adel was below the belt. Bono, in particular, is another who's ego is beyond parody. It's a fact that it's a cynical gravy-train that has a knock-on for their own records. AsI stated, I contribute to several charities and, as an example, bought some of the Tower poppies for members of my family who couldn't afford them, that's my choice and I won't be brow-beaten by any celebrity 'demanding' I contribute to a 'cause' no-one knows what or how much will be spent on what. The cure fore Ebola may rest on drugs companies cutting their profits to make drugs freely available and it won't come from this ego-parade. Simply my opinion. I'm off to work now...
I do not give to charity when the door knockers come knocking I tell them my wife does the charity stuff and she is not home am I a miserable git(do not reply utrs) or should the portion of my tax money the nz govt sends overseas be enough is there a poor starving African country out there that has no army, air force etc how much money does the uk govt send to the nuclear armed india and Pakistan as for bono the lead singer of my favourite band I am sure his heart is in the right place ask his publicist
Firstly, on a personal note...thank you for this 999's. That hospital, without question, saved my life, and was my home for six months when I was a baby. They do amazing work, and without what they do, I wouldn't be here today. Interesting reading through this thread. A lot of cynicism surrounding Band Aid, and the 'bigger' charities that work across the world. I would agree that a lot of the bigger charities spend lots of money on administration and staff. That said, is that not just a cost of the world we live in? To do any work, you need a support team to deal with all processes you need to go through in order to do the essential work well. Better to spend some money on preparing for the work, than waste all of it by doing a job badly.
I'd endorse Great Ormond Street too, Nines. The money donated to them appears to go straight to sick children's welfare. Can't ask more than that and long may it continue. One of the best charities
About the only way to ensure the money goes to right places and faces I gave away everything in 2006 following divorce and father's death ( best thing i ever did ) as was shocked how many people were after my stuff hoping to make money for them out of it. I knew then i was born in a lucky world and other opportunities would present themselves On the way back ( if you can call it that ) I worked freelance for various charities including Samartians in Ewell and was shocked how much of the donations were used to pay for large marketing salaries. Charities have to run as businesses I have forever told ⦠in truth they don't it's just the way it all gone. The reason charities in the UK are welcome is because they have massive advantages in business ⦠IMO the two should never have been allowed to mix but they have. We have dead town centres full of charity shops who's customers ave been ebay sellers for years ⦠what to see what is happening now come to Wimbledon Village and loo at the prices of the clothes in there! ⦠you will not believe it. Its not just in the UK ⦠I buy furniture at Emmaus and so do the dealers who then sell it in the broncantes to the rich Charity has now become a very difficult thing to translate IMO and maybe it can't be reversed because if a tax was introduced then the high streets, the volunteers with good hearts would be left with nothing. The great thing about all this stuff is that people are getting pissed off and at a super accellarated rate ⦠it is not fair that the rich get richer and the poor get poorerâ¦. it's all wrong and we have to choose our charities very carefully now ⦠open the Standard any day of the year now and there are ads trying to get you to climb a hill or cycle to brighton in the nude ⦠it's saturated and needs to change asap I will only ever give nowadays to genuine causes like Great Ormond Street Childrens Hospital but I still state that in the UK we shouldn't be funding any hospital
Further to my previous comments, Saint Bob, when asked a very pertinent question on Sky News, gave a very eloquent response, clearly it touched a raw nerve. Well done Jayne Secker for not treating him with the sort of fawning hero-worship others have done... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-raise-1million-just-minutes-TV-premiere.html
I would imagine, Sooper, that you might react similarly if someone were to suggest to you that buying stuff for your family doesn't really constitute charitable giving.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-right-to-ignore-Bob-Geldof-and-Band-Aid.html Quite frankly i am with Adele on this one - if you are going to give, do so quietly and with integrity, not loudly hoping for a big pat on the back and your own ego massaged. As with all things there are always exceptions, but I also have a bit of an issue with all these people doing personal challenges for charity, when really a large part of it is for their own personal satisfaction (ie bike ride through some exotic country for charity etc).
So true. Some members may be able to assist with the real figures but I think the so called everyday well known charities pocket somewhere around 80% of donations to pay fat cat wages and somewhere between 10 and 20% actually goes to those who need it. Some time ago, I gave to a well known charity and within two weeks, every cat and his dog was ring us for donations. They sell your name to other charities!! So .............. for about 20 years l gave nothing to charities. Earlier this year, l relented and gave a donation to some school kids who were representing an animal league charity. I made a point of telling them NOT to on-sell my name otherwise there would be no future donations. Guess what??????? Over the next fortnight, every other bugger was ringing for a donation. Now? ...................... they can all get stuffed. If l can help a lone person in the street, I will and l have but never again to the big fat cats. Ok, breathe in ............. breathe out, l feel better after getting that of my chest. Oh and about 'Saint Rob' ........... so sorry, Saint Bob. Love to know how much he gets out of this. I'm sure he'll take his allowable percentage out of the gross total.
The auditions for the role of Ebeneezer Scrooge in this year's Supporters Club Christmas play are now closed, due to a surfeit of applicants.
The review of the papers on Sky that night reported that Saint Bob's sensitivity relates to the fact that his various properties are registered in the British Virgin Isles for tax avoidance purposes.
It's quite easy to look this stuff up. Great Ormond Street raises nearly £50m a year through donations, and another £20m or so through legacies and its ownership of the Peter Pan copyright. Of this it spends £19m on 'income generation support' of which £8m is on salaries for its charity workers. This is well over 25%, compares badly to other big charities (even UNICEF comes in at 20%), especially as they operate on one site in London, not all over the world. The smaller the charity, the more 'efficient' they are at spending the cash apparently. There will always be some dodgy ones, as there are in any walk of life. But essentially the figures you give are bollocks Aussie, and as you have the skills to find this website and post on it, presumably you could spend five minutes checking a few things as well. These are big operations, they need to be run professionally, I have no problem with some of them earning decent cash if they do a good job - or would you prefer them to be run by minimum wagers or perhaps work experience people? The charity sector is huge, competitive, and people build careers in it. If this thread is anything to go by they also seem very effective in making people feel guilty and uncomfortable, which is of course their job - they are competing with each other for our cash. That's why I don't give to Great Ormond Street or Breast Cancer charities - not becauses the causes aren't worthy, but because they are very good at raising loads of cash without my sixpence, which I give elsewhere. Great Ormond Street has a fund of £210m, which it uses to build facilities and buy kit which are then funded by the taxpayer, as NHS staff run them. Whatever Geldof's tax situation, and those of the other contributors, the fact is they have raised more cash in a couple of days than some major countries are prepared to commit to helping against ebola. If they are breaking any laws with tax evasion they should be prosecuted. Do agree that Adele shouldn't be castigated for not wanting to take part though.
I guess the advantage of giving to GOSH as opposed to, say, UNICEF, is that donors can see with some clarity what the money is spent on. When monies cross borders and disappear into the coffers of overseas dictators - much less transparent. So far as small charities are concerned, fine, particularly if you know whose running it. If not, properly audited accounts are a comfort - but they're not mandatory for charities with a turnover of less than £1/2 million. So far as Geldof is concerned, I'm reminded of a civil legal case. A claimant was suing a bunch of defendants in one action. Each defendant was dealing with their defence separately. One of them, I'll call him Businessman X, calls a meeting between all the defendants and their lawyers and says "Look, the claimant would like to divide and rule, but it's in all our interests to make common cause. Let's set up a fund to put the very best defence in for all of us." The meeting was impressed. One of the other defendant's agreed to go around collecting the sums for this common defence fund (pro-rata depending on the amount claimed against each defendant). When it came to Businessman X's turn to pay, he said, umm...no. He'd thought again and decided not to contribute. All the other defendants went ahead without him and beat off the claim, including the claim against Businessman X. Mr X organised the thing, got all the benefits and it didn't cost him a thing. Clever.
