It's back! (Google I man)

Watching the box this AM. There was a suit whining that local
councils were cutting back on money given to charities & they were
going bust..

Not that I was aware that my council tax money was being given away to
the extent it apparently is/was.

The thought crossed my mind as to how "charites" have been made into a
well paid career. How is it a "charity" when everyone is being paid?
I thought charities were run by volunteers.

I've given up donating to them years ago anyway. They only encourage
dependancy.

I did look into being a volunteer at one point. I discovered that
being a volunteer means doing the donkey work whilst some halfwitted
well paid suit sits in an office and directs things.

On 08/02/2011 07:37 AM, harry wrote:
It's back! (Google I man)

Watching the box this AM. There was a suit whining that local
councils were cutting back on money given to charities& they were
going bust..

Not that I was aware that my council tax money was being given away to
the extent it apparently is/was.

The thought crossed my mind as to how "charites" have been made into a
well paid career. How is it a "charity" when everyone is being paid?
I thought charities were run by volunteers.

I've given up donating to them years ago anyway. They only encourage
dependancy.

I did look into being a volunteer at one point. I discovered that
being a volunteer means doing the donkey work whilst some halfwitted
well paid suit sits in an office and directs things.

Hardly a morning goes by when there's not one group or another demanding
more government funding. They simply don't get it and the government
hasn't the balls to really get a grip on the handout culture that has
taken over. Cameron talked refreshingly about responsibility before the
election. Predictably there's been no repeat since.

Andy C

I did look into being a volunteer at one point. I discovered that
being a volunteer means doing the donkey work whilst some halfwitted
well paid suit sits in an office and directs things.

About 8 years back our eldest girl landed a post with a charity. It
paid quite a bit more than her, then, position as deputy head of year
in a good school, came with a car, mobile and a good expenses account
- she was also told of ways to boost her "extra income". She turned it
down, especially when she learned that as much as a whole penny from
all collections went to the charitable cause.

Duh...a whole penny from every pound.....

On 02/08/2011 07:37, harry wrote:
It's back! (Google I man)

Watching the box this AM. There was a suit whining that local
councils were cutting back on money given to charities& they were
going bust..

Not that I was aware that my council tax money was being given away to
the extent it apparently is/was.

The thought crossed my mind as to how "charites" have been made into a
well paid career. How is it a "charity" when everyone is being paid?

A charity is simply an organisation that does not return a profit.

I thought charities were run by volunteers.

Why would you think that organisations handling millions of pounds a
year could be run entirely by volunteers? Every lifeboat, for example,
is the responsibility of a paid Coxswain, with the rest of the crew
usually being volunteers. The administration is also in the hands of
permanent staff, whose activity is scrutinised by a board of Governors,
like me, who are not only volunteers, but also pay for the privilege.

I've given up donating to them years ago anyway. They only encourage
dependancy.

Certainly a lot of people every year depend upon the RNLI to save their
lives.

I did look into being a volunteer at one point. I discovered that
being a volunteer means doing the donkey work whilst some halfwitted
well paid suit sits in an office and directs things.

Given your attitude, the charity probably had a luck escape.

Colin Bignell

In message , Andy Cap
wrote

Hardly a morning goes by when there's not one group or another
demanding more government funding. They simply don't get it and the
government hasn't the balls to really get a grip on the handout culture
that has taken over. Cameron talked refreshingly about responsibility
before the election. Predictably there's been no repeat since.


My pet hate is charities that seem to spend fortunes on junk mailing but
haven't put in place any mechanism to determine that sending £1s of junk
at a a time to some households results in a zero return.

I'm on the mailing list for the British Legion??/Poppy Appeal and it
would take the contribution from hundreds of poppies sold by the real
volunteers to pay for the junk they have sent me in the post in the
past couple of years.

The above is not the only "charity" that seems to have an endless bucket
of money to send junk mail. And how about the adverts on daytime TV
urging people to part with "only" £2 a week (presumably to pay for the
TV adverting)?

Even the suits running some charities seem to have no idea on how to
spend money effectively on the real work of the organisation. I recently
purchased a DVD from the Diabetes UK charity hoping that it may give
some useful medical information about the condition.

I was presented with ready steady cook meets celebrity big brother (but
of a lesser quality). It's a superficial cookery class given by some
seriously overweight has-been TV cook, with self confessed zero diabetes
knowledge, and a middle class chatting classes dinner party, sprinkled
with so called TV "stars" discussing the condition in a disjointed way.
The filming technique is by some meja graduate with no experience and
the script is poor and cringe worthy. I gave up with the first few
chapter in less than 5 minutes.

Perhaps the suits having seen the results of their spend didn't have the
balls to say that it was ******** for fear of losing their jobs?

There is some useful information on the DVD but why did they think is
was _much_ less important than a poorly staged TV daytime programme
look-alike. Cut out the rubbish and there is about 20 minutes worth of
good information on the DVD - the rest is 50 minutes of pointless
filler. For me a 20 minute DVD with all the relevant information would
be worth the price I paid.
--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

In article ,
Alan wrote:
My pet hate is charities that seem to spend fortunes on junk mailing but
haven't put in place any mechanism to determine that sending £1s of junk
at a a time to some households results in a zero return.

Logic says that this sort of bulk mailing does produce a worthwhile return
- otherwise why do it? Annoying though it might be. But commercial
organisations use the same technique - blanket coverage including to
existing customers.

--
*Therapy is expensive, poppin' bubble wrap is cheap! You choose.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 23:37:53 -0700, harry wrote:

It's back! (Google I man)

Watching the box this AM. There was a suit whining that local councils
were cutting back on money given to charities & they were going bust..

Not that I was aware that my council tax money was being given away to
the extent it apparently is/was.

The thought crossed my mind as to how "charites" have been made into a
well paid career. How is it a "charity" when everyone is being paid? I
thought charities were run by volunteers.

I've given up donating to them years ago anyway. They only encourage
dependancy.

I did look into being a volunteer at one point. I discovered that being
a volunteer means doing the donkey work whilst some halfwitted well paid
suit sits in an office and directs things.

Sorry to say, but many charities have been turned into corporations ...
with agents on commission, and 3rd party collection agencies who work by
taking a cut of what they raise in the name of that charity.

I had a "collector" for Macmillan Cancer Trust knock on the door a few
weeks ago. I might have been tempted to put a fiver in the tin, but
no ... he wouldn't accept that. It was either sign a direct debit form,
or nothing. After he admitted he was being *paid* to go round
"collecting", and that pay came from what people signed over, I asked him
to leave.

Nowadays our charity is old and unwanted clothes into collection bags -
hopefully they get to people who need them.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 09:15:59 +0100, Nightjar wrote:

A charity is simply an organisation that does not return a profit.

Yep, so it has to spend all the money it recieves or generates or the
Charity Commision comes down on it like a ton of bricks.

The big problem is lack of transparancy and the abilty of the average
punter to quickly and easily find out how much of each £1 donated
goes to "the cause" and is not swallowed up by wages and overheads
(office space, heat & Light, publicity, etc).

Personally I think all charities with incomes over say £100,000/year
should have to produce a simple break down of where that money goes.
And all collection points have a notice saying how much of each £
goes to the cause.

Certainly a lot of people every year depend upon the RNLI to save their
lives.

And Darwin ought to have say in some of those...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 02/08/2011 09:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
My pet hate is charities that seem to spend fortunes on junk mailing but
haven't put in place any mechanism to determine that sending £1s of junk
at a a time to some households results in a zero return.

Logic says that this sort of bulk mailing does produce a worthwhile return
- otherwise why do it? Annoying though it might be. But commercial
organisations use the same technique - blanket coverage including to
existing customers.

Trouble is many charities use professional fund raising companies and
see very little of the money raised.

I have seen reports that the the company's whose callers sign people up
for £2 per month or whatever take the first years money. Many people do
not donate for more than a year and the charity gets nothing.

Same with the chuggers in the high street. When I was looking for a job
there were plenty of charity fund-raising jobs available where pushy,
cheeky employees were being sought quite openly.

Even Just Giving take quite a slice.

On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 09:01:11 +0000, Jethro wrote:

On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 23:37:53 -0700, harry wrote:

It's back! (Google I man)

Watching the box this AM. There was a suit whining that local councils
were cutting back on money given to charities & they were going bust..

Not that I was aware that my council tax money was being given away to
the extent it apparently is/was.

The thought crossed my mind as to how "charites" have been made into a
well paid career. How is it a "charity" when everyone is being paid?
I thought charities were run by volunteers.

I've given up donating to them years ago anyway. They only encourage
dependancy.

I did look into being a volunteer at one point. I discovered that being
a volunteer means doing the donkey work whilst some halfwitted well
paid suit sits in an office and directs things.

Sorry to say, but many charities have been turned into corporations ...
with agents on commission, and 3rd party collection agencies who work by
taking a cut of what they raise in the name of that charity.

I had a "collector" for Macmillan Cancer Trust knock on the door a few
weeks ago. I might have been tempted to put a fiver in the tin, but no
... he wouldn't accept that. It was either sign a direct debit form, or
nothing. After he admitted he was being *paid* to go round "collecting",
and that pay came from what people signed over, I asked him to leave.

Nowadays our charity is old and unwanted clothes into collection bags -
hopefully they get to people who need them.

But of course that is a big scam in many cases too. Unless it's
definitely a well known charity, the clothes collections often aren't
even for a charity at all. I know this is almost a separate issue, but...



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 02/08/2011 10:01, Jethro wrote:
On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 23:37:53 -0700, harry wrote:

It's back! (Google I man)

Watching the box this AM. There was a suit whining that local councils
were cutting back on money given to charities& they were going bust..

Not that I was aware that my council tax money was being given away to
the extent it apparently is/was.

The thought crossed my mind as to how "charites" have been made into a
well paid career. How is it a "charity" when everyone is being paid? I
thought charities were run by volunteers.

I've given up donating to them years ago anyway. They only encourage
dependancy.

I did look into being a volunteer at one point. I discovered that being
a volunteer means doing the donkey work whilst some halfwitted well paid
suit sits in an office and directs things.

Sorry to say, but many charities have been turned into corporations ...
with agents on commission, and 3rd party collection agencies who work by
taking a cut of what they raise in the name of that charity.

I had a "collector" for Macmillan Cancer Trust knock on the door a few
weeks ago. I might have been tempted to put a fiver in the tin, but
no ... he wouldn't accept that. It was either sign a direct debit form,
or nothing. After he admitted he was being *paid* to go round
"collecting", and that pay came from what people signed over, I asked him
to leave.

Nowadays our charity is old and unwanted clothes into collection bags -
hopefully they get to people who need them.

Sadly most of the collecting bags around here have charity names on them
but closer inspection reveals that it is a commercial company that says
it gives some money to charity - or not.

On 02/08/2011 10:07, Dave Liquorice wrote:


Personally I think all charities with incomes over say £100,000/year
should have to produce a simple break down of where that money goes.
And all collection points have a notice saying how much of each £
goes to the cause.

In Scotland, all charities have to submit their books to OSCAR (office
of the scottish charity regulator). You can view a very brief summary
of any charities income/outgoings on-line, and to quote them ...

The public have the right to the following information under s.23 (1)
(a) and (b) of the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005
from the charity directly:
a copy of the charity's latest statement of account
a copy of the charity's constitution.
Please contact the charity directly to request this information.

On 02/08/11 07:37, harry wrote:
It's back! (Google I man)

Watching the box this AM. There was a suit whining that local
councils were cutting back on money given to charities & they were
going bust..

I saw that too. He actually said that there was a reduction in the
amount charities received from councils which is quite a different
thing. Councils often pay charities to do work because they will do it
for less money. For instance if the council has to provide a care-home
it's more likely than not that they will pay a charity to do it for them.


--
Bernard Peek

Alan wrote:

The filming technique is by some meja graduate with no experience and
the script is poor and cringe worthy. I gave up with the first few
chapter in less than 5 minutes.

Perhaps the suits having seen the results of their spend didn't have the
balls to say that it was ******** for fear of losing their jobs?

Professional suit wearers seem to be getting more and more divorced from
reality. So many business people I know are so wholly convinced that
whatever they do is great that your diabetes DVD bunch probably thought
they could be in line for a Bafta.

--
Scott

Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?

On 02/08/11 07:37, harry wrote:

The thought crossed my mind as to how "charites" have been made into a
well paid career. How is it a "charity" when everyone is being paid?
I thought charities were run by volunteers.

I've given up donating to them years ago anyway. They only encourage
dependancy.

I did look into being a volunteer at one point. I discovered that
being a volunteer means doing the donkey work whilst some halfwitted
well paid suit sits in an office and directs things.

Too true. Charities have stopped being about volunteers 'doing good' and
have become 'campaigning organisations'. An alternative career path for
would be politicians.


--
djc

In message , Chris Hogg
wrote

(mostly American, rather
polarised and quite a lot of flaming, but some good stuff if you can
filter out the rubbish);

The USA seems to have a lot of snake oil wonder cures for me to purchase


I'll stick with advice from UK sites and my very good community health
centre.

--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 02/08/2011 10:09, Hugh - Was Invisible wrote:
On 02/08/2011 09:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:
My pet hate is charities that seem to spend fortunes on junk mailing but
haven't put in place any mechanism to determine that sending £1s of junk
at a a time to some households results in a zero return.

Logic says that this sort of bulk mailing does produce a worthwhile
return
- otherwise why do it? Annoying though it might be. But commercial
organisations use the same technique - blanket coverage including to
existing customers.

Trouble is many charities use professional fund raising companies and
see very little of the money raised.

I have seen reports that the the company's whose callers sign people up
for £2 per month or whatever take the first years money. Many people do
not donate for more than a year and the charity gets nothing....

There is a statutory requirement that the charity gets a minimum of 10%
of any money raised in its name by an outside company. The company is
also normally contracted to guarantee a minimum amount that the charity
will receive each year. Many charities find that minimum sum is more
than they could raise by conventional means. Donations to charities have
dropped significantly since the founding of the Lottery Fund, as a lot
of people have the impression that it now funds all charities.

Colin Bignell

On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 14:27:03 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:

On Tue, 2 Aug 2011 09:35:59 +0100, Alan wrote:
I recently
purchased a DVD from the Diabetes UK charity hoping that it may give
some useful medical information about the condition.

There are several usenet forums where diabetes is discussed if you
haven't found them: alt.support.diabetes.uk (fairly quiet but not a lot
of flaming); alt.support.diabetes (mostly American, rather polarised and
quite a lot of flaming, but some good stuff if you can filter out the
rubbish); uk.people.support.diabetes; alt.health.diabetes and
misc.health.diabetes. The last three I can't comment on.

And actually, the Diabetes UK printed material is very good - lots of
stuff in their regular magazine too.

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 02/08/2011 10:01, Jethro wrote:
On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 23:37:53 -0700, harry wrote:

It's back! (Google I man)

Watching the box this AM. There was a suit whining that local councils
were cutting back on money given to charities& they were going bust..

Not that I was aware that my council tax money was being given away to
the extent it apparently is/was.

The thought crossed my mind as to how "charites" have been made into a
well paid career. How is it a "charity" when everyone is being paid? I
thought charities were run by volunteers.

I've given up donating to them years ago anyway. They only encourage
dependancy.

I did look into being a volunteer at one point. I discovered that being
a volunteer means doing the donkey work whilst some halfwitted well paid
suit sits in an office and directs things.

Sorry to say, but many charities have been turned into corporations ...
with agents on commission, and 3rd party collection agencies who work by
taking a cut of what they raise in the name of that charity.

I had a "collector" for Macmillan Cancer Trust knock on the door a few
weeks ago. I might have been tempted to put a fiver in the tin, but
no ... he wouldn't accept that. It was either sign a direct debit form,
or nothing. After he admitted he was being *paid* to go round
"collecting", and that pay came from what people signed over, I asked him
to leave.

Nowadays our charity is old and unwanted clothes into collection bags -
hopefully they get to people who need them.

In many cases, the clothes go to a recycling firm, who pay the charity
for the right to provide the service. A few, like the Salvation Army, do
get first choice of the clothes, with anything even they cannot sell or
use, going for recycling.

Colin Bignell

In message , Nightjar
wrote

Donations to charities have dropped significantly since the founding
of the Lottery Fund, as a lot of people have the impression that it now
funds all charities.


Not now that they have raided the funds to pay a few athletes millions
for a few minutes appearance at something called the Olympics.
--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 02/08/2011 10:07, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 09:15:59 +0100, Nightjar wrote:

A charity is simply an organisation that does not return a profit.

Yep, so it has to spend all the money it recieves or generates or the
Charity Commision comes down on it like a ton of bricks.

The big problem is lack of transparancy and the abilty of the average
punter to quickly and easily find out how much of each £1 donated
goes to "the cause" and is not swallowed up by wages and overheads
(office space, heat& Light, publicity, etc).

Personally I think all charities with incomes over say £100,000/year
should have to produce a simple break down of where that money goes.
....

Something like this?

http://www.rnli.org.uk/what_we_do/money_matters

Colin Bignell

On 02/08/2011 09:35, Alan wrote:
In message , Andy Cap
wrote

Hardly a morning goes by when there's not one group or another
demanding more government funding. They simply don't get it and the
government hasn't the balls to really get a grip on the handout
culture that has taken over. Cameron talked refreshingly about
responsibility before the election. Predictably there's been no repeat
since.


My pet hate is charities that seem to spend fortunes on junk mailing but
haven't put in place any mechanism to determine that sending £1s of junk
at a a time to some households results in a zero return.

I'm on the mailing list for the British Legion??/Poppy Appeal and it
would take the contribution from hundreds of poppies sold by the real
volunteers to pay for the junk they have sent me in the post in the past
couple of years.

The above is not the only "charity" that seems to have an endless bucket
of money to send junk mail. And how about the adverts on daytime TV
urging people to part with "only" £2 a week (presumably to pay for the
TV adverting)?

This is where the suits come in... to do the sums on percentage response
rates to the mailings/tv campaigns, and work out whether they will
return over cost. (which one must presume they do due to their
continuing appearance)




--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

harry wrote:
It's back! (Google I man)


Bugger.

I read that as "Rise of the sluts" and thought you were going to say
something interesting

--
Adam

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 09:15:59 +0100, Nightjar wrote:

A charity is simply an organisation that does not return a profit.

Yep, so it has to spend all the money it recieves or generates or the
Charity Commision comes down on it like a ton of bricks.

The big problem is lack of transparancy and the abilty of the average
punter to quickly and easily find out how much of each £1 donated
goes to "the cause" and is not swallowed up by wages and overheads
(office space, heat & Light, publicity, etc).


------------------------------------------------------------------

The problem with that is not all charities give monetary "aid" to third
parties.

For someone like the Samaritans 100% of the money collected is used to pay
"admin" costs, but do you think that is an indicator of a bad value
donation?

tim

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
harry wrote:
It's back! (Google I man)


Bugger.

I read that as "Rise of the sluts" and thought you were going to say
something interesting

I would have been surprised if you hadn't heard/watched it all before anyway
;))))

Jim K

harry wrote:
It's back! (Google I man)

Watching the box this AM. There was a suit whining that local
councils were cutting back on money given to charities & they were
going bust..

Not that I was aware that my council tax money was being given away to
the extent it apparently is/was.

The thought crossed my mind as to how "charites" have been made into a
well paid career. How is it a "charity" when everyone is being paid?
I thought charities were run by volunteers.

I've given up donating to them years ago anyway. They only encourage
dependancy.

I did look into being a volunteer at one point. I discovered that
being a volunteer means doing the donkey work whilst some halfwitted
well paid suit sits in an office and directs things.


Have you ever met anyone in need?

If not, then you have lived a very sheltered or spoilt life.


--
Adam

On 02/08/2011 16:16, Tim Streater wrote:
In article ,
Alan wrote:

In message , Nightjar
wrote

Donations to charities have dropped significantly since the founding
of the Lottery Fund, as a lot of people have the impression that it
now funds all charities.


Not now that they have raided the funds to pay a few athletes millions
for a few minutes appearance at something called the Olympics.

****ing waste of time and our money that is, too. If the athletes want
to compete, let them pay for it.

We undoubtedly have a fitness problem in this country but the answer is
to provide local sports facilities not to spend ridiculous amounts of
money on games that last a few weeks.

In article , Nightjar
scribeth thus
On 02/08/2011 10:07, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 09:15:59 +0100, Nightjar wrote:

A charity is simply an organisation that does not return a profit.

Yep, so it has to spend all the money it recieves or generates or the
Charity Commision comes down on it like a ton of bricks.

The big problem is lack of transparancy and the abilty of the average
punter to quickly and easily find out how much of each £1 donated
goes to "the cause" and is not swallowed up by wages and overheads
(office space, heat& Light, publicity, etc).

Personally I think all charities with incomes over say £100,000/year
should have to produce a simple break down of where that money goes.
...

Something like this?

http://www.rnli.org.uk/what_we_do/money_matters

Colin Bignell


Fine admirable outfit the Lifeboat men and women for that matter. But
this does question that they are in effect providing a public service
and to that end why doesn't the government pay for them?.

Same as the St =John Ambulance they do provide a voluntary public
service that sometimes augments the public service so why doesn't the
government pay for them as well..

Now I could set up a local militia when called upon help out the
government in time of conflict jeez!, I might not be able to march
around much they days but I know which end of a gun is the pointy
one;!..

Hang on, dont we have the Territorial army doing this already?.

What about the old bill?. Special case that too;!..

Where might it stop;?..
--
Tony Sayer

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember harry saying
something like:

I did look into being a volunteer at one point. I discovered that
being a volunteer means doing the donkey work whilst some halfwitted
well paid suit sits in an office and directs things.

I got thoroughly ****ed off with 'community initiatives' when one
scheme, which was set up, run by and staffed by volunteers for years,
was taken over by an LA. It wasn't enough to leave the volunteer bloke
in charge; no, his 'job' had to be given to an incomer suitably
qualified in Social Work, so he was bumped out.
The bloke who was bumped stayed on as a volunteer, but the incomer boss
didn't like that at all, as he (incomer) knew **** all about **** all
and the local staff were much more acquainted with local people and
problems, as you would expect.

In article , Tim
Streater scribeth thus
In article ,
tony sayer wrote:

In article , Nightjar
scribeth thus
On 02/08/2011 10:07, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 09:15:59 +0100, Nightjar wrote:

A charity is simply an organisation that does not return a profit.

Yep, so it has to spend all the money it recieves or generates or the
Charity Commision comes down on it like a ton of bricks.

The big problem is lack of transparancy and the abilty of the average
punter to quickly and easily find out how much of each £1 donated
goes to "the cause" and is not swallowed up by wages and overheads
(office space, heat& Light, publicity, etc).

Personally I think all charities with incomes over say £100,000/year
should have to produce a simple break down of where that money goes.
...

Something like this?

http://www.rnli.org.uk/what_we_do/money_matters

Fine admirable outfit the Lifeboat men and women for that matter. But
this does question that they are in effect providing a public service
and to that end why doesn't the government pay for them?

Why interfere with something that works, ain't broke, and doesn't need
fixing.


Take that further then lets have a voluntary government and civil
service then;?...
--
Tony Sayer

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
harry wrote:
It's back! (Google I man)


Bugger.

I read that as "Rise of the sluts" and thought you were going to say
something interesting

--
Adam
I spoke too soon. It's gone again. :-) It was only back for less than a
day.

"ARWadsworth" wrote in message
...
harry wrote:
It's back! (Google I man)

Watching the box this AM. There was a suit whining that local
councils were cutting back on money given to charities & they were
going bust..

Not that I was aware that my council tax money was being given away to
the extent it apparently is/was.

The thought crossed my mind as to how "charites" have been made into a
well paid career. How is it a "charity" when everyone is being paid?
I thought charities were run by volunteers.

I've given up donating to them years ago anyway. They only encourage
dependancy.

I did look into being a volunteer at one point. I discovered that
being a volunteer means doing the donkey work whilst some halfwitted
well paid suit sits in an office and directs things.


Have you ever met anyone in need?

If not, then you have lived a very sheltered or spoilt life.


I have travelled in many third world countries. Africa, Asia and South
America. Often staying in the homes of very poor people.
Now THERE is need. I can spread a little largess whilst there. I know
where it's going that way.
There is very little in this country. Need here seems to be "I need a
mobile phone".
That might change in the next few years I suppose

Here's a place I stayed at for a week or so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pampagrande

If you're poor in the UK, it's your own fault. You have had every chance.
Idleness or the failure to link action with consequence.

harryagain wrote:

If you're poor in the UK, it's your own fault. You have had every
chance. Idleness or the failure to link action with consequence.

What a crock of ****.


--
Adam

On 03/08/2011 10:46, tony sayer wrote:
In articleN_WdnWnISeWhk6XTnZ2dnUVZ8oGdnZ2d@giganews. com, Nightjar
scribeth thus
On 02/08/2011 10:07, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 02 Aug 2011 09:15:59 +0100, Nightjar wrote:

A charity is simply an organisation that does not return a profit.

Yep, so it has to spend all the money it recieves or generates or the
Charity Commision comes down on it like a ton of bricks.

The big problem is lack of transparancy and the abilty of the average
punter to quickly and easily find out how much of each £1 donated
goes to "the cause" and is not swallowed up by wages and overheads
(office space, heat& Light, publicity, etc).

Personally I think all charities with incomes over say £100,000/year
should have to produce a simple break down of where that money goes.
...

Something like this?

http://www.rnli.org.uk/what_we_do/money_matters

Colin Bignell


Fine admirable outfit the Lifeboat men and women for that matter. But
this does question that they are in effect providing a public service
and to that end why doesn't the government pay for them?....

The RNLI holds the view that it can do a much better job without the
government having any say in its running.

Colin Bignell

On 03/08/2011 15:15, ARWadsworth wrote:
wrote:

If you're poor in the UK, it's your own fault. You have had every
chance. Idleness or the failure to link action with consequence.

What a crock of ****.


Agreed. About as much knowledge of the under-privileged as the average
MP or lord (with a very few exceptions).

On 03/08/2011 15:24, Hugh - Was Invisible wrote:
On 03/08/2011 15:15, ARWadsworth wrote:
wrote:

If you're poor in the UK, it's your own fault. You have had every
chance. Idleness or the failure to link action with consequence.

What a crock of ****.


Agreed. About as much knowledge of the under-privileged as the average
MP or lord (with a very few exceptions)

Can there be anything we don't already know about poverty? Like **** on
the pavement, you either stop it happening or you clear it up.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "harryagain"
saying something like:

If you're poor in the UK, it's your own fault. You have had every chance.
Idleness or the failure to link action with consequence.

You arsehole.

Take that further then lets have a voluntary government and civil
service then;?...

I'd vote to have them *again* - eg councillors who act out of a sense of
public service rather than for the allowances and the chance to climb
the greasy pole; and public servants who voluntarily accept lower
salaries than they could have had in the private sector out of a similar
sense. And I thought this was where I came to learn about d-i-y from
people who favoured that approach

But the public gets the politicians and servants it deserves.



--
Robin
PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "harryagain"
saying something like:

If you're poor in the UK, it's your own fault. You have had every
chance. Idleness or the failure to link action with consequence.

You arsehole.

I would have expected such a comment about poor people from dennis.

However it seems that harry is challenging for the title of "The Group
Idiot".


--
Adam