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

Charity begins at home ?

Jump to newest
 

By *uckoo clock OP   Couple
over a year ago

Merseyside

There has been outrage in some circles this week at the news that there are currently 30 bosses of charitable organisations that earn in excess of

£ 100,000 a year.

Justified. acceptable even ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

I admit reading comments banging the drum against those people suspected of disproportionately prospering while raising funds and awareness for the front-line charity workers does evoke mixed emotions for me,,,,

I fully endorse its right to question whether the amounts paid to charity executives represent true value to the people who’ve given hard earned cash paying for goods in charity shops or making donations hoping their generosity will reward those in need…

But the fact some people seem so willing to raise their voice focusing on this supposed injustice, comes over as unconsidered and dismissive when not once do they think to mention the good work done by those executives on behalf of the charity,,,,,

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

For once I'm not even going to comment

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

Lol that's always been the case!! That's just life.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

I always question salaries, what is being done to earn them, whether they are sustainable, what's the business of the organisation? Equally, it can be a competitive market and you want the best leaders possible.

On this story my main objection is that the comment comes from a newly appointed Chair being paid £50k a year for 2 days a week, from public funds. His job is to ensure the regulation of charities and promote them, not bring them into disrepute himself.

As to the other person banging on about this story, defending the payments, he is also on a high salary and does a lot less to earn it than any of the chief execs being criticised.

What hasn't been reported is that for almost every small and medium sized charity with staff salaries have been consistently cut over the last two years when posts become vacant and many chief executives have taken a pay cut in order to keep staff pay levels as they are. I haven't spoken to anyone who has had a pay rise in at least 2 years.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

seems to get my goat more when companies, such as energy companies/banks hike up the costs and pay out their execs more, and also then have job cuts.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

As I wrote yesterday


"..........

And it seems to begin in the homes of the heads of the charities.

I've banged on about this, here and elsewhere, for a while. Now Charity Commission chairman William Shawcross agrees with me.

Large salaries paid to charity staff could "bring the charitable world into disrepute", he has warned.

30 staff at 14 leading UK foreign aid charities were paid £100,000 or more last year.

British Red Cross chief executive Sir Nick Young was paid £184,000 last year, two Save the Children executives received more than £160,000 each and Christian Aid chief executive Loretta Minghella was paid £126,072.

Some of those sums are more that the Prime Minister is paid - and it's YOUR money.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23584191"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound


"As I wrote yesterday

..........

And it seems to begin in the homes of the heads of the charities.

I've banged on about this, here and elsewhere, for a while. Now Charity Commission chairman William Shawcross agrees with me.

Large salaries paid to charity staff could "bring the charitable world into disrepute", he has warned.

30 staff at 14 leading UK foreign aid charities were paid £100,000 or more last year.

British Red Cross chief executive Sir Nick Young was paid £184,000 last year, two Save the Children executives received more than £160,000 each and Christian Aid chief executive Loretta Minghella was paid £126,072.

Some of those sums are more that the Prime Minister is paid - and it's YOUR money.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23584191"

I didn't see your post yesterday.

As I said above, William Shawcross is also paid with YOUR money.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"I always question salaries, what is being done to earn them, whether they are sustainable, what's the business of the organisation? Equally, it can be a competitive market and you want the best leaders possible.

On this story my main objection is that the comment comes from a newly appointed Chair being paid £50k a year for 2 days a week, from public funds. His job is to ensure the regulation of charities and promote them, not bring them into disrepute himself.

As to the other person banging on about this story, defending the payments, he is also on a high salary and does a lot less to earn it than any of the chief execs being criticised.

What hasn't been reported is that for almost every small and medium sized charity with staff salaries have been consistently cut over the last two years when posts become vacant and many chief executives have taken a pay cut in order to keep staff pay levels as they are. I haven't spoken to anyone who has had a pay rise in at least 2 years."

That's what gets me too: the mud-slinging. People don't really give to charity as it is, especially in hard times like this and use issues like this to tar all charities with the same brush!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"As I wrote yesterday

..........

And it seems to begin in the homes of the heads of the charities.

I've banged on about this, here and elsewhere, for a while. Now Charity Commission chairman William Shawcross agrees with me.

Large salaries paid to charity staff could "bring the charitable world into disrepute", he has warned.

30 staff at 14 leading UK foreign aid charities were paid £100,000 or more last year.

British Red Cross chief executive Sir Nick Young was paid £184,000 last year, two Save the Children executives received more than £160,000 each and Christian Aid chief executive Loretta Minghella was paid £126,072.

Some of those sums are more that the Prime Minister is paid - and it's YOUR money.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23584191

I didn't see your post yesterday.

As I said above, William Shawcross is also paid with YOUR money.

"

There's a bit of a difference.

Shawcross is paid out of taxation.

Heads of charities are paid out of donations (voluntary taxation).

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

The whole charitable process relies on the combined commitment of everyone ranging from those who donate cash and goods or volunteer time and effort right through to people who simply buy goods from charity shops….

But little of that generosity would reach its target if it weren’t for the layers of permanent staff who get paid to make sure the charity functions effectively…

Those complaining about charity executive pay never seem to mention how not every doctor or nurse or field engineer/field operative etc who works on the charity front line give their service for free….

Many of who are provided with remuneration proportionate to what they would attract working in the public or private sector, which in some cases requires matching a going rate that might seem generous on the face of it. But in reality just represents the true cost of hiring someone with his or her skills.

The reason these paid positions provide appropriate compensation is to secure the services of talented individuals with the relevant experience and expertise which is so vital to co-ordinating the ongoing projects carried out by temporary and voluntary aid workers.

Volunteers who in some cases are more qualified than those being paid, but yet still willingly to give their time and effort without worrying someone at their side is being paid for doing the same work. Because they understand without structured management the funds donated by the public would not reap maximum benefit for those in need…

It seems some people just like to moan.... But thankfully there are other people who genuinely hope to make a difference without worrying about the ancillary issues.

I respect those people who choose to support British based charities that focus on homeland issues….. But I don’t accept the sentiment that all charity should begin at home,,,,

I find that to be a dismissive understanding of the dire problems faced by people all over the world and shows a callous attitude towards the plight of those who suffer through no fault of their own.

Not every charity aims to completely remove all the problems faced by those in need, thats why sometimes the money is used without seeing a tangible end product, but its worth is still equal as a means to reduce suffering,,,,

Charity sometimes-just means simply providing enough support to allow desperate people temporary relief while they’re forced to wait for circumstances to change….

But I guess people who are to busy moaning about executive pay maybe don’t want to shout about all that,,,,, they’d rather focus their energy on complaining about the process of saving lives and pour scorn on the efforts of those trying to make genuine differences in the lives of those in genuine need...

.....

I often wonder if people who continually moan about the running of charitable institutions have become so devoid of compassion they never consider there’s a chance their protestations might dissuade someone from making a donation that could have otherwise saved a life....

I wonder if a question like that ever enters their conscience….

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"The whole charitable process relies on the combined commitment of everyone ranging from those who donate cash and goods or volunteer time and effort right through to people who simply buy goods from charity shops….

But little of that generosity would reach its target if it weren’t for the layers of permanent staff who get paid to make sure the charity functions effectively…

Those complaining about charity executive pay never seem to mention how not every doctor or nurse or field engineer/field operative etc who works on the charity front line give their service for free….

Many of who are provided with remuneration proportionate to what they would attract working in the public or private sector, which in some cases requires matching a going rate that might seem generous on the face of it. But in reality just represents the true cost of hiring someone with his or her skills.

The reason these paid positions provide appropriate compensation is to secure the services of talented individuals with the relevant experience and expertise which is so vital to co-ordinating the ongoing projects carried out by temporary and voluntary aid workers.

Volunteers who in some cases are more qualified than those being paid, but yet still willingly to give their time and effort without worrying someone at their side is being paid for doing the same work. Because they understand without structured management the funds donated by the public would not reap maximum benefit for those in need…

It seems some people just like to moan.... But thankfully there are other people who genuinely hope to make a difference without worrying about the ancillary issues.

I respect those people who choose to support British based charities that focus on homeland issues….. But I don’t accept the sentiment that all charity should begin at home,,,,

I find that to be a dismissive understanding of the dire problems faced by people all over the world and shows a callous attitude towards the plight of those who suffer through no fault of their own.

Not every charity aims to completely remove all the problems faced by those in need, thats why sometimes the money is used without seeing a tangible end product, but its worth is still equal as a means to reduce suffering,,,,

Charity sometimes-just means simply providing enough support to allow desperate people temporary relief while they’re forced to wait for circumstances to change….

But I guess people who are to busy moaning about executive pay maybe don’t want to shout about all that,,,,, they’d rather focus their energy on complaining about the process of saving lives and pour scorn on the efforts of those trying to make genuine differences in the lives of those in genuine need...

.....

I often wonder if people who continually moan about the running of charitable institutions have become so devoid of compassion they never consider there’s a chance their protestations might dissuade someone from making a donation that could have otherwise saved a life....

I wonder if a question like that ever enters their conscience….

"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound


"As I wrote yesterday

..........

And it seems to begin in the homes of the heads of the charities.

I've banged on about this, here and elsewhere, for a while. Now Charity Commission chairman William Shawcross agrees with me.

Large salaries paid to charity staff could "bring the charitable world into disrepute", he has warned.

30 staff at 14 leading UK foreign aid charities were paid £100,000 or more last year.

British Red Cross chief executive Sir Nick Young was paid £184,000 last year, two Save the Children executives received more than £160,000 each and Christian Aid chief executive Loretta Minghella was paid £126,072.

Some of those sums are more that the Prime Minister is paid - and it's YOUR money.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23584191

I didn't see your post yesterday.

As I said above, William Shawcross is also paid with YOUR money.

There's a bit of a difference.

Shawcross is paid out of taxation.

Heads of charities are paid out of donations (voluntary taxation)."

And if people care to look they can see the accounts, including the highest salary in the organisation, just by looking on the Charity Commission web-site. People can make the choice to give to charity, they have no choice in the amount of taxation and what Shawcross is paid. Full time equivalent would be £125k. Is his role any more difficult than that of a chief executive managing a global organisation with a larger budget, more staff and greater legislative issues to deal with?

The newly appointed members of Charity Commission Board are a curious bunch. Open application and appointed by Francis Maude.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"......

But little of that generosity would reach its target if it weren’t for the layers of permanent staff who get paid to make sure the charity functions effectively…

..............."

With the guy at the top of the Red Cross getting £184,000 a year?

Do the Live Aid organisers get paid?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound


"......

But little of that generosity would reach its target if it weren’t for the layers of permanent staff who get paid to make sure the charity functions effectively…

...............

With the guy at the top of the Red Cross getting £184,000 a year?

Do the Live Aid organisers get paid?"

Some did, others didn't. Some acts gave their time, others used it as a marketing opportunity. "Celebs" who give their time for free for payment of their expenses and that of their entourage. It all needs managing.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"......

But little of that generosity would reach its target if it weren’t for the layers of permanent staff who get paid to make sure the charity functions effectively…

...............

With the guy at the top of the Red Cross getting £184,000 a year?

Do the Live Aid organisers get paid?"

I've no idea if they get paid,,,,but I do know they don't save lives by moaning about the efforts of people who do!!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

I have traveled and worked in The Sudan and Ethiopia, seen how the money is spent on the ground with many of the charities executives staying in the best hotels in Khartoum and Addis Ababa.

I am not uncharitable but never again will I give money to the established charities instead have made contact with individual deserving families and sponsor them directly

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"I have traveled and worked in The Sudan and Ethiopia, seen how the money is spent on the ground with many of the charities executives staying in the best hotels in Khartoum and Addis Ababa.

"

That doesn't match any of my experience’s out there.....

Did you actually ask the executives if the hotel costs were paid from their own pockets or if they were being met out of the charity funds?

Its a customary practice that the hotel chain provides free or subsidised accommodation in those circumstances or has the cost covered by the government of the country where the aid is being given?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

Oh yes I made inquiries and with only one exception the hotel costs (not to mention the flash 4X4's) were being met directly by the charities and in the case of Khartoum the actual coal face work with the starving was 1000's of miles away in the south.

Also many trucks could be found touring relatively well off areas of the city SELLING bags of cereals clearly marked Donated by Unicef and other bodies NOT FOR RESALE. I never managed to get to the bottom of who was profiting from this but did get threatened in no uncertain terms for making inquiries.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"Oh yes I made inquiries and with only one exception the hotel costs (not to mention the flash 4X4's) were being met directly by the charities and in the case of Khartoum the actual coal face work with the starving was 1000's of miles away in the south.

Also many trucks could be found touring relatively well off areas of the city SELLING bags of cereals clearly marked Donated by Unicef and other bodies NOT FOR RESALE. I never managed to get to the bottom of who was profiting from this but did get threatened in no uncertain terms for making inquiries.

"

Speaking as as someone whose worked at the "coal face"....I have to say thats a sorry tale....! but thankfully not the case in every situation,,,,,...

Thanks for sharing your experince

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"Oh yes I made inquiries and with only one exception the hotel costs (not to mention the flash 4X4's) were being met directly by the charities and in the case of Khartoum the actual coal face work with the starving was 1000's of miles away in the south.

Also many trucks could be found touring relatively well off areas of the city SELLING bags of cereals clearly marked Donated by Unicef and other bodies NOT FOR RESALE. I never managed to get to the bottom of who was profiting from this but did get threatened in no uncertain terms for making inquiries.

Speaking as as someone whose worked at the "coal face"....I have to say thats a sorry tale....! but thankfully not the case in every situation,,,,,...

Thanks for sharing your experince"

Thanks for the insight from your experience and I always will admire those of you who work at the coal face, it's such a pity there is such a disconnect between the guy/girl who gives the cash in prosperous parts of the world and those like your self who has been in the thick of it in Darfor or where ever.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"

British Red Cross chief executive Sir Nick Young was paid £184,000 last year, two Save the Children executives received more than £160,000 each and Christian Aid chief executive Loretta Minghella was paid £126,072.

Some of those sums are more that the Prime Minister is paid - and it's YOUR money.

"

Maybe we should get get Nick Young into Number 10 then to run the country - because the Red Cross is better at distributing aid to the poor and helpless than the current Government, and David Cameron seems determined to run this country like a Charity.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"Oh yes I made inquiries and with only one exception the hotel costs (not to mention the flash 4X4's) were being met directly by the charities and in the case of Khartoum the actual coal face work with the starving was 1000's of miles away in the south.

Also many trucks could be found touring relatively well off areas of the city SELLING bags of cereals clearly marked Donated by Unicef and other bodies NOT FOR RESALE. I never managed to get to the bottom of who was profiting from this but did get threatened in no uncertain terms for making inquiries.

Speaking as as someone whose worked at the "coal face"....I have to say thats a sorry tale....! but thankfully not the case in every situation,,,,,...

Thanks for sharing your experince

Thanks for the insight from your experience and I always will admire those of you who work at the coal face, it's such a pity there is such a disconnect between the guy/girl who gives the cash in prosperous parts of the world and those like your self who has been in the thick of it in Darfor or where ever."

I don't believe the disconnect is all that wide between those at the coal face and those genuinely compassionate individuals who willingly give donations without worrying about the ancillary issues,,

Life does not give everyone a chance to up-sticks and volunteer their time and effort, but thanks to the efforts of those whose job it is to raise awareness…. Anyone with a conscience can get involved by making a donation which no matter how large or small will in most parts make a difference to the lives of someone living on the edge of despair…

My problem is with those people who don’t appreciate the negative impact all their moaning creates for those who are doing their bit to help…..

Every time someone is dissuaded from making a donation on the back of negative comments about how a charity is run potentially costs a life…

If these people who continually moan would turn their energy to ways of looking to make fundraising easier or more effective they might have something valid to contribute rather than just belittling the efforts of those who try to make a difference

Inconsiderate negativity ultimately erodes the whole ethos behind charitable endeavour ,,,

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

As a volunteer fundraiser for a charity people should look at not just the Chief Eex's pay but how they raise there money. There is lot's of Charities now using teams of professional collectors who are hired from companies, not just chuggers but simple bucket/can collections in public.

Yes the charity will receive some money from your donation but what they are not telling you is part of your donation is going towards paying the person you give that donation too and also some even receive commission on how much they collect which all comes out of your kind donation.

You see these people in manly shopping centres mainly for Children's charities or research for illnesses but have you ever heard of these charities?

As someone who believes ALL charities should be open and up front about there donations I even seen a forces charity who lured the public by having a bucket on there table only to tell people they did not take cash donations but sold raffle tickets which were £2-50 each and people were then too embarrassed to refuse especially the elderly.

And after looking into the said charity I wouldn't say they were crooked but some of the things on there website looks questionable.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"As a volunteer fundraiser for a charity people should look at not just the Chief Eex's pay but how they raise there money. There is lot's of Charities now using teams of professional collectors who are hired from companies, not just chuggers but simple bucket/can collections in public.

Yes the charity will receive some money from your donation but what they are not telling you is part of your donation is going towards paying the person you give that donation too and also some even receive commission on how much they collect which all comes out of your kind donation.

You see these people in manly shopping centres mainly for Children's charities or research for illnesses but have you ever heard of these charities?

As someone who believes ALL charities should be open and up front about there donations I even seen a forces charity who lured the public by having a bucket on there table only to tell people they did not take cash donations but sold raffle tickets which were £2-50 each and people were then too embarrassed to refuse especially the elderly.

And after looking into the said charity I wouldn't say they were crooked but some of the things on there website looks questionable."

Very insightful,,, thanks for sharing....

But knowing what you do,,,, would you discourage anyone from making a donation knowing that the target beneficiary of the charity would also lose out proportionally ?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ucsparkMan
over a year ago

dudley

Has someone who benefits greatly from a charity and who also gives most of his spare time to the same charity to try and make a difference I note the following points

1. The charity sector as been rather squeezed to say the least in times of a recession

2. Charities need a dynamic leader and as such you have to pay somewhat to gain such a person

3. Charities are there to help where governments fail the people they are elected to care for.

4. My grandfather always said if you think something is wrong fix it , don't just sit there and moan about it. ( if you think someone is overpaid ask if they can justify their salary)

All I would ask anyone who moans about a charity is too remember the great work most do and you could always apply to be CEO to show everyone how it is done

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ucsparkMan
over a year ago

dudley

Has someone who benefits greatly from a charity and who also gives most of his spare time to the same charity to try and make a difference I note the following points

1. The charity sector as been rather squeezed to say the least in times of a recession

2. Charities need a dynamic leader and as such you have to pay somewhat to gain such a person

3. Charities are there to help where governments fail the people they are elected to care for.

4. My grandfather always said if you think something is wrong fix it , don't just sit there and moan about it. ( if you think someone is overpaid ask if they can justify their salary)

All I would ask anyone who moans about a charity is too remember the great work most do and you could always apply to be CEO to show everyone how it is done

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"Has someone who benefits greatly from a charity and who also gives most of his spare time to the same charity to try and make a difference I note the following points

1. The charity sector as been rather squeezed to say the least in times of a recession

2. Charities need a dynamic leader and as such you have to pay somewhat to gain such a person

3. Charities are there to help where governments fail the people they are elected to care for.

4. My grandfather always said if you think something is wrong fix it , don't just sit there and moan about it. ( if you think someone is overpaid ask if they can justify their salary)

All I would ask anyone who moans about a charity is too remember the great work most do and you could always apply to be CEO to show everyone how it is done"

Excellent post...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound


"Has someone who benefits greatly from a charity and who also gives most of his spare time to the same charity to try and make a difference I note the following points

1. The charity sector as been rather squeezed to say the least in times of a recession

2. Charities need a dynamic leader and as such you have to pay somewhat to gain such a person

3. Charities are there to help where governments fail the people they are elected to care for.

4. My grandfather always said if you think something is wrong fix it , don't just sit there and moan about it. ( if you think someone is overpaid ask if they can justify their salary)

All I would ask anyone who moans about a charity is too remember the great work most do and you could always apply to be CEO to show everyone how it is done"

I thank you for this post.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ucsparkMan
over a year ago

dudley


"Has someone who benefits greatly from a charity and who also gives most of his spare time to the same charity to try and make a difference I note the following points

1. The charity sector as been rather squeezed to say the least in times of a recession

2. Charities need a dynamic leader and as such you have to pay somewhat to gain such a person

3. Charities are there to help where governments fail the people they are elected to care for.

4. My grandfather always said if you think something is wrong fix it , don't just sit there and moan about it. ( if you think someone is overpaid ask if they can justify their salary)

All I would ask anyone who moans about a charity is too remember the great work most do and you could always apply to be CEO to show everyone how it is done

I thank you for this post.

"

Licky out of everyone who posts on forums, you are probably the one person who makes me think so hard on my answer. You have a tendancy to make me remember where I have come from, what I was taught from a early age. Your ability to get people to self question themselves and push there understanding of subjects are always refreshing. Along with soxy you both make me think everyday on come on here and for that I thank you both.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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

I think it is down to a personal choice if you give but object strongly to people not advertising that these fundraisers are being paid from your donations to collect. Would the public be as kind if they knew this?.

Do they say how much of every pound donated goes to the charity NO.

that's my objection to these collectors.

The charity I help out at does not use pro collectors and if they started to I would leave and are quite open that every pound donated 87p goes direct to frontline services and 13p goes on overheads including fundraising.

I give to most charity collectors but not pro or organisations who have been involved in covering up child abuse.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound


"I think it is down to a personal choice if you give but object strongly to people not advertising that these fundraisers are being paid from your donations to collect. Would the public be as kind if they knew this?.

Do they say how much of every pound donated goes to the charity NO.

that's my objection to these collectors.

The charity I help out at does not use pro collectors and if they started to I would leave and are quite open that every pound donated 87p goes direct to frontline services and 13p goes on overheads including fundraising.

I give to most charity collectors but not pro or organisations who have been involved in covering up child abuse.

"

The debates in the charity sector about professional fundraisers, sign up and collecting companies go on long into the night. The larger ones use them, they say, as it is more cost effective and an effective way of raising money. It is part of the mix with volunteer fundraisers.

It is important, from a techy point of view, to understand that fundraising is not a charitable activity in its own right. Charities have to take off the costs of fundraising from their charitable spending, in the same way that they have to take off the costs of governance (AGMs, trustee costs etc.). Fundraising always costs, even when done by volunteers.

BBC Children In Need make the claim that every penny in every pound goes to the charitable causes. It is only able to make that claim because the licence fee pays for the costs of running the organisation behind the appeal every year.

As I have said before, if you want every penny in every pound you give to go directly to the charitable aim you support you are going to have to give your money directly to a person in need and tell them to spend on the things of which you approve. If it's for animals that's going to be harder to do. If it's for social justice even more difficult.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


". .......

2. Charities need a dynamic leader and as such you have to pay somewhat to gain such a person

.............."

Who amongst us could have named the head of the Red Cross before the revelations about his pay?

Not exactly dynamic, eh?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ucsparkMan
over a year ago

dudley


". .......

2. Charities need a dynamic leader and as such you have to pay somewhat to gain such a person

..............

Who amongst us could have named the head of the Red Cross before the revelations about his pay?

Not exactly dynamic, eh?"

Dynamic to me is that they are not necessary the face or voice of a charity but someone who points the way, meets with governments and business. They make people sit up and listen and want to make a difference. It is so many things that go into the role.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


". .......

2. Charities need a dynamic leader and as such you have to pay somewhat to gain such a person

..............

Who amongst us could have named the head of the Red Cross before the revelations about his pay?

Not exactly dynamic, eh?"

I just don’t see the point of your comment there….. what is it meant to infer,, ?

Other than perhaps you’ve taken issue with the semantics of using the word dynamic.!.

Oh C'mon try and say something positive for a change,,,, it'll make ya feel good ... I promise.... go on I dare ya!!!lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

I couldn't feel better than I do right now.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"I couldn't feel better than I do right now."

I’m genuinely glad to hear it….

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow


"I couldn't feel better than I do right now.

I’m genuinely glad to hear it…. "

Me too.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

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


"I couldn't feel better than I do right now.

I’m genuinely glad to hear it….

Me too."

Would it be wrong of me to hope your present joyous demeanour was the result of an epiphany regards the good feelings brought on by making a positive contribution to the world of charitable endeavour…

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnyMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

Nope. It was an email from an organisation which will remain nameless.

They're taking a zero hours employer to court on behalf of an ex-employee.

A lawyer from the firm representing the ex-employee is doing it no win-no fee but feels the need for a second counsel. That'll cost c £10,000 and can I please send them some money.

I didn't send any money and I feel great.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

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


"Nope. It was an email from an organisation which will remain nameless.

They're taking a zero hours employer to court on behalf of an ex-employee.

A lawyer from the firm representing the ex-employee is doing it no win-no fee but feels the need for a second counsel. That'll cost c £10,000 and can I please send them some money.

I didn't send any money and I feel great."

pmsl...... haha..... Ooooooooo your such a sceptic lol

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