Thread for drawing attention to good and bad causes

[Ivan]

Please be vigilant when making doorstep donations of second-hand goods to what you think are charities. You could just be lining the pockets of third party organisations working for commercial gain, not a charity.

The British Heart Foundation has launched a nationwide campaign to raise awareness of the effect these commercial doorstep collections are having. The BHF has seen a 25% drop in household collections due to this commercial activity, depriving it of money which could be spent in the fight against heart disease.

One campaigner against this scam is Jo Swinson, the Liberal Democrat MP for East Dunbartonshire, who said: “Bogus charity bag collectors cost UK charities up to £3 million a year”. Another is Lisa Nandy, the Labour MP for Wigan, who is supporting the BHF campaign. She said: “Companies working for commercial gain are a huge problem for charities. I’d like to highlight that 100% of the profits made from donations to the BHF stay with the charity and help them continue their life-saving work, whereas as little as 5% can go to a charity via a commercial collection”.

http://www.lisanandy.co.uk/news/lisa-nandy-mp-highlights-the-issue-of-%E2%80%98commercial%E2%80%99-doorstep-collections/

Here’s what to do the next time a charity bag comes through your letterbox:-
1. Look at the bag – does it have a registered charity number clearly displayed (this is different to a business number), a contact address, and a phone number (not a PO Box and mobile number)?
2. Look again – some bags have pictures and logos suggesting they are a charity, but when you look carefully, you'll see that they’re a private company which only makes a donation to charity.
3. If in doubt, call the charity yourself or visit www.charitycommission.gov.uk and check its list of registered charities.
4. Report misleading information to your local Trading Standards Service, or contact Consumer Direct at www.consumerdirect.gov.uk

The British Heart Foundation carries out doorstep collections using clearly identified vans and drivers. Their advice to householders is:-
1. Donate to a charity that organises its own collections.
2. Ask the collector for identification – quite often donations are stolen from doorsteps before official collectors get there.
3. Check collection bags and leaflets for clear information about how much of the proceeds from your goods go to that charity.

Better still, take your donations directly into your local charity shop. The bogus bags do make quite good bin liners!

Please pass this information on to everyone in your address book. If enough of us wise up, it won’t be worthwhile for these scammers to continue their practice, which is at best depriving, and at worst stealing from, legitimate charities.

[witchfinder]

The Military Wives Choir was formed in 2010 by Gareth Malone for the BBC2 series - The Choir, Military Wives - and is made up of women whose husbands and partners are on active service overseas with the UK armed forces.(wikipedia)

"Wherever You Are" is a song by Paul Mealor and performed by the Military Wives Choir under the direction of Gareth Malone. It is scheduled to be released in the UK as a single by Decca Records on 19 December 2011, with proceeds going to the Royal British Legion and SSAFA Forces Help (wikipedia)

Each year at Christmas in the UK there is a battle for the number 1 position at the top of the music charts, in recent years the winners of TV talent shows have been the main contenders, this heaps publicity and money into the tv stations, record labels, agents and a whole host of commercial enterprises.

SSAFA = Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association

Royal British Legion = an organisation which provides social, financial, emotional and practicle help for those serving in the armed forces, or for those who have served in the armed forces.

[whitbyforklift]

Another trend that is happening now on TV ads is just not on.
I am referring to the ones that ask for a certain sum of money each month.
What makes this even worse is asking for £2.00 a month to save the children
then next add £2.00 a month to save the donkeys.
I can hazard a guess as to which will get most support.
I wonder how much all charities really get after the greasy thumbs have
taken their share?
Any collector in the street who shakes a tin in front of me can get lost.
Don,t get me wrong,I am a great believer in charity.
I will accept it anytime.

[bobby]

whitbyforklift said: I wonder how much all charities really get after the greasy thumbs have
taken their share?

Some years ago, a large United Dairy bottling plant at Vauxhall cross (just down the road from last weeks helicopter crash) closed down, it was then taken over by a charity organisation and used as a collection and distribution warehouse. Goods came in from all over the UK and supposedly distributed to various charities. My Mates Brother worked for the Charity, he actually purchased a Ford Transit to travel to and from work, the reason for the Transit was because his car wasn’t large enough to carry all the stuff he was distributing to himself. He wasn’t the only one, even the manager of the plant had a van. I very much doubt that out of the thousands of pounds worth of gear, very little goods of any real value actually got to the Charities they where donated to, not only that, but they (staff) where running a private printing business using the printing equipment that was supposed to be for Charity circulars and advertising.

I don’t know if this sort of thing is still going on, and if it is on such a grand scale, but I wonder how many lives those thefts cost.

[Ivan]

whitbyforklift wrote:-
I wonder how much all charities really get after the greasy thumbs have taken their share?

A couple of years ago, in the pre-Cutting Edge days when I had time to watch television, I saw a programme about these monthly donations to charity. Apparently, the arrangements to collect them are outsourced to private companies, and it can take up to thirty months before any of your money gets to your chosen charity; the company takes its ‘cut’ first.

Another problem is that once you’ve agreed to pay £2 a month, don’t be surprised if you get bombarded with requests to up your donation to £3 a month.

In these difficult times, many people won’t have any spare money to give away, while others will look for any excuse not to donate, salving their consciences by telling themselves that none of the money ends up doing any good. That’s rubbish. For example, for every pound you give to Oxfam, 84p goes directly to emergency, development and campaigning work, 9p is spent on support costs and 7p is invested to generate future revenue.
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/

If you do want to give without some of your money being used to boost the profits of a collector, occasional payments made direct to the charity are the best way to ensure that your donations achieve their intended purpose. And of course you can always take unwanted but saleable items to a charity shop.

[Guest]

I wonder how much all charities really get…

“The Y”, the YMCA, the Young Men’s Christian Association, which serves young persons of both genders regardless of ethnicity, religion, or national origin, funnels one hundred percent of contributions into youth programs if the contributor so indicates. I once worked yearly on a Y Christmas tree lot; all workers were volunteers. Per season, $40,000-$42,000 sales minus $18,000-$20,000 expenses (cost of trees, etc.) generated $20,000-$24,000, one hundred percent of which went into youth programs, including Youth in Government, youth swimming lessons, after school child care, youth sports, and youth summer camps.

[boatlady]

It's a really good organisation in GB, too - does a lot of work locally with homeless youngsters, and has saved many a young person from living on the street and the vulnerability that involves.
Sadly, I believe they tried to take over an old hotel in my town to open hostel and outreach services and local residents protested and prevented the sale going through.

[moonbeam]

You can count me among the distrustful. I don't donate to charities, and if I were to see someone on a street corner, I'd give them food, but never money.

[Phil Hornby]

On those occasions when I am sitting in a London Railway terminus ( probably about ten times a year) I rarely get away without somebody coming up politely to me and asking if I can (eg) help top up their 'Oyster Card' or am prepared to give them a couple of pounds ( last time it was £1.80 for some reason!). My response is always the same : I tell them that they can have the cash, but that they should not seek money in that way since it is possibly illegal, and that someday they will ask the wrong person and end up in difficulty. I often consider that if my own children were in such financial straits I would be pleased to think that some stranger had helped them, so declining a polite request is not something I like to do.

For some reason I don't feel so kindly disposed towards those sitting on a pavement drinking cans of strong brew and mumbling a request for 'loose change'. Call me old-fashioned...

[oftenwrong]

There have always been rogues who set up a "Charity" designed mainly to provide the organisers with a comfortable lifestyle. There may be a clue when they repeatedly hold "Gala Fundraising Events" in top hotels with banquetting facilities.

My personal rule-of-thumb is to look for ecclesiastical connections, as those people have had Centuries to get the right balance between cupidity and validity.

[Guest]

Moonbeam,

In the United States, the drowning rate for Black children is three times greater than the rate for White children. “The Y” operates two programs that address this problem. “Urban Swim” and “Make a Splash” serve Black, Hispanic, and all other ethnicities non-swimmer children in urban areas by putting them through YMCA Water Safety course. “Urban Swim” brings non-swimmers to the “Y”; “Make a Splash” takes the “Y” to the non-swimmers.

About “Make a Splash”: Once upon a time, Black and Hispanic apartment dwellers’ children were not regularly exposed to the threat of drowning, as most modest rent apartments did not have pool access. Now, most apartment dwellers’ children are exposed to the threat of drowning daily, as most apartment complexes have pools. “Make a Splash” takes YMCA pool standards (water testing), lifeguards, and swim instructors to selected urban apartment complex pools on a scheduled basis during June, July, and August.

Contributors can contribute directly to “Urban Swim” and “Make a Splash” through their local YMCA (the local association) or the National YMCA by contacting the person(s) that oversee contributions and arranging to have their contributions so designated. If a contributor so chooses, one hundred percent of their contributions can be routed to pay for children’s YMCA Water Safety course fees. The links below may be of assistance.

The Y: HERE FOR YOU – FIND YOUR Y
http://www.ymca.net/find-your-y/

[boatlady]

Sounds very practical and worthwhile

[skwalker1964]

This one got my support, so I propose it for you all to make your own choice:

http://www.causes.com/KeepDisabilityLivingAllowance

[oftenwrong]

This one got my support, so I propose it for you all to make your own choice:

http://www.causes.com/KeepDisabilityLivingAllowance

This may be the appropriate moment to exploit my GCSE in Stating the Bleedin' Obvious:

The alternative to Disability Living Allowance and similar Benefits can be seen in any North African town, which to the Tourist appears to be mainly populated by beggars.

[Ivan]

I have a moral dilemma when it comes to good causes. The amount of money which most people can spare to give to charity is finite, especially in these difficult times, but, apart from endless petitions, I’m frequently asked to retweet on behalf of various causes to my 3,000 plus followers on Twitter.

There are three categories of these appeals:-

1. Charities such as Oxfam or Save the Children. I have no problem with those and don’t need any prompting to advertise them. 19,000 children under the age of five die needlessly every day.

2. Appeals to take one sick child on the holiday of a lifetime. Hard-hearted though it may sound, I categorically will not do anything to support those. If I had a sick child, I wouldn’t ask anyone other than close relatives to pay for such a holiday, and if I thought a holiday was a good idea, I might re-mortgage the house or take out a bank loan.

There was one particular example on Twitter where a part-time amateur DJ latched on to the cause of a boy who wanted to go to Disneyland, and sickeningly, he used the cause to try and make himself look good. The cost of this holiday must have amounted to thousands of pounds because the child obviously couldn’t go alone; there are fares, accommodation and admission charges to be paid, and I think it’s reasonable to assume the insurance would be exorbitant if the child is very sick.

In my opinion, donations made to such a cause could do so much more good if used instead to feed or provide medical treatment to children who might otherwise die. I was called all sorts of filthy names by this ‘Music Man’ for daring to say such a thing. (As an aside, we now have four million children living in poverty in the UK, thanks to Tory policies; most of them will probably never go on a holiday.)

3. Appeals for expensive medical treatment for one child. For me, this is the most difficult category. Why isn’t the treatment available free on the NHS? Has privatisation gone so far already, or is the treatment just not available in this country? A much more worthy cause than contributing towards a holiday, but is the ‘greater good’ to focus our giving on the first category?

I can hear you all saying that everyone is free to choose what good causes (if any) they support, and I would agree. The issue here is what causes we should actively promote if asked to do so.

[Guest]

This is straightforward and thus might seem harsh. I despise the “save one child” appeals.

The narrator, always shown on-site with the “child of the moment”, is overweight, not grossly so, but noticeably so. How many children could be fed on the excess calories he regularly consumes? Might it be one child for one day on one day’s worth of excess calories?

And where does the narrator go after recording his appeals? Does he live in the same deplorable conditions as the featured child? Does he drink the same filthy, polluted water as the featured child?

If the producers of these appeals found someone like Mother Teresa, already living by choice amongst those she/he serves, eating the same food, drinking the same water, laying her/his head down amongst the same rats and other vermin, and videoed this person of integrity appealing to the world to save the children, the appeals would appear more seemly.

[Shirina]

I can hear you all saying that everyone is free to choose what good causes (if any) they support, and I would agree. The issue here is what causes we should actively promote if asked to do so

This is a major reason why I rabidly disagree with the right-wing mantra that charity, rather than government, should be solely responsible for helping the sick, poor, and disabled. Because we ARE free to choose which good cause receives our donation, the monies are diffused throughout thousands of different charities, some of them being not-so-great causes. There are even charity organizations to help women receive breast augmentation implants - and a woman is more likely to receive free money for that than an adult is likely to receive free money for a life-saving operation. Just because it is charity doesn't mean said charity is really helping people with dire needs. Given the number of animal charities, environmental charities, etc., donations may not be helping people at all.

But a more important reason is because charity is hopelessly biased. Note how all three charitable causes Ivan discussed are for children. Yeah, that's right - adults usually get left out in the cold in regards to charity because it is assumed (often incorrectly) that adults can take care of themselves, that they have the financial resources to overcome whatever problem arises no matter how expensive. Thus a person is far more likely to drop some money into a donation can for 8 year-old Sarah with a cute smile and pig tails than they would for 48 year-old Butch with the pot belly and bald head. Charity, in order to receive the most money, has to advertize, and like any advertizement, the object is to tug at emotions. An 8 year-old girl is more likely to do that than a 48 year-old steelworker who can't work because of a crippling disability.

Charity is great for a warm meal, a blanket, and a temporary place to stay. It sucks at helping over the long term. It also sucks for helping adults, and it sucks for obtaining funds for really big one-time expenses such as a major operation. Charity is not going to provide Section 8 housing to the poor, elderly, and disabled, it will not provide life-saving operations, and it won't provide prescriptions like pain medications for those who really are in horrific pain (I know this first hand).

That's not to say that charities aren't good causes, for the most part, but charity should be a supplement to a government-run safety net.

[Shirina]

If the producers of these appeals found someone like Mother Theresa

Mother Theresa was a Christian cultist who believed that suffering was a good thing - which was the only reason why she laid her head next to the vermin. She had set up clinics in India where absolutely NO help was given to the patients whatsoever. Instead, they were set up deliberately to allow patients to suffer in the company of other suffering patients. Nothing more. I know she is often touted as the personification of charity and good works, but she's not, and many nefarious things about her are starting to be discovered now that she has passed away. I wouldn't trust a "Save The Children" ad showing Mother Theresa no matter what she said because I would worry she would keep those children suffering because she believes it's good for the soul.

I know exactly what ads you're talking about - it's the mildly overweight guy with the beard. Well, as long as the money is actually being used for the children and not for "administrative" costs, it doesn't bother me. I suppose they could have chosen a better spokesman. The ideal candidate would be a child (now an adult) who was actually helped by the program instead of a well-fed white man.

[Guest]

If the producers of these appeals found someone like Mother Theresa, already living by choice amongst those she/he serves, eating the same food, drinking the same water, laying her/his head down amongst the same rats and other vermin, and videoed this person of integrity appealing to the world to save the children, the appeals would appear more seemly.

If the producers of these appeals found someone like Mother Theresa

Mother Theresa was a Christian cultist who believed that suffering was a good thing - which was the only reason why she laid her head next to the vermin. She had set up clinics in India where absolutely NO help was given to the patients whatsoever. Instead, they were set up deliberately to allow patients to suffer in the company of other suffering patients. Nothing more. I know she is often touted as the personification of charity and good works, but she's not, and many nefarious things about her are starting to be discovered now that she has passed away. I wouldn't trust a "Save The Children" ad showing Mother Theresa no matter what she said because I would worry she would keep those children suffering because she believes it's good for the soul.

Mother Teresa, by choice, lived amongst those she served. I don’t care why she did it; I care that she did it.

The narrator, always shown on-site with the “child of the moment”, is overweight, not grossly so, but noticeably so. How many children could be fed on the excess calories he regularly consumes? Might it be one child for one day on one day’s worth of excess calories?

And where does the narrator go after recording his appeals? Does he live in the same deplorable conditions as the featured child? Does he drink the same filthy, polluted water as the featured child?

I know exactly what ads you're talking about - it's the mildly overweight guy with the beard. Well, as long as the money is actually being used for the children and not for "administrative" costs, it doesn't bother me. I suppose they could have chosen a better spokesman. The ideal candidate would be a child (now an adult) who was actually helped by the program instead of a well-fed white man.

A healthy adult who as a child was enabled by the program to grow to healthy adulthood would in fact be a far more effective spokesperson.

[Shirina]

Mother Teresa, by choice, lived amongst those she served. I don’t care why she did it; I care that she did it.

Well, for me, motive does sometimes matter. If, indeed, Mother Theresa was part of a cult of suffering, then I'm certainly not going to donate money to a charity that believes suffering is good and thus we should embrace it rather than alleviate it.

In addition, Mother Theresa is Catholic and, by default, anti birth control. That kind of nonsense is the LAST thing these poor nations need - a primitive doctrine that causes more problems than it solves and certainly not a doctrine found anywhere in the Bible. The most commonly used story to argue against birth control comes from the story of Onan, Er, and Tamar. Er and Tamar were married, but Er was put to death before Tamar had produced an heir. Under the law at the time, Tamar was given in marriage to Er's brother, Onan who was supposed to impregnate Tamar on his brother's behalf. But Onan didn't want to split his own children's inheritance with any children born of Tamar, so Onan used the "withdrawal" method to avoid impregnating her. God found this to be wicked and put Onan to death, too. For hundreds of years, Catholics have misinterpreted this story by saying God killed Onan because of his use of "contraception" (such as it was) rather than because of Onan's selfish motives involving his own children's inheritance.

That's why I would have hang-ups about Mother Theresa endorsing a charity.

[Guest]

Mother Teresa, at her death, had saved the life of at least one more Indian than had I. Today, fifteen years five months later, Mother Teresa has saved the life of at least one more Indian than have I.

My heroes need not be perfect.

By the way, every Roman Catholic married couple that I know presents clear and convincing circumstantial evidence amounting to proof beyond a reasonable doubt of contraceptive use.

[boatlady]

'Charity is great for a warm meal, a blanket, and a temporary place to stay. It sucks at helping over the long term. It also sucks for helping adults, and it sucks for obtaining funds for really big one-time expenses such as a major operation. Charity is not going to provide Section 8 housing to the poor, elderly, and disabled, it will not provide life-saving operations, and it won't provide prescriptions like pain medications for those who really are in horrific pain (I know this first hand). '
Dead right Shirina - that's why we need a big state, providing a strong safety net for all of us at those times when we can't see to our own needs.
Charities are great in their place (which may well be looking after abandoned animals) - for meeting the day-to-day needs of vulnerable people we need RIGHTS reliably met by government - if we can't have that, I'm not sure why we have government

[tlttf]

Dead wrong boatlady, a big state doesn't equate to a stronger safety net. Simply equates to more people spending public money on our behalf. A smaller state is needed (minimise public spending at source) this leads to an excess amount left to enable a safety net for those in need.

[boatlady]

Suppose you'd rather see people dying in the streets

[Ivan]

a big state doesn't equate to a stronger safety net.

tlttf. Maybe you’re looking at the problem from the wrong way round. It’s greater inequality – which right-wing policies create – which increases the need for big government. There is a need for more police, more prisons and more health and social services of every kind. Several states of the USA (one of the most unequal countries in the world) now spend more on prisons than on higher education.

One of the best and most humane ways of achieving small government is by reducing inequality. Some societies achieve greater equality with unusually low taxation because they have smaller earnings differences before taxes.

http://www.newstatesman.com/society/2010/11/inequality-social-health-essay

[Phil Hornby]

Society should not trouble itself unduly to relieve the suffering of those in need. After all , without a bit of abject poverty to gloat about, what else would your average Tory find to enjoy...?

[Ivan]

what else would your average Tory find to enjoy...?

Bollinger - or when times are hard, maybe Veuve-Clicquot. And there's still foxhunting, because Tories are above the law, aren't they? However, I do agree Phil, and I know Sir George Young does too, that there is nothing that tlttf's government of 'socialists' enjoy more than stepping over the homeless on the way out of the opera.

[Phil Hornby]

I did say, ' your average Tory', Ivan.

They come in a variety of forms : there are, for example, the genuine toffs who are not all there in the brain-power stakes, but who have genuine wealth; then there are the ones who are naturally horrible in a miscellany of ways and enjoy the fact ( Eric Pickles,Michael Gove and John Redwood come readily to mind, amongst numerous others) and for whom the Tory Party provides a useful and unique vehicle for venting and pursuing their mouth-foaming prejudices.

But the group which most offends me contains those who are simply totally unjustifed- but nevertheless puffed-up - snobs, for whom being considered as part of the Tory fold makes them feel superior and demonstrates that they have 'arrived' in some way - even though, in reality, they have only arrived at a rather unpleasant destination, to which nobody with any semblance of decency or integrity would ever wish to venture.

I am sure other categories could be identified, but I am far too polite to even begin to unpick the whole raft of dreadful details...

[skwalker1964]

Dead wrong boatlady, a big state doesn't equate to a stronger safety net. Simply equates to more people spending public money on our behalf. A smaller state is needed (minimise public spending at source) this leads to an excess amount left to enable a safety net for those in need.

If the state is that small, who's providing the safety net?

[oftenwrong]

"The State" cannot exist without the votes, taxes and consent of the Electorate.

The time is long overdue for the tail to stop wagging the dog. Voters should exert control over legislators in the same way as any other employer would exercise control over those who work for, and are paid by, an enterprise.

[Ivan]

Getting back to good and bad causes, I agree with Shirina about Mother Teresa. She was a friend to vicious dictators such as the Duvaliers in Haiti, to the Nicaraguan Catholic terrorist group known as the ‘contras’, and to the fraudster Charles Keating (who donated $1.25 million to her).

Teresa called abortion “the greatest threat to peace in the world”, said that AIDS was “a just retribution for improper sexual conduct”, and she also opposed both contraception and divorce.

Teresa’s free clinics provided care that was rudimentary and haphazard, despite the enormous amounts of donations she received. No tests were performed to determine the patients’ ailments and even people dying in agony of cancer were given no painkillers other than aspirin; she believed that human suffering was beneficial and even “beautiful”.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2008/05/mother-teresa/

[Guest]

People die daily from starvation on Calcutta streets. There were no hordes of Brits and Americans surging into Calcutta to save the starving. Teresa was there and doing something about it; not one of the members hereon, I wager (and that includes me), was where Teresa was and doing something about it.

Three axioms by which I live: (1) I do not need my heroes to be perfect. (2) If I don’t like the way someone else is addressing a problem, I need to shut my mouth, get my ass in gear, and do something about it by addressing the problem my damned self. (3) Don’t let my mouth write checks my ass can’t cash.

By the way, Teresa’s been six feet under (at least in mortal form) for fifteen years five months by my count. Who’s stepping up to the plate now that the field’s wide open? “Betcha bottom dollar it ain’t none of them clowns” who are writing criticisms about her lifelong service to starving humans from warm rooms with full stomachs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPrhPiOiNEY

[tlttf]

At last something roc and myself can agree on.

[oftenwrong]

Monday 21 September 2015 has been designated "World Alzheimer's Day".

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/world-alzheimers-day-2015-everything-you-need-know-about-most-common-cause-dementia-1520299

My apologies if I've already told you this.

[Sponsored content]