FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Should charities accept money from corrupt corporations?

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Do you think a charity should accept any (legal) money being donated to them in order to help others or should they reject some donations?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

6ix9ine tried donating money to a charity to feed kids and they rejected it

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"6ix9ine tried donating money to a charity to feed kids and they rejected it"

Which, imo - good

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ob Carpe DiemMan
over a year ago

Torquay


"Do you think a charity should accept any (legal) money being donated to them in order to help others or should they reject some donations?"

Who judges if the corporation is corrupt, do you have any in mind

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"6ix9ine tried donating money to a charity to feed kids and they rejected it

Which, imo - good "

Why do you think that?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abonWoman
over a year ago

L’boro/Ashby & Cheltenham

Tricky one.

How would you define corrupt? Would the donor get publicity/tax breaks for their generous heartfelt donation? Is the donor’s company at odds with the charity’s mission? I’d say it depends on the overall good that gets done.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Do you think a charity should accept any (legal) money being donated to them in order to help others or should they reject some donations?

Who judges if the corporation is corrupt, do you have any in mind"
No, and for the sake of the argument let's say 90% of general public see that corporation/individual to be corrupt or are disgusted by their actions.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I don't see why not, as long as all of the money genuinely goes towards the cause and not something dodgy that the charity itself is doing (à la Oxfam).

I would rather put some my morals aside than watch children/animals/poor people starve.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Tricky one.

How would you define corrupt? Would the donor get publicity/tax breaks for their generous heartfelt donation? Is the donor’s company at odds with the charity’s mission? I’d say it depends on the overall good that gets done. "

Let's say all of the above.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think as long as it not publicised where the money comes from.

A charity shouldn’t be associated with something or or someone that goes against their core principles, nor should they have to reject donations when they’re in need.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I work for a charity and at the moment I think we would accept any donations (so long as they are legal!)

To be fair though people can donate privately and we don't ever know who they are too

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I think as long as it not publicised where the money comes from.

A charity shouldn’t be associated with something or or someone that goes against their core principles, nor should they have to reject donations when they’re in need. "

It's a charity, it's always in need.

And once again for the sake of the argument imagine the worst possible scenario for the doner, but within legal boundaries.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *edangel_2013Woman
over a year ago

southend


"6ix9ine tried donating money to a charity to feed kids and they rejected it

Which, imo - good

Why do you think that?"

In his specific case, he was charged with using a child in a sexual act and placed on probation. Then he tried donating to a charity that protects children. They refused it because it goes against their charity aims.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abonWoman
over a year ago

L’boro/Ashby & Cheltenham


"Tricky one.

How would you define corrupt? Would the donor get publicity/tax breaks for their generous heartfelt donation? Is the donor’s company at odds with the charity’s mission? I’d say it depends on the overall good that gets done.

Let's say all of the above."

No then...I think the charity would feel sickened enabling any benefits to a company that obviously at odds with them...actually undermining the work they were trying to do. The charity should pressure the company to lessen/cease their ‘nasty stuff’ with the carrot of good publicity.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 13/05/20 20:36:53]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ncemoreroundthesunCouple
over a year ago

on the move

Reminiscent of the Lance Armstrong thing. A massive cheat, but he raised millions for charity, doesn't excuse the bad part, but if some good can come of it...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think as long as it not publicised where the money comes from.

A charity shouldn’t be associated with something or or someone that goes against their core principles, nor should they have to reject donations when they’re in need.

It's a charity, it's always in need.

And once again for the sake of the argument imagine the worst possible scenario for the doner, but within legal boundaries."

I understood the question that was my answer.

As long as it’s not publicised to enhance the doners brand, or affect the reputation of the charity then yes accept the donations.

It’s not ideal, however, at least then someone will benefit.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Tricky one.

How would you define corrupt? Would the donor get publicity/tax breaks for their generous heartfelt donation? Is the donor’s company at odds with the charity’s mission? I’d say it depends on the overall good that gets done.

Let's say all of the above.

No then...I think the charity would feel sickened enabling any benefits to a company that obviously at odds with them...actually undermining the work they were trying to do. The charity should pressure the company to lessen/cease their ‘nasty stuff’ with the carrot of good publicity. "

Ok let's say Amazon pledges to donate 500 billion dollars to help feed people around the world but is known to mistreat their employees providing unsafe working conditions resulting in couple of deaths.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Tricky one.

How would you define corrupt? Would the donor get publicity/tax breaks for their generous heartfelt donation? Is the donor’s company at odds with the charity’s mission? I’d say it depends on the overall good that gets done.

Let's say all of the above.

No then...I think the charity would feel sickened enabling any benefits to a company that obviously at odds with them...actually undermining the work they were trying to do. The charity should pressure the company to lessen/cease their ‘nasty stuff’ with the carrot of good publicity.

Ok let's say Amazon pledges to donate 500 billion dollars to help feed people around the world but is known to mistreat their employees providing unsafe working conditions resulting in couple of deaths."

It also broadcasted this all over the internet and TV for publicity

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Tricky one.

How would you define corrupt? Would the donor get publicity/tax breaks for their generous heartfelt donation? Is the donor’s company at odds with the charity’s mission? I’d say it depends on the overall good that gets done.

Let's say all of the above.

No then...I think the charity would feel sickened enabling any benefits to a company that obviously at odds with them...actually undermining the work they were trying to do. The charity should pressure the company to lessen/cease their ‘nasty stuff’ with the carrot of good publicity.

Ok let's say Amazon pledges to donate 500 billion dollars to help feed people around the world but is known to mistreat their employees providing unsafe working conditions resulting in couple of deaths.

It also broadcasted this all over the internet and TV for publicity"

Even though something like this would obviously be a massive PR stunt I still can't help but think that money would go towards doing some good. It wouldn't cancel out Amazon's atrocities but if it can save/improve lives then why not? Sometimes charity trumps pride.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

It is a tough moral dilemma I think.

Like some people said the corporation can go against the charity's mission but in the end, isn't charity's primary mission to help others?

So to follow up, would you as a supporter of the charity or member of the public be annoyed if the charity did accept the donation?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The rapper fella could have donated anonymously if it was a truely selfless act, but I know a lot of people expect some public acknowledgment for donating significant amounts

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"The rapper fella could have donated anonymously if it was a truely selfless act, but I know a lot of people expect some public acknowledgment for donating significant amounts"

There's no such thing as a truly selfless act, anything you do right down to cleaning toilets is for your own benefit.

But yes, he could have donated the money anonymously, don't think he has the spine for that if the allegations were truthful (didn't follow the case so don't know).

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If there is evidence they are corrupt their money shouldn't be acceptable to any charity.

Illegal and illicit gained monies shouldn't be used to fund any organism whether it is charity or not.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *acey_RedWoman
over a year ago

Liverpool

I don't think the onus should be on the charity to determine if money is from a corrupt source or not. Businesses should be better regulated so it's not such an issue in the first place. As should who is able to register as a charity.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"I don't think the onus should be on the charity to determine if money is from a corrupt source or not. Businesses should be better regulated so it's not such an issue in the first place. As should who is able to register as a charity."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I don't think the onus should be on the charity to determine if money is from a corrupt source or not. Businesses should be better regulated so it's not such an issue in the first place. As should who is able to register as a charity."

So like an external body that accepts donations and distributes them to desired charities anonymously?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I once had a conversation with a gentleman who ran a charity shop, and in the conversation he explained to me that it was a great business for him, as he received a lot of tax relief as was an operating charity, and he explained that only had to hand over around 10% of profits to actual charity... That sounds a tad corrupt to me.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

In terms of legal as in “clean” money

Are you meaning from an example such as 6ix9ine where the money could be from his music income.

Or money that is technically legal but has been cleaned from an illegal operation, cartel/mafia kinda stuff.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *acey_RedWoman
over a year ago

Liverpool


"I don't think the onus should be on the charity to determine if money is from a corrupt source or not. Businesses should be better regulated so it's not such an issue in the first place. As should who is able to register as a charity.

So like an external body that accepts donations and distributes them to desired charities anonymously?"

No. Where did that come from?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I don't think the onus should be on the charity to determine if money is from a corrupt source or not. Businesses should be better regulated so it's not such an issue in the first place. As should who is able to register as a charity.

So like an external body that accepts donations and distributes them to desired charities anonymously?

No. Where did that come from?"

Who would be responsible for accepting donations? Or do you mean remove that responsibility altogether and make it automatic?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *acey_RedWoman
over a year ago

Liverpool


"I don't think the onus should be on the charity to determine if money is from a corrupt source or not. Businesses should be better regulated so it's not such an issue in the first place. As should who is able to register as a charity.

So like an external body that accepts donations and distributes them to desired charities anonymously?

No. Where did that come from?

Who would be responsible for accepting donations? Or do you mean remove that responsibility altogether and make it automatic? "

I mean if businesses weren't allowed to be corrupt then charities wouldn't have to worry about who they accept donations from.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I don't think the onus should be on the charity to determine if money is from a corrupt source or not. Businesses should be better regulated so it's not such an issue in the first place. As should who is able to register as a charity.

So like an external body that accepts donations and distributes them to desired charities anonymously?

No. Where did that come from?

Who would be responsible for accepting donations? Or do you mean remove that responsibility altogether and make it automatic?

I mean if businesses weren't allowed to be corrupt then charities wouldn't have to worry about who they accept donations from."

That would be ideal yes but it's not what the thread is about

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abonWoman
over a year ago

L’boro/Ashby & Cheltenham


"Tricky one.

How would you define corrupt? Would the donor get publicity/tax breaks for their generous heartfelt donation? Is the donor’s company at odds with the charity’s mission? I’d say it depends on the overall good that gets done.

Let's say all of the above.

No then...I think the charity would feel sickened enabling any benefits to a company that obviously at odds with them...actually undermining the work they were trying to do. The charity should pressure the company to lessen/cease their ‘nasty stuff’ with the carrot of good publicity.

Ok let's say Amazon pledges to donate 500 billion dollars to help feed people around the world but is known to mistreat their employees providing unsafe working conditions resulting in couple of deaths.

It also broadcasted this all over the internet and TV for publicity"

Firstly, that’s a craaaazy sum of money... why would Amazon do that. I can’t suspend my disbelief that a company that would give half a trillion dollars to the world would also still have chronic and unaddressed unsafe working conditions! But that amount of money could change the world, though, and if that was going to happen, then I’d say the charity should go for it! However, if the money was being used to just feed people for one season with infertile grain that was, say, grown & shipped by Amazon partners, then I can see why and then you’d want it to be rejected...but can you really say no to that volume of aid?! Tough one!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *adame 2SwordsWoman
over a year ago

Victoria, London

Individuals go to confession and forgiveness thereby buying their goodness, instead of making and rectifying their mistakes

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No, money is money

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *.D.I.D.A.SMan
over a year ago

London/Essex... ish... Romford to be exact

Isn't this all what UAE and Saudi Arabia and Russian mobsters do when they buy football clubs known as sport washing?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

There was a BBC documentary on charities. One in particular which is on annually on the BBC! invest Thier money(money from the people) in companies that deal in arms and weapons! The biggest irony is that this charity is suppose to help children effected by such conflicts as warfare's! They invest millions!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abonWoman
over a year ago

L’boro/Ashby & Cheltenham


"There was a BBC documentary on charities. One in particular which is on annually on the BBC! invest Thier money(money from the people) in companies that deal in arms and weapons! The biggest irony is that this charity is suppose to help children effected by such conflicts as warfare's! They invest millions! "

How hard is it to find any company that doesn’t invest in immoral companies in some way...directly or indirectly.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *pursChick aka ShortieWoman
over a year ago

On a mooch


"I think as long as it not publicised where the money comes from.

A charity shouldn’t be associated with something or or someone that goes against their core principles, nor should they have to reject donations when they’re in need. "

It’s this and the main reason charities reject money from certain sources, their core principles

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Perhaps its more important what the charity does with money it receives rather than some individuals perception of what they consider corrupt corporations.

Money itself isnt corrupt....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top