Which one is that then?
Doesn't really negate my point though does it. We are talking about generally, not isolated incidents.
Wish i could un-see
- Thread starter Gabbatek
- Start date
Which one is that then?
Doesn't really negate my point though does it. We are talking about generally, not isolated incidents.
When you say "most", you actually mean a very small number, generally large multinational charities with hundreds of millions of pounds and thousands of staff to deal with?
Most charities are likely to be run by volunteers. Those large companies needs someone with experience to run them and will be a full time job, ergo you need to pay someone with experience to run them.
It's no excuse not to donate to charity, but if you are put off then the simple solution is just donate to smaller charities and check the charities commission website to see how much is being spent where before hand.
"We" did intervene. We supplied weapons and support to the other side, so the fight could continue.
There are all questions in just how much involvement the US and western intelligence and clandestine services had in the initial uprising and Arab spring in the first place. The US definitely offered support in some ways, but how much else did it provide/instigate?
This whole story of "valiant" locals standing up to the evil dictator that seems to be pushed by some is just bull. It's a far more complex story than that, with both sides being to blame, and all stirred up by the conflict becoming a proxy war between multiple partners (Saudi/Iran and Russia/USA, being just two groups). Unfortunately Syria seems to be following the pat of so many African states during the Cold War, where conflict is continued by input from outside sources.
Last edited:
It's probably a bit of a myth even for the big fish. Save the Children, as I posted on the last page - top-10 by donations in the UK - spends around 1% on 'governance and other costs', with a further 11% on fundraising - leaving 88% to spend on actual charitable work.
Why should he? It's not his fault, and saving one child isn't going to do anything. It's like Oxfam in Africa, yes they help....but we're not getting to the underlying cause of the issue. Governments need to sort it out.
Only when we overcome our dependence on fossil fuels will be even begin to make the world a fairer place for everyone.
Isn't it like 1% of the worlds population live above the poverty line
Governments are trying to sort it, with the help of NGOs and international organisations. Many of the poorest countries can't afford to get over the first hurdle to stimulate growth, which is where the NGOs and others step in to start the cycle - health, education, equality. Once it gets to a certain stage it becomes self fulfilling. Governments raise more tax from increased wages and can start funding their own infrastructure on their own, which helps the next generation and so forth.
Every country is different, and every country has multiple issues that need sorting. Like most things it isn't black and white or a single simple issue to "fix".
It doesn't help when they become the target of proxy wars though, and that has been a major issue for a significant chunk of Africa and the Middle East over the last 60-70 years.
Indeed. The CEO earned about £150k last year which isn't a huge amount of money for a £390M business.
I suspect other charities (Cancer Research spring to mind) are less efficient, though.
I wasn't aware I needed an excuse
However another big deal (for me) which the "big fish" refuse to address is the ability to give one-off, anonymous donations, without giving them your bank details.
The last chap who came knocking at my door, I said to him: "I'll make a one-off cash donation now if I can do so without giving you my phone number or bank details."
He refused, said it was their policy to "protect staff", such that they could only accept donations by direct debit, and only if they had my personal details on file.
So I gave nothing.
Last edited:
I get the impression a lot of people believe the CEO should do it voluntarily, or for a nominal salary of £20k, which is just laughable.
I wasn't aware I needed an excuse
However another big deal (for me) which the "big fish" refuse to address is the ability to give one-off, anonymous donations, without giving them your bank details.
The last chap who came knocking at my door, I said to him: "I'll make a one-off cash donation now if I can do so without giving you my phone number or bank details."
He refused, said it was their policy to "protect staff", such that they could only accept donations by direct debit, and only if they had my personal details on file.
So I gave nothing.
TBH i never and will never sign up in that kind of situation. Rather I choose charities and set up direct debits (or just single payments) by researching on the internet.
That said there is a simple way of setting up single payments. Get the information from the person at the door and send a cheque to the companies postal address.
For example - Save the Children
http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/contact-us/donate-by-post
Greenpeace - https://secure.greenpeace.org.uk/page/contribute/greenpeace-generic
I'm sure they will still cash your cheque even if you don't fill in the phone and/or email sections.
It makes sense for volunteers not to handle to handle money, even if it is annoying. Saves having to deal with the inevitable losing and/or theft of money that would occur.
Last edited:
It still means 50,000 people need to donate £3 just to cover the CEOs salary.
If they earn 320 million a year (you rightly said they were a "big business", whether intentional or not) then they sure as hell don't need my £3.
But if they paid the CEO £25k then they almost certainly wouldn't make £390M a year ...
I really don't understand the 'they don't need my money' attitude. Who don't? Save the Children? The starving, dying children?
Says who?
How about accepting that it is just fine to not donate to a charity?
Are people actually offended by people who can afford to donate but dont?
He was suggesting that 'because it's a big company who pays their CEO some money' wasn't an excuse. It was in the bit you decided not to quote.
If you don't want to pay to charity then don't. Just don't use the excuse that it's anything to do with not wanting to line the pockets of CEOs.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
So? It's a global organisation - how are they going to find the right talent to run and be accountable for such an organisation if they don't pay a salary commensurate with such a role?
I've never really understood the issue with salaried staff at charities. If you filled them with people who would work for free or very little I'd suggest they might find themselves less able to achieve their goals.
As Basher said, that's fine too. Making up excuses to try and justify it on the other hand is silly.
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2007
- Posts
- 2,184
- Location
- Abingdon
Who would have thought that war is bad and that children are often the ones to suffer the worst? Unfortunately this little girl is just one of millions of children who have suffered unnecessarily throughout history, its just that nowadays these horrors are more accurately recorded and reported for all to see.
War is part of human nature and won't stop in any of our lifetimes, if ever.
War is part of human nature and won't stop in any of our lifetimes, if ever.
Associate
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2014
- Posts
- 1,111
It's equally ridiculous to say 'oh there is so much suffering in the world, you aren't going to be able to stop it all, whats the point in helping just don't look at it and be happy with what you have'.
Of course you as an individual can't change the world. But you can make small differences. And there is nothing wrong with wanting to do that.
Of course you as an individual can't change the world. But you can make small differences. And there is nothing wrong with wanting to do that.
People see these headline figures for things like CEO pay or staffing costs. How on earth do they expect charities to work, everybody works for free?
Running a charity costs money exactly the same as running a business. The difference is that charities don't make profits, they invest in humanitarian causes instead of share holders.
What about American Red Cross then?