|
|
07-08-13, 11:21 PM
Yeah I discovered this years ago about 'charities'....it's disgusting abuse yet nothing is done about it.
Big house near me was lived in by someone who ran a donkey charity....nice house.
Another thing that also astounded me is that there are people making a very profitable-very profitable indeed and not far away- living by 'administering charity money' given to various charities which amounts to quite some cash that has to be distributed... apparently not all charities actually deal with the administration of the donations.
Had a discussion at a charity event once and mentioned to the organiser that there are too many charities doing very similar things and they would be more effective and less confusing for people if they were to merge.........this idea of mine was not very welcomed because the organiser of this multi charity event said it would put a lot of people out of work !!!!!! mmmmmmmmmmm so it is all about employment rather than giving to help a cause.
Check out what Bob Geldof production company has been making over the years from 'feed the starving' !!!!!!
p.s. I am currently accepting charitable donations of pints of beer ...rest assured your generosity will be consumed asap !!!...Thanks in advance
Last edited by Col; 08-08-13 at 09:55 AM.
I have a relative who's partner works for a pretty obscure almost unknown charity, we don't talk after I asked how such a small organisation allows them to live such a lifestyle and a lifestyle that somebody as young and unqualified as them would normally only afford if they started selling coke by the container load. I don't donate to charities having seen this. I think people should think hard before they donate about how much of that £1 goes to starving children/abused animals/child soldiers/etc and how much goes on the gravy train for managers.
To some degree I agree with what you all (and most the media) have said but its that thing where you need very competant people who know how to run a buisness in these roles so that they are run properly.
The red cross is a huge multinational chartity and as such needs people with the same skillset as those who run massive multinational companies. Not paying like for like wages would mean less skilled people taking those jobs, would it be run in the same way with the same money available for charity??
The alternative is what? Put some idiot in charge, who does not know what they are doing, and then less money goes out to people who need it as a result of waste and in error. At least he is not taking huge multimillion pound bonus's yearly like the bankers!
yeah Dave--- but 'Joe Turkey' votes idiots into Parliament who haven't got a clue about anything then some are given the head banana role of Secretary of State for Health,Educkashun, DEFRA, Defence and Invading ****pot countries ,etc and know absolutely nothing about the service they are leader of.....oh yeah I notice the country is knackered so maybe you have a valid point hahhahahahahhahh
Many charities are victims of their own success. The more funds they raise for their respective causes and the more they take on, the more national and local government will cut vital services, placing a greater burden on the voluntary sector. A classic case in point are the charities which are currently doing so much for our brave young men and women returning from Afghanistan with appalling injuries from the conflict. Whatever one’s views (I have been strongly opposed from day one) on the deployment, IMHO, if the UK state can find the resources/ money to engage in a war (for whatever reason) on foreign soil, expecting members of our armed forces to risk their lives, then at the very least the state should provide the best available counselling/medical/social care for all the troops on their return. I believe that a society which relies on charity is a society which needs to change. Good post and subject matter Swanny.
Last edited by redken1; 09-08-13 at 08:05 PM.
We work with a huge number of charities at work. The most successful ones differ from the ailing ones because they approach things like a business. This means they need a knowledgable team of top business people running things. These people cost money but its not the salary that matters, it's the value they add
Large salaries might seem too high to some people but people rarely get paid high sums if they're not earning it
Really good charitable people would do the job for a lot less and let the money go where it's meant to go. No one needs to earn £184,000 a year, that's just taking the piss.
I would argue some people do need that and more money. But those people are teachers, doctors, emergency services, military, and not people such as footballers, politicians, actors..............Originally Posted by Swanny
Why would anyone need to earn £184,000 a year? Surely £100,000 is more than enough to get by on??
| « Previous Thread | Next Thread » |
