http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...tax-money.html

harryagain was thinking very hard :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...tax-money.html

I have exactly the same concerns about many of the larger charities.
Many millions collected, but those for whom the money was collected,
see very little of the money.

Foreign aid and charity has now become big business, run by
millionaires.

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

On Tue, 26 May 2015 18:04:30 +0100, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

harryagain was thinking very hard :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...reign-aid-fat-
cats-built-1-4billion-empire-tax-money.html

I have exactly the same concerns about many of the larger charities.
Many millions collected, but those for whom the money was collected,
see very little of the money.

Foreign aid and charity has now become big business, run by
millionaires.

You beat me to it! I was about to say precisely the same thing. The
Charities Aid Foundation is one of the worst offenders in this area.

Peeps, if you're feeling charitable, please give *directly* to those
you're satisfied are genuinely in need and NOT via intermediary
organisations!

In article ,
Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2015 18:04:30 +0100, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

harryagain was thinking very hard :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...reign-aid-fat-
cats-built-1-4billion-empire-tax-money.html

I have exactly the same concerns about many of the larger charities.
Many millions collected, but those for whom the money was collected,
see very little of the money.

Foreign aid and charity has now become big business, run by
millionaires.

You beat me to it! I was about to say precisely the same thing. The
Charities Aid Foundation is one of the worst offenders in this area.

In what way? They offer an extremely friendly banking service to charities.

--
From KT24 in Surrey

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On 26/05/2015 21:05, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2015 18:04:30 +0100, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

harryagain was thinking very hard :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...reign-aid-fat-
cats-built-1-4billion-empire-tax-money.html

I have exactly the same concerns about many of the larger charities.
Many millions collected, but those for whom the money was collected,
see very little of the money.

Foreign aid and charity has now become big business, run by
millionaires.

You beat me to it! I was about to say precisely the same thing. The
Charities Aid Foundation is one of the worst offenders in this area.

Peeps, if you're feeling charitable, please give *directly* to those
you're satisfied are genuinely in need and NOT via intermediary
organisations!


So, if you are sitting in a sinking boat in the middle of the channel, I
should fly over and drop you a £50 note with the message 'here, hire
yourself a rescue boat', rather than give the money to the RNLI, so they
can have one ready when you need it?

If I give £25 to Oxfam on the understanding that they will use it to
provide a family in Africa with a goat, I don't really care if the goat
only cost £5 and the rest went on admin, if the family end up with a goat.

--
Colin Bignell

On 26/05/15 23:36, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 26/05/2015 21:05, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2015 18:04:30 +0100, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

harryagain was thinking very hard :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...reign-aid-fat-
cats-built-1-4billion-empire-tax-money.html

I have exactly the same concerns about many of the larger charities.
Many millions collected, but those for whom the money was collected,
see very little of the money.

Foreign aid and charity has now become big business, run by
millionaires.

You beat me to it! I was about to say precisely the same thing. The
Charities Aid Foundation is one of the worst offenders in this area.

Peeps, if you're feeling charitable, please give *directly* to those
you're satisfied are genuinely in need and NOT via intermediary
organisations!


So, if you are sitting in a sinking boat in the middle of the channel, I
should fly over and drop you a £50 note with the message 'here, hire
yourself a rescue boat', rather than give the money to the RNLI, so they
can have one ready when you need it?

If I give £25 to Oxfam on the understanding that they will use it to
provide a family in Africa with a goat, I don't really care if the goat
only cost £5 and the rest went on admin, if the family end up with a goat.

However if you pro9vcide £25 to Oxfam, and £20 goes on the people who
staff it, and £5 goes on marketing and nothing goes on a goat at all,
you are justified in stopping your donation.



--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 27/05/2015 05:39, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 26/05/15 23:36, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 26/05/2015 21:05, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2015 18:04:30 +0100, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

harryagain was thinking very hard :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...reign-aid-fat-

cats-built-1-4billion-empire-tax-money.html

I have exactly the same concerns about many of the larger charities.
Many millions collected, but those for whom the money was collected,
see very little of the money.

Foreign aid and charity has now become big business, run by
millionaires.

You beat me to it! I was about to say precisely the same thing. The
Charities Aid Foundation is one of the worst offenders in this area.

Peeps, if you're feeling charitable, please give *directly* to those
you're satisfied are genuinely in need and NOT via intermediary
organisations!


So, if you are sitting in a sinking boat in the middle of the channel, I
should fly over and drop you a £50 note with the message 'here, hire
yourself a rescue boat', rather than give the money to the RNLI, so they
can have one ready when you need it?

If I give £25 to Oxfam on the understanding that they will use it to
provide a family in Africa with a goat, I don't really care if the goat
only cost £5 and the rest went on admin, if the family end up with a
goat.

However if you pro9vcide £25 to Oxfam, and £20 goes on the people who
staff it, and £5 goes on marketing and nothing goes on a goat at all,
you are justified in stopping your donation.

However, despite what the DM wants people to believe, that isn't very
probable. It is simple enough to check out any large charity and find
out where the money goes. In the case of Oxfam, 44% goes on development
work, such as the goat, 32% on emergency response, 6% on campaigning for
change and 9% each on fund-raising and on support and running costs.

The real rip-off merchants are the companies who employ chuggers to stop
people in the street and get donations in the name of a charity. They
guarantee the charity a minimum income, but the law allows them to pass
on as little as 10% of the money they collect.

--
Colin Bignell

On 26/05/2015 23:36, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:
On 26/05/2015 21:05, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2015 18:04:30 +0100, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

harryagain was thinking very hard :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...reign-aid-fat-
cats-built-1-4billion-empire-tax-money.html

I have exactly the same concerns about many of the larger charities.
Many millions collected, but those for whom the money was collected,
see very little of the money.

Foreign aid and charity has now become big business, run by
millionaires.

You beat me to it! I was about to say precisely the same thing. The
Charities Aid Foundation is one of the worst offenders in this area.

Peeps, if you're feeling charitable, please give *directly* to those
you're satisfied are genuinely in need and NOT via intermediary
organisations!


So, if you are sitting in a sinking boat in the middle of the channel, I
should fly over and drop you a £50 note with the message 'here, hire
yourself a rescue boat', rather than give the money to the RNLI, so they
can have one ready when you need it?

Well, if I were in charge of this country, then the RNLI would have been
founded by the government, not charity. The same would have applied to
hospices for example.

If I give £25 to Oxfam on the understanding that they will use it to
provide a family in Africa with a goat, I don't really care if the goat
only cost £5 and the rest went on admin, if the family end up with a goat.


Fair enough.

Well, if I were in charge of this country, then the RNLI would have been
founded by the government, not charity. The same would have applied to
hospices for example.


If I were in power the end users would pay .......

On 28/05/2015 07:04, JoeJoe wrote:
....
Well, if I were in charge of this country, then the RNLI would have been
founded by the government, not charity. ...

Speaking as a Governor of the RNLI, we prefer things they way they are,
without government interference in what we do, or the cuts that have
affected HM Coastguard.


--
Colin Bignell

On Thu, 28 May 2015 07:04:41 +0100, JoeJoe wrote:

Well, if I were in charge of this country, then the RNLI would have been
founded by the government, not charity.

The RNLI actively don't want to be public sector.

But, of course, they do work very closely with the RAF's Air-Sea Rescue
division.

On Tuesday, 26 May 2015 21:06:39 UTC+1, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2015 18:04:30 +0100, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

harryagain was thinking very hard :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...reign-aid-fat-
cats-built-1-4billion-empire-tax-money.html

I have exactly the same concerns about many of the larger charities.
Many millions collected, but those for whom the money was collected,
see very little of the money.

Foreign aid and charity has now become big business, run by
millionaires.

You beat me to it! I was about to say precisely the same thing. The
Charities Aid Foundation is one of the worst offenders in this area.

Peeps, if you're feeling charitable, please give *directly* to those
you're satisfied are genuinely in need and NOT via intermediary
organisations!

And how would one do that say with teh recent Nepal earthquake ?
unless yuo know an indiduals bank details how can you donate without going through a large organisation.
Or what do you do if someone comes up to you in the street with a bucket ?
even if they have valid ID.
IS Oxfam OK as thier chief director earns almost 120k a year.

On 27/05/2015 12:22, whisky-dave wrote:
....
IS Oxfam OK as thier chief director earns almost 120k a year.

To me, that seems remarkably good value for somebody running an
organisation of that size.

--
Colin Bignell

On Wednesday, 27 May 2015 15:54:51 UTC+1, Nightjar wrote:
On 27/05/2015 12:22, whisky-dave wrote:
...
IS Oxfam OK as thier chief director earns almost 120k a year.

To me, that seems remarkably good value for somebody running an
organisation of that size.

depends how you look at it. The prime Minsiter earns about £20k more for 'running' the whole country.
But I'm betting he doesn;t run the whole of oxfam just that office,
there are plenty of others employed in Oxfam admin that do run it.

On Wed, 27 May 2015 15:54:43 +0100, Nightjar "cpb"@ wrote:

On 27/05/2015 12:22, whisky-dave wrote:
IS Oxfam OK as thier chief director earns almost 120k a year.

To me, that seems remarkably good value for somebody running an
organisation of that size.

Quite.

If they paid £15k/year for a chief exec, they'd get somebody of the
calibre of Whisky-Soaked-Dave, rather than somebody capable of running a
£400m/year organisation effectively.

"Nightjar.me.uk" "cpb"@ insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 27/05/2015 12:22, whisky-dave wrote:
...
IS Oxfam OK as thier chief director earns almost 120k a year.

To me, that seems remarkably good value for somebody running an
organisation of that size.

More fool you. There is no reason why the size of the organisation
should have any effect on the amount the biggest big wig gets paid
once you get past a tiny little 10 person operation with a charity.

On Tue, 26 May 2015 18:04:30 +0100, Harry Bloomfield wrote:

harryagain was thinking very hard :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...reign-aid-fat-
cats-built-1-4billion-empire-tax-money.html

I have exactly the same concerns about many of the larger charities.
Many millions collected, but those for whom the money was collected,
see very little of the money.

That's true. If you believe the Daily Mail...

Meanwhile, here in the real world...

TBH, I don't care if say Cancer Research spend £10m on fundraising or
internal management or professional services. So long as that £10m brings
in £15m, it's been money well spent.

The problem with many smaller charities is that they AREN'T willing to
pay the going rate for something, so skimp and shoe-string, which at the
end of the day hurts their aims rather than benefits them.

On 26/05/2015 22:26, Adrian wrote:


TBH, I don't care if say Cancer Research spend £10m on fundraising or
internal management or professional services. So long as that £10m brings
in £15m, it's been money well spent.

Its also the way a lot of these charities obtain much of their "£15M".
They tend to prey on the vulnerable and elderly in society. Having
obtained a name/address of someone who has once parted with cash they
will bombard that person with mail shots on a weekly basis with rather
devious methods of extracting more money. They will send books of
raffle tickets or packs of Christmas cards etc. stating that they MUST
be purchased or sent back at the recipients cost.

I once purchased a raffle ticket for the Poppy appeal. For around 18
months afterwards fat envelopes would drop through my letter box all
containing begging letters. One contained a A4 size wooden cross for
which it was suggested should be returned with a large donation. As soon
as the Poppy appeal mail-shots eased off I started getting the same kind
of crap in the name of other charities. Obviously my name/address had
been sold on. This one charity and its s**t money raising methods has
put me off for life about giving to any other charity.

And there are the army of door to door cold callers bussed into an area
with their over-priced goods being sold in the name of charity.


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk