Are some charities a scam?

Buceph

enda1 wrote: »

Thanks for completely ignoring everything I said. Maybe you would make a good politician instead of the Goal guy after all!

You seemed to make two points, both completely based on pure ignorance. One, that attacking people's idiotic views is something I should feel bad about. And two, that the respectable charities prey on the weak willed and elderly, where you'll find that any of the respectable charities have strict guidelines on what is and isn't allowed in fundraising.

So yeah. I didn't directly address your points, but that's because they were ridiculous.

But hey! I have now. They're still ridiculous.

enda1

Buceph wrote: »

You seemed to make two points, both completely based on pure ignorance. One, that attacking people's idiotic views is something I should feel bad about. And two, that the respectable charities prey on the weak willed and elderly, where you'll find that any of the respectable charities have strict guidelines on what is and isn't allowed in fundraising.

So yeah. I didn't directly address your points, but that's because they were ridiculous.

But hey! I have now. They're still ridiculous.

Just cause you don't hold them, doesn't make them idiotic. Your method of attacking their views was by personally insulting the people, not their views. Your method is not very charitable.

The charities do prey on the weak willed and elderly. Whether they admit it or not. I see that goal do not do door-to-door fund-raising, not much more info on their ethics however. If they wanted to just accept donations without pressure on people, anonymous acceptance on their website would be enough for most, plus some dedicated drop off points. Perhaps the pensioners could pick-up a direct debit of the charity of their choice at the post-office and donate via that?

Why do they need to recruit volunteer fund-raisers to shake down their friends and family?

Unless you can remove your caustic attitude from your posts, how do you expect anyone to debate with you? Your lucky I bother... but I'm nice like that.

Buceph

enda1 wrote: »

Just cause you don't hold them, doesn't make them idiotic. Your method of attacking their views was by personally insulting the people, not their views. Your method is not very charitable.

The charities do prey on the weak willed and elderly. Whether they admit it or not. I see that goal do not do door-to-door fund-raising, not much more info on their ethics however. If they wanted to just accept donations without pressure on people, anonymous acceptance on their website would be enough for most, plus some dedicated drop off points. Perhaps the pensioners could pick-up a direct debit of the charity of their choice at the post-office and donate via that?

Why do they need to recruit volunteer fund-raisers to shake down their friends and family?

Unless you can remove your caustic attitude from your posts, how do you expect anyone to debate with you? Your lucky I bother... but I'm nice like that.

I'll remove my caustic attitude by not engaging anymore.

Have a pleasant day.

Einhard

enda1 wrote: »

The charities do prey on the weak willed and elderly. Whether they admit it or not. I see that goal do not do door-to-door fund-raising, not much more info on their ethics however. If they wanted to just accept donations without pressure on people, anonymous acceptance on their website would be enough for most, plus some dedicated drop off points.

You really have that little regard for the elderly that you believe they just open their wallets when a charity representative comes to the door? And who exactly are these weak willed people? All one has to do is say no. I've had plently of people call to my door in the name of charitable causes. A polite "no thanks" sufficed for them to leave. No aggressive pushing of their product, no emotional blackmail. To suggest that charities shouldn't approach people because some people in society lack the most basic of social skills, is ridiculous.

There are many charities out there, and no doubt there are many poorly run ones. However, to come along and dismiss all charities like you and others are doing is totally unfair, and unwarranted. All one has to do is inform oneself before giving some money. It's not that hard, and takes a lot less effort than logging onto internet fora to moan about fraudulent charities. If people are stupid enough to give blindly, that's there fault- not the fault of the charitable sector. I presume you don;t blame all mechanics for the actions of the few dodgy ones- why do the same for charities?

awesom_o

I go mad when those people from concern or whatever approach me on the street. Mainly, because I know well what they are doing. My friend collects money for concern and they are paid by commission.

I was talking to one of the collectors on college green and no joke, they are money hungry! After saying 'oh I already give money to charity' he went into a big spiel about how a life saving injection only costs 9c. I said 'well grand, I can give you 9c.. I can even give you 18c, that's how generous I am.. but no. He was literally guilt tripping me into giving €25 a month. F*ck that. How much of the €25 goes to life saving injections, and how many pays his commission? Not happening.

Aishae

there are people who will abuse the word 'charity' - they have little if anything to do with the cause - they slap a sticker on a bucket and shake it. and there are people who work for charities who are legit but they may not have the best management of resources. and there are the really good ones that really help people and theyre managed well.

we need a bit of cop on when we donate i think... i used to just throw a bit of money in whatever bucket was going around or being shook in my face - or buy those 'euro' charity things like keyrings - without really looking to see who i was donating to and if id even heard of them. now i wont put money in a random box unless i know what its for and what they do - at least. mainly i give to a charity i know about and support - by direct debit (a chugger didnt get me - chuggers... agh) - it comes down to thinking before you act.
i dont want to sound 'up me own hole' about it but its something that ive thought about....

on a side note itd be in an ideal world if every person who works for a charity knows what they do and - like volunteers - care about what they do.

i rally didnt like that tv show Do The Right Thing - just because the amount of money being thrown at it must have been huge. they got a few volunteers into the 'competition' but they could have even paid hundreds of them to do the work 12 contestants did on a televised thing.

you have to be wary but i hope people can keep a charitable streak too - just cos some will abuse it shouldnt ruin it for the many who do good decent needed work

cleremy jarkson

It's unsettling to think that if you donate a tenner of your money, you'd be lucky if 1 euro ends up getting to the cause. If there was a way to directly funnel cash to people with only a few cent per euro lost in overheads, people might be more inclined to give to charity.

Also, what do people think of the fact that a lot of the reason some foreign countries are so poor is because our countries are so rich?

LighterGuy

cleremy jarkson wrote: »

Also, what do people think of the fact that a lot of the reason some foreign countries are so poor is because our countries are so rich?

Dare I speak my brutally honest opinion ... some places are just kips.
Usually a reason for that in history tho. Take africa, most of its countries have had serious wars. Some are still in wars.

karma_

walshb wrote: »

Another sham. Houses being built for the "poor people," and then those houses are being rented out by the "poor people."
These people were doing perfectly ok for years before he stuck his beak in. Was it the people who
begged Niall to go there and HELP them? No, it was not. They never even asked for Paddy's help...

Volunteers going abroad, begging for money from their neighbours. How much of the money is coming from their pockets? Holiday trips is all they are.
I mean, is SA so bad that it hasn't got people capable of laying bricks?
It's relying on some Paddy for this? You try and get some plumber, carpenter, lecky here to
fit a washer on a tap, hang a door or fit a socket, and see how ****ing charitable
and decent they are? I tell you, you will pay for it....But, stick them in Africa, and they're like god damn
Santa Claus?

Niall Mellon? How many houses has Niall built here and gave to Irish people for nothing? Isn't he in trouble with NAMA over cash? So, maybe he should sorth that out before sticking his beak into SA affairs. Also, he and his crew are causing a lot of hostility over there with a lot of people.

Who's the other guy saving Haiti, yet he owes millions here to the banks? Some phone entrepreneur dude?

All these do gooders, great at throwing other peoples money around....

Fúck you are some begrudger what!

I know tradesmen who go to Africa to build houses, they pay their own flights and sleep rough. They do help train locals when they get the chance but it's more or less non-stop work when they are there and there is no drinking, partying or sight-seeing.

If you don;t want to give to charity then that's fine but stop spending your time trying to convince others it's all a big scam and just fúck off.

walshb

karma_ wrote: »

Fúck you are some begrudger what!

I know tradesmen who go to Africa to build houses, they pay their own flights and sleep rough. They do help train locals when they get the chance but it's more or less non-stop work when they are there and there is no drinking, partying or sight-seeing.

If you don;t want to give to charity then that's fine but stop spending your time trying to convince others it's all a big scam and just fúck off.

Sleep rough? Where? In the houses that are already in the townships? The houses that those people have been living in for so many years and doing just grand....

So, if all this is coming out of their own pockets, why all the hype and collections? Don't ****ing kid yourself....The same tradesmen who charge 80 ****ing euro to fit a washer on a tap....And we are meant to believe that they are going all this way because they so care about some African?:rolleyes:

Again, when was it that the SA people asked for this help? They never did, so why is Paddy over there interfering, because that is what is happening.

karma_

walshb wrote: »

Sleep rough? Where? In the houses that are already in the townships? The houses that those people have been living in for so many years and doing just grand....

So, if all this is coming out of their own pockets, why all the hype and collections? Don't ****ing kid yourself....The same tradesmen who charge 80 ****ing euro to fit a washer on a tap....And we are meant to believe that they are going all this way because they so care about some African?:rolleyes:

Again, when was it that the SA people asked for this help? They never did, so why is Paddy over there interfering, because that is what is happening.

WalshB,

You obviously have no idea what you are mouthing about in regard to this particular charity. I've told you what the conditions are like for the tradesmen who go over. For this particular charity work you are about as ignorant as it's possible to get, it's your choice to keep slabbering about it and making yourself out to be an ignorant fool.

walshb

karma_ wrote: »

WalshB,

You obviously have no idea what you are mouthing about in regard to this particular charity. I've told you what the conditions are like for the tradesmen who go over. For this particular charity work you are about as ignorant as it's possible to get, it's your choice to keep slabbering about it and making yourself out to be an ignorant fool.

You explained **** all. You mentioned sleeping rough. Talk about vague.

Also, you said they pay their way. I asked what about the collections?

So, maybe a bit of detail? Just a little....

karma_

walshb wrote: »

You explained **** all. You mentioned sleeping rough. Talk about vague.

Also, you said they pay their way. I asked what about the collections?

So, maybe a bit of detail? Just a little....

As I said I have one neighbour who is a plasterer who pays his own way out with a squad of local men every year, some of the men rotate it and this year a lot of them cannot afford to go. They do not get paid a penny and they usually stay for 2 to 3 weeks and finish a particular job and then they fly home. They don;t drink or party when they are there and they are provided very basic accommodation when they are there.

As for collections, I do not know but I would assume it's to pay for materials and the like, insurance and food.

Here's an idea, why don't you take 5 minutes and write to that particular trust with all of your questions and see what they say instead of faceless mouthing on a subject you know absolutely nothing about.

As for why they do it I couldn't say for all, but my neighbour loves going and he says it feels great to help someone who needs the help.

walshb

karma_ wrote: »

As for why they do it I couldn't say for all, but my neighbour loves going and he says it feels great to help someone who needs the help.

Does your neighbour do freebies in the estate he lives in?

BTW, who said they needed the help? As I said, I don't ever recall
those people in the townships crying out for Paddy's help.

I know several people who have been to the townships and have commented on the happiness there, and the pride that those people take in their homes, PRE Niall bloody Mellon

So, when was it that these people cried out for help? That is what puzzles me.
Mellon decided to do this without any asking or pleading. That to me reeks of an ego tripper.

karma_

walshb wrote: »

Does your neighbour do freebies in the estate he lives in?

BTW, who said they needed the help? As I said, I don't ever recall
those people in the townships crying out for Paddy's help.

I know several people who have been to the townships and have commented on the happiness there, and the pride that those people take in their homes, PRE Niall bloody Mellon

So, when was it that these people cried out for help? That what puzzles me.

I see there is little point entering into a debate with yourself. I should have known better as I've tried it before but I guess a racist cannot change it's spots.

My final word on the matter, and I honestly do mean this sincerely. I hope there comes a time when you desperately need help, and when you seek it you get told to fúck off.

walshb

karma_ wrote: »

I see there is little point entering into a debate with yourself. I should have known better as I've tried it before but I guess a racist cannot change it's spots.

My final word on the matter, and I honestly do mean this sincerely. I hope there comes a time when you desperately need help, and when you seek it you get told to fúck off.

When all else fails, throw in the racist jibe...:rolleyes:

You are right, pointless!

upandcumming

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

Would I personally rather give money to a homeless person on the street then toss it in bucket been held by some right-on middle class do-gooder, you bet your arse I would.

I bet my arse I would?

ToniTuddle

[

enda1 wrote: »

We clearly don't all have the same definition of being ethical. I don't find the emotional blackmail, and preying on the weak willled and old as ethical business practice.
This is highly evidenced in you response to those who don't trust charities - you immediately try to belittle the people and attack their integrity. Luckily the people on boards are not as easily pushed over as you usual prey as these tactics are so clearly at play in every enterprise you worm your way into.
I suggest that you rethink your attitude before trying to be a spokesperson for your so beloved "charity" as you are doing more harm than good for them (but managing to prove my point quite nicely).

I like the way ye word things :pac:

Einhard wrote: »

You really have that little regard for the elderly that you believe they just open their wallets when a charity representative comes to the door? And who exactly are these weak willed people? All one has to do is say no. I've had plently of people call to my door in the name of charitable causes. A polite "no thanks" sufficed for them to leave. No aggressive pushing of their product, no emotional blackmail. To suggest that charities shouldn't approach people because some people in society lack the most basic of social skills, is ridiculous.

Ok first of all how old are you?
I'm sure there is a big age difference between you and ole Mary down the road who is 75. Whole different generation that lot, the majority grew up being a hell of alot more generous than folks these days so charities do zone in on them as the elderly can be weak and too polite at times to say no! (fair enough not all are like that but plenty are)

Charities can of course approach people but they could make damn sure the people out on the streets fundraising aint gonna be overly aggressive or bullying people into handing over cash/bank details.

LighterGuy wrote: »

Dare I speak my brutally honest opinion ... some places are just kips.
Usually a reason for that in history tho. Take africa, most of its countries have had serious wars. Some are still in wars.

Yeah but aint war big money to alot of select people? All the guns and stuff cost a pretty penny so whoever makes them, in whatever other country outside of the one fighting, is gonna make a crapload of money:pac:

Latchy

Type '' charity bosses salaries '' into Goolgle search brings up some interesting links

the_syco

macquarie wrote: »

Yes they are a scam.

http://fabulousbuzz.com/2010/10/03/u2s-bono-in-charity-scandal/

Bono has come under scrutiny for news reports that his anti-poverty foundation, the ONE Campaign only gives 1% of its earnings to charity.

Bono had established the foundation back in 2002. The New York Daily News reported that only $184,732 of its total $14,993,873 in public donations was given to charities. Apparently, more than $8 million was distributed as salaries for ONE Campaign employees

How many employees, in how many countries, and how much were for bribes?

Potential-Monke wrote: »

As for those fookin clothes collection leaflets that fill half my bin...

Completely legal. It's very easy to get a license to collect waste... which is what they do.

Buceph wrote: »

Another interesting question is would you be happy for some of your donated money to be used as bribe money? Some charities outline that they refuse to play bribe money, as they see it as a bigger detriment than simply not getting access to areas or being left get aid through. So inferring from that, some charities probably do use some of your money to bribe people.

In the jungle, he who has the biggest gun reins supreme. So yeah, if bribing one or two corrupt officials/soldiers ensures a higher percentage doesn't get stopped by customs/etc, sure, why not. I'm not naive to think that the aid wouldn't end up being sold on the black market otherwise.

Senna wrote: »

Yes, not all of your €1 will reach the intended person, group etc.
The only ways that's possible is to post your €1 to;
Thin Black Child
Mud Hut
Drought Road
Ethiopia

Someone will just take the money from the envelope before it gets to them. If you send a cheque, you'll need to wonder how far they'll travel to get it cashed. You'll also wonder will they accept the cheque, or if someone with a gun will just take it.

=-=

Not all are scams. I've seen the work the Simon community does, and as they depend totally on donations (or did when I last checked, whilst working as a summer temp in Dublin City Council a few years back).

walshb wrote: »

Some charities do fantastic work, and are actual charities.

I'll agree with walshbs entire post.

walshb wrote: »

How many people fell for the "buy a cow, buy a goat, buy a hive of bees?" This is farcical...But, people fall for it

Every time I hear this, I think of the goat in Jurassic Park which is for the T-Rex...

feelingstressed wrote: »

Give employment to the local tradesmen and not send someone in a GAA jersey off to swan around a site.

Look at how much money goes to the countries that they build houses in. Last I checked, a few million went to their government yearly, to be spent on aid. Said country's army is very well equipped. It should be: not a penny gets to the people in the cardboard houses.

walshb wrote: »

Sleep rough? Where? In the houses that are already in the townships? The houses that those people have been living in for so many years and doing just grand....

Sorry dude, but although I agree with a lot of your posts, I had to laugh at this. The f**kers lived in shanty huts before they got nice brick houses, which every so often gets bulldozed to the ground, and the government shows the world that they have the "poor problem" sorted out. Until the poor build the shanty town elsewhere.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Because funds may have been set up by private individuals to ensure that a cause receives funding over many years. Such as the Bill Gates Trust, etc.

But these were just regular charities, most of them Jewish. I see your point but charity donations are an unlimited supply of cash.. I don't see why they'd have to save billions for a rainy day.

That's just the Madoff scandel alone, I imagine there's hundreds of billions of our donations that are sitting in accounts being managed by wealthy fund managers.

walshb

the_syco wrote: »

Sorry dude, but although I agree with a lot of your posts, I had to laugh at this. The f**kers lived in shanty huts before they got nice brick houses, which every so often gets bulldozed to the ground, and the government shows the world that they have the "poor problem" sorted out. Until the poor build the shanty town elsewhere.

Ok, say that is the truth. Why is Paddy interfering. That is a SA issue, their issue. Paddy going over trying to change things is leading to conflict.
What would we think if we had issues here and some ****ers from thousands
of miles away start coming over and telling us how and where we should be living?

BTW, those people have been there for so so long, surviving and living proud. The most resourceful people you could meet. Thing is, Paddy keeps trying to portray these people as inept, desperate and unwilling to help themselves, all so Paddy can be the "hero."

I ask, is SA so bad and inept that they can't find some of their own people to build their own houses, WHERE and WHEN they want and choose?

Maybe if Paddy spent more time at home looking after Paddy, then we wouldn't be in the mess we are in, as regards housing and banking!

Biggest problems in Africa are westerners trying to dictate and dominate.

jackiebaron

Salvation Army are a bunch of scumbags.

They wouldn't give a bowl of soup to a starving man if he was an atheist or non-christian

Orando Broom

karma_ wrote: »

Fúck you are some begrudger what!

I know tradesmen who go to Africa to build houses, they pay their own flights and sleep rough. They do help train locals when they get the chance but it's more or less non-stop work when they are there and there is no drinking, partying or sight-seeing.

If you don;t want to give to charity then that's fine but stop spending your time trying to convince others it's all a big scam and just fúck off.

Answer me this if this charity is so great why has Niall Mellon failed to produce an annual report on his activities as he is required to do so because he is receiving taxpayers money for his endeavours?

jackiebaron

cleremy jarkson wrote: »

It's unsettling to think that if you donate a tenner of your money, you'd be lucky if 1 euro ends up getting to the cause. If there was a way to directly funnel cash to people with only a few cent per euro lost in overheads, people might be more inclined to give to charity.

Also, what do people think of the fact that a lot of the reason some foreign countries are so poor is because our countries are so rich?

There's a charity in Ireland called Cork Penny Meals and they provide a bit of grub everyday to those who are hungry. They are all volunteers and I don't know where they get their funding from but they provide a hot meal to the misfortunates who are just at the bottom of the pile. You could go down there once a month and donate a big bag of spuds and a few tins of beans. They'd be as grateful.

jackiebaron

LighterGuy wrote: »

Dare I speak my brutally honest opinion ... some places are just kips.
Usually a reason for that in history tho. Take africa, most of its countries have had serious wars. Some are still in wars.

Utter rubbish. Every tribe on Earth had a fair shot of living comfortably as long as they were left to their own devices. The only reason any people/country on Earth is poor is because of outside plunder and subjugation. Carving up these lands and enclosing people behind artificial borders so they can't go elsewhere to try and prosper also adds to the disaster. You think these wars in Africa were ongoing before the white man carved up the continent and forced various tribes to live in the same area when traditionally they would have avoided each other?

dolphin city

i once gave enough money for a certain charity to purchase an animal - a large animal to go to a third world nation. It felt good.....until I was bombarded month after month after month with glossy full colour brochures "advertising" animals i could purchase. they may as well have just sent their glossy full colour adverts over instead of the animal.

I gave up after that.

walshb

dolphin city wrote: »

i once gave enough money for a certain charity to purchase an animal - a large animal to go to a third world nation. It felt good.....until I was bombarded month after month after month with glossy full colour brochures "advertising" animals i could purchase. they may as well have just sent their glossy full colour adverts over instead of the animal.

I gave up after that.

But, did you not stop to think that the animal they say they are sending abroad needs a hell of a lot of water and food itself to survive. We are being told that the poor people are starving, and that water is very scarce. So, what the hell is the cow, as an example, eating and drinking? Like I said, these charities are coming up with wacky and mad ideas every day of the week to try and extort money from the gullible. Yes, sure, there may be some good getting done, but it's a spit in the ocean, and for all the money they are taking in, it's doing **** all.

According to the Dairy Coucil of Ieland, a milk producing cow drinks between 25-50 gallons of water a day.
Where th **** is the cow getting this in these countries that we are told have almost no water?

Just to ask, you said you felt good. Did you honestly follow it up, and track what actually happened with
this animal? Or, was the ad on tv enough to convince you that all was above board?

If I was donating a few hundred euro to buy a animal, I woud like to think that
the animal was helpful, and didn't just starve to death itself.

These charities are awash with cash. Take the ads the ads the ads non stop on
tv, some going on for two and three minutes. Big ****ing money.

Buceph

walshb wrote: »

But, did you not stop to think that the animal they say they are sending abroad needs a hell of a lot of water and food itself to survive. We are being told that the poor people are starving, and that water is very scarce. So, what the hell is the cow, as an example, eating and drinking? Like I said, these charities are coming up with wacky and mad ideas every day of the week to try and extort money from the gullible. Yes, sure, there may be some good getting done, but it's a spit in the ocean, and for all the money they are taking in, it's doing **** all.

According to the Dairy Coucil of Ieland, a milk producing cow drinks between 25-50 gallons of water a day.
Where th **** is the cow getting this in these countries that we are told have almost no water?

You do realise that Africa is a very large continent. Just because some areas have a drought doesn't mean that other areas do.

You've proven yourself over and over to be entirely ignorant of what a lot of respectable, fully audited charities do.

walshb

Buceph wrote: »

You do realise that Africa is a very large continent. Just because some areas have a drought doesn't mean that other areas do.

You've proven yourself over and over to be entirely ignorant of what a lot of respectable, fully audited charities do.

Eh, but the ones sending cows aren't sending them to good areas, are they?
They are sending them to areas that are suffering drought, that is what they advertise....
So, how are the cows surviving in these areas? Where are they getting the food, and the massive amounts of water that they need?

Entirely ignorant? If they are so good, then why has this been drip fed to us for years and years and years? It's non stop....

So, Africa, the largest continent on earth, is really relying on Paddy to send them cows, goats, ****ing bees?
Nowhere in Africa they can source bees? Nowhere in Africa they can source goats, cows, chicks?

Degsy

Buceph wrote: »

You do realise that Africa is a very large continent. Just because some areas have a drought doesn't mean that other areas do.
.

That would imply that certain areas of africa are prosperous too?

Good..they can give us a few bob for a change..we've sent them billions now its time for some payback..maybe Bongo or Pob geldoff could go over and negotiate on our behalf.

Oh wait a minute..nearly 1 billion of the money we BORROWED from the IMF is going overseas as "aid"..pathetic..absolutely pathetic.

dolphin city

walshb wrote: »

But, did you not stop to think that the animal they say they are sending abroad needs a hell of a lot of water and food itself to survive. We are being told that the poor people are starving, and that water is very scarce. So, what the hell is the cow, as an example, eating and drinking? Like I said, these charities are coming up with wacky and mad ideas every day of the week to try and extort money from the gullible. Yes, sure, there may be some good getting done, but it's a spit in the ocean, and for all the money they are taking in, it's doing **** all.

According to the Dairy Coucil of Ieland, a milk producing cow drinks between 25-50 gallons of water a day.
Where th **** is the cow getting this in these countries that we are told have almost no water?

Just to ask, you said you felt good. Did you honestly follow it up, and track what actually happened with
this animal? Or, was the ad on tv enough to convince you that all was above board?

If I was donating a few hundred euro to buy a animal, I woud like to think that
the animal was helpful, and didn't just starve to death itself.

These charities are awash with cash. Take the ads the ads the ads non stop on
tv, some going on for two and three minutes. Big ****ing money.

no, I must admit I did not think of those points - I honestly took it at face value. I really do hope now that someone bought a water irrigation system and inventor thingy before my animal went over = I can't bear to think of me sending a poor animal over for him to starve or die of thirst.

(seriously tho, I really didn't think of your points, but I will not be donating any more money to any of those charities only to receive top class brochures in my post box constantly).

Aishae

Degsy wrote: »

That would imply that certain areas of africa are prosperous too?

Good..they can give us a few bob for a change..we've sent them billions now its time for some payback..maybe Bongo or Pob geldoff could go over and negotiate on our behalf.

Oh wait a minute..nearly 1 billion of the money we BORROWED from the IMF is going overseas as "aid"..pathetic..absolutely pathetic.

i feel the same - i still want to help others where i can but overseas aid at the moment is not 'where i can' so to speak. we just havent got it. its just giving away money that was loaned to us so technically were paying extra for the pleasure of overseas aid. its just wrong when more and more people every week are in serious trouble - not just 'possibly losing your house' trouble but 'cant seem to afford to put food on the table' trouble.
if we got the country back on track we'd be in a better position to donate overseas aid in the future too. ive always thought the sheer amount we send is ridiculous. if many countries did similar to us (and i dont know who does and who doesnt) then what is all the flippin money being spent on, if things never seem to improve for them?

conorbyrneirl

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Legally only about 5% of money collected actually goes to worthy causes. The rest goes to fund the badly run, uncompetitive business that most charities are, inflated wages, corporate cars, asshole chuggers, fraud....etc etc....

And that's before you realise how much foreign aid goes to dictators who promptly spend it on shiny new tanks.

So yes, charity is a load of me hoop

Really...legally?? Are you sure

I think you could be 100% wrong!

Strata

I find it odd accusing someone of being bitter and selfish because they question how much of their charitable donation actually reachs those who need it most.

One of the reasons why Ireland is in the state it's in is because we didn't question whether we were getting value for money during the Celtic Tiger.

It's almost considered sacrilegious to question what charities do with our donations!

I would also mention that all registered charities are supposed to be audited but, in my humble opinion, this really means nothing.

Just because a charity is audited does not mean they're not paying very high salaries and benefits to their staff or that their overheads are unnecessarily high.

What I care about when I donate to charity is how much of my €1 is actually going to those who need it.

What I don't understand is why there are so many charities out there who seem to be raising money for, broadly speaking, the same cause. Surely if Trocaire, Goal, Gorta etc merged then they'd benefit from economies of scale?

Buceph

Strata wrote: »

I find it odd accusing someone of being bitter and selfish because they question how much of their charitable donation actually reachs those who need it most.

One of the reasons why Ireland is in the state it's in is because we didn't question whether we were getting value for money during the Celtic Tiger.

It's almost considered sacrilegious to question what charities do with our donations!

I would also mention that all registered charities are supposed to be audited but, in my humble opinion, this really means nothing.

Just because a charity is audited does not mean they're not paying very high salaries and benefits to their staff or that their overheads are unnecessarily high.

What I care about when I donate to charity is how much of my €1 is actually going to those who need it.

What I don't understand is why there are so many charities out there who seem to be raising money for, broadly speaking, the same cause. Surely if Trocaire, Goal, Gorta etc merged then they'd benefit from economies of scale?

No-one is questioning whether people should investigate how their funds are used. People are condemning the blanket accusation that all charities are scams.

An the purpose of an audit isn't to simply say they're audited, the purpose of the audit is so there is transparency.

And a lot of those charities have different idealogical stances on how the money is used. Plus there are things such as dis-economies of scale, marginal rate of return, etc..

conorbyrneirl

I actually havent read all these posts (probably bad form) but I got as far as page 3 and the level of inaccuracy was just mind boggling!

I dont work for a charity, but I used to.

Charities spend money on staff, on advertising, on admin..yes of course they do. Do you really think that all this stuff happens for free? Somehow when you put the word charity or non profit in front of something people assume that it has to be free.

Charities work off the toughest and tightest ratios I have ever come across. The norm is 80/20. Thats 20% cost. They are passionate about the funds the get from donors, passionate about ensuring that as much of it as possible goes to the cause.

Can I say this is the case in all charities, not in a court of law, but can I think of any charities that dont operate in this way. No I cant.

Yes we need to have the sector regulated and the sector has been calling for this for years. Do we need to focus on these metrics though...no they are the wrong measures.

What we need more of is charities telling people the impact of their funds. I personally would rather see a charity spend 3 million to raise 7 (net 4 million) then a charity that spends 1/2 million to raise 3 (net 2.5 million). This may frustrate people but that charity, with 4 million net profit is going to be able to do a lot more than the charity with a 2.5 million net profit. Fact!

This discussion needs some deeper thought than...all charities are scams! Come on people you are better than that red top headline sensationalism!

LighterGuy

I have dated 2 african girls.... and they hold told me alot.
Africa is like a 'grey' area. Some parts good >> some parts bad.

Generally the parts that are good also have corruption sadly. And the parts that are bad... yeah, are really bad.

Strata

Buceph wrote: »

No-one is questioning whether people should investigate how their funds are used. People are condemning the blanket accusation that all charities are scams.

An the purpose of an audit isn't to simply say they're audited, the purpose of the audit is so there is transparency.

And a lot of those charities have different idealogical stances on how the money is used. Plus there are things such as dis-economies of scale, marginal rate of return, etc..

Surely their only important ideology should to help the poor?

I'm not sure how there can be dis-economies of scale by merging the charities or what marginal rate of return means. I'm not being flippant, I genuinely don't understand what you mean by that sentence.

Heres a piece regarding Charities.Unicef and Salvation Army are featured I was shocked to read the Boss of Unicef USA gets a rolls royce to drive him around. That sickens me.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/charities.asp

Interesting to see difference in salaries between Sally Army chief and Unicef

conorbyrneirl

Jake1 wrote: »

Heres a piece regarding Charities.Unicef and Salvation Army are featured I was shocked to read the Boss of Unicef USA gets a rolls royce to drive him around. That sickens me.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/charities.asp

the post is from a site called Rumour has it and there is a big banner on the top that says Mostly Outdated and Inaccurate!

Come on!

Strata

conorbyrneirl wrote: »

I actually havent read all these posts (probably bad form) but I got as far as page 3 and the level of inaccuracy was just mind boggling!

I dont work for a charity, but I used to.

Charities spend money on staff, on advertising, on admin..yes of course they do. Do you really think that all this stuff happens for free? Somehow when you put the word charity or non profit in front of something people assume that it has to be free.

Charities work off the toughest and tightest ratios I have ever come across. The norm is 80/20. Thats 20% cost. They are passionate about the funds the get from donors, passionate about ensuring that as much of it as possible goes to the cause.

Can I say this is the case in all charities, not in a court of law, but can I think of any charities that dont operate in this way. No I cant.

Yes we need to have the sector regulated and the sector has been calling for this for years. Do we need to focus on these metrics though...no they are the wrong measures.

What we need more of is charities telling people the impact of their funds. I personally would rather see a charity spend 3 million to raise 7 (net 4 million) then a charity that spends 1/2 million to raise 3 (net 2.5 million). This may frustrate people but that charity, with 4 million net profit is going to be able to do a lot more than the charity with a 2.5 million net profit. Fact!

This discussion needs some deeper thought than...all charities are scams! Come on people you are better than that red top headline sensationalism!

I agree that branding all charities as scams is unfair.

I do not expect people to work in these charities for free and I understand that there are necessary overheads. What I do have a problem with is waste.

E.g. I used to donate monthly to a large well known charity. This charity used to email me with monthly updates of the work they were doing and informing me of people/places which needed more aid. This charity also posted me a letter/pack with the exact same information that was in the email. I received two copies of this letter every month due to an administrative error on their part.

When I contacted the charity and asked them to stop sending me out the letters they still continued to send me letters! How wasteful is that!

Buceph

Strata wrote: »

Surely their only important ideology should to help the poor?

But a lot of people differ in how to do that. The Catholic church's missionaries believe HIV should be stopped by sexual abstinence. Others believe it should be through sex education and proper use of prophylactics. They both broadly are helping (for the sake of the argument go with me on that) but they have different idealogical ways in doing it.

I'm not sure how there can be dis-economies of scale by merging the charities or what marginal rate of return means. I'm not being flippant, I genuinely don't understand what you mean by that sentence.

Dis-economies of scale are where the bigger things get, the less efficient there are. Usually economies of scale work up to a certain point, then dis-economies of scale start working. Economies of scale would point to it being cheaper to have all your workers in the same building, so 100's of people all in the same office, but what happens when it becomes unfeasible to manage them all in one place, like an office of 10,000 people.

Marginal rate on return means that as you put more in, you don't necessarily get an equal amount out. Say you're investing in a local start up business, if you gave him €100, that could allow him to do things more easily and could return €20 profit on your investment, 20% return, you could give him €1000 as an investment, but it doesn't mean you're definitely going to get €200 back as a profit. Maybe the €100 allowed him to do certain things better, but he €1000 wasn't needed because he didn't have anything to put it to, or it wasn't as effective, so you only get €100 profit on your €1000 invested, a return of 10%. So there you have a diminishing marginal rate of return.

conorbyrneirl

Strata wrote: »

I agree that branding all charities as scams is unfair.

I do not expect people to work in these charities for free and I understand that there are necessary overheads. What I do have a problem with is waste.

E.g. I used to donate monthly to a large well known charity. This charity used to email me with monthly updates of the work they were doing and informing me of people/places which needed more aid. This charity also posted me a letter/pack with the exact same information that was in the email. I received two copies of this letter every month due to an administrative error on their part.

When I contacted the charity and asked them to stop sending me out the letters they still continued to send me letters! How wasteful is that!

First off I think the fact that they were updating you is a great thing. If they didnt you could possibly be here saying that charities are a black hole and they never tell you where your money goes!

Having said that the fact that they had a clerical error and didnt fix it is bad form...but Im not sure that should then translate into a generalisation that all charities are wasteful (im not saying you are making that generalisation, but its a theme in this thread)

Charities do great work, are filled with committed people, its one of the hardest jobs I have ever had, and its a little unfair for people to post the inaccuracies that I have read here today.

If charities were able to entice even more skilled labour to their workforce they would be able to do even more great work.

walshb

Strata wrote: »

When I contacted the charity and asked them to stop sending me out the letters they still continued to send me letters! How wasteful is that!

Yeah, but they don't care, it's not their money they are wasting, it is yours.
Goes to show you how awash with money theses charities are, if they can be so flippant.

Remember after the tsunami, the charities had to ask people to stop donating money, as it was colossal. They actually had too much.
I am always amazed at the amount of people who donate to these charities without even a second thought. They know next to nothing about where
there money is going, or what the charity even does. And that is what a lot of these charities want, less questions the better.

You get it everywhere. After the tsunami, every tom, dick and harry across Ireland was setting up charities, collecting here there and everywhere, and god forbid if you questioned them. No, people just kept throwing money at it.

I bet every persons workplace was starved for cash after the tsunami, by many people who never did a charitable act in their life.

I think there are some fantastic charities here in Ireland. The more you move away from Ireland, the less chance you have to accurately follow your donation. Unless, believing the ads on tv is enough for you, or the odd annual report published.

No, I will stick to the local ones, the ones I can check out, follow and help..

BUT, I will never be foolish enought to believe that EVEN a charity is immune from
greed and corruption and deception. Wherever there is money, poverty, and disaster, there
is some **** looking to make a kiling by whatever means.

My advice, give to charity, but take a bloody keen interest in it, and
try and find out all you can before simply signing over your bloody
bank details...

Someone looking for 50 bucks to send a hive of bees to Africa? C'mon, wake up!

Aishae

yes - its not about necessary overheads - one of the main charities i support is to do with animals - i KNOW there are necessary vet salaries and kennel care fees - the list is big.
but as strata said its about waste. using money to make more - thats one thing. its a good way t o bring in the money. speculate to accumilate.
but waste... unnecessarily large salaries for some (note: 'some') - buying the stationery from one place when it might be 50% cheaper elsewhere and the same quality, errors that lead to double postings - cost of extra literature and stamps (thats a good example)

conorbyrneirl

walshb wrote: »

Yeah, but they don't care, it's not their money they are wasting, it is yours.
Goes to show you how awash with money theses charities are, if they can be so flippant.

Remember after the tsunami, the charities had to ask people to stop donating money, as it was colossal. They actually had too much.
I am always amazed at the amount of people who donate to these charities without even a second thought. They know next to nothing about where
there money is going, or what the charity even does. And that is what a lot of these charities want, less questions the better.

You get it everywhere. After the tsunami, every tom, dick and harry across Ireland was setting up charities, collecting here there and everywhere, and god forbid if you questioned them. No, people just kept throwing money at it.

I bet every persons workplace was starved for cash after the tsunami, by many people who never did a charitable act in their life.

I think there are some fantastic charities here in Ireland. The more you move away from Ireland, the less chance you have to accurately follow your donation. Unless, believing the ads on tv is enough for you, or the odd annual report published.

No, I will stick to the local ones, the ones I can check out, follow and help..

BUT, I will never be foolish enought to believe that EVEN a charity is immune from
greed and corruption and deception. Wherever there is money, poverty, and disaster, there
is some **** looking to make a kiling by whatever means.

how awash these charities are with money!

Come on! You are basing your facts on no facts!

walshb

conorbyrneirl wrote: »

how awash these charities are with money!

Come on! You are basing your facts on no facts!

Hold on. Turn on the tv and you will see ad after ad after ad by the same few charities. These ads are big bucks, leaflets thru doors every couple of days, ads in papers, magazines etc etc. Now, this costs big bucks. Also, they did ask for people NOT to donate any more money during the tsunami. They had too ****ing much.

There are you facts. Ignore if you like; but I'd like to know how they can afford all this? Awash with money. Not to mention the grants they get.

They spend a lot of their time just sitting around thinking up ideas and ways to get money. Remember GOAL, wanting us to give a percent of the SSIA
money to them. Communion and confirmation money the charities were after.

Idea after idea after idea. And always roping in some celeb to plug their business....

Even taking a flight somewhere and you couldn't escape the begging.
Air hostesses going around looking for money for these charities for Africa.

Incessant and relentless campaigning for money money money. So, awash with money they must be.
Not to mention six figure salaries for many employees....

conorbyrneirl

conorbyrneirl wrote: »

the post is from a site called Rumour has it and there is a big banner on the top that says Mostly Outdated and Inaccurate!

Come on!

fair point. heres another list. this one is on facebook.

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=7624294394&topic=14185

conorbyrneirl

If they didn't advertise you wouldn't know they existed (trust me I worked for a charity that didn't advertise and no one knew we existed...we made no money!)

Their job is coming up with ideas to raise money. That's part of what they do. No ideas, no money. No money, no helping people!