Charities

[Guest MattP]

12 hours ago, Facecloth said:

Yeah that's a valid point. You often see it with scandals, some people start baying for blood and won't be happy until the whole organisation or company involved is completely disbanded. Almost as though seeing justice done isn't enough, they have to cause total and utter destruction, without a second thought of the fall out, to be totally satisfied at the outcome.

Didn't the exact same thing happen with the Presidents Club? A few people got out of hand and the whole thing was disbanded within days for things nowhere near as bad as this, not only that but Great Ormond Street even gave the money back, rather puzzlingly.

 

The Oxfam case seems a combination of bizarre and disgust, the report was incredible to read - the girls (some said to be underage) were decked out for the "Caligula orgy" in Oxfam T-shirts - no bras, pants, trousers, skirts, shoes, just Oxfan T-Shirts - just try and get your head around that. Roland van Hauwermeiran even had the gall after the orgy to come onto TV and tell us that "too many donors from rich countries pursue their own priorites when it comes to aid" - your aren't wrong there are you?

 

No one will say shut it down but there needs to certainly be better regulation when it comes to these charities.

[breadandcheese]

This whole scandal of aid agencies is shocking.  The UN is just as bad, if not worse with multiple scandals of sex abuse by positions of aid workers and peacekeepers over the local population.  It's really quite sickening to read.  The idea that the greater good of the charity/organisation is more important than whistle-blowing or cracking down on some horrendous individuals working within the organisation. 

 

Obviously, we can't disband the organisations, or stop funding them because the most desperate around the world need them.  It does begs the question, what to do (especially with an organisation like the UN that is persistently ignoring the situation)?

 

On another note, I think you've got to congratulate the journalists involved with the original scoop.  Journalism has had a terrible rep of late, with the attacks on the free press becoming frequent and alarming.  However, without the press investigating these things, there would be no desire for change from within the organisations involved.  Well done the free press.

[Parafox]

9 hours ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Careful, what you’ve put there is defamatory that would leave you open to libel (although any claimant would need to prove serious harm was caused, so you probably have an out there).

 

The specific defences available to you however would be ‘truth’ or ‘honest opinion’ - but the difficulty with the later is your post reads more as ‘fact’ than just simply your views on the subject. 

 

A truth defence would be tricky as well, because I understand registered charities are now legally required to provide information about the percentage of donations spent on administration (and quote in their accounts). Indeed, Oxfam have such a page here; https://www.oxfam.org.uk/donate/how-we-spend-your-money

 

Of course it is perfectly ok to hold an opinion and post it on a forums board (which I believe was your intention), but in legal terms these do need to be seen to have been formed from a form of verifiable evidence; and naturally a link or two to back up the claims made would only benefit the strength of your argument, so these are things worth considering when making comment on sensitive areas.

 

Thus ends today’s legal lecture. 

(next weeks lecture: copyright infringement!)

 

10 hours ago, Parafox said:

Corruption occurs when organisations become too powerful. Oxfam, RSPCA, Save The Children... and many others have grown to be bigger than many non-charity companies. In my opinion, only a percentage of the money they get from donations, whether it be a fiver from an online appeal or thousands from a mad cat lady, gets spent on the charity itself. I don't know how you can give money in good faith that it will be spent on the cause you give it to.

It seems charity executives  and non-execs get paid a good premium for their services and millions upon millions are given to all kinds of charities to resolve the issues they purport to support yet so much seems to be  paid to those at the top of the managerial levels. There needs to be laws in place to stop any money grabbing by the wealthy who see might  see board membership of a charity as a way of making more for themselves by creaming off money by being a "chief Executive"

Charities are as corrupt as big businesses. That's my opinion.

Edited, before I go to prison 

[breadandcheese]

I'm not sure the chief exec of Oxfam, on £120,000 per annum, gets paid too much.  Oxfam is an multi-national organisation with a £400m revenue, operating all around the world.  A private sector equivalent CEO would be paid far more to run a private sector company of that size with a similar global footprint.  I don't think the pay packet is the issue at Oxfam.  It's the governance and culture that attempted to sweep it under the carpet that is the problem.  For that, the chief exec as head of that organisation should probably go, but the size of the pay packet for anyone following isn't an issue to me.

[Wymsey]

LOROS is very well-regarded locally.

[Buce]

14 hours ago, Strokes said:

The thing that always occupies my mind, is it’s not in their interests to solve the problem. For example, cancer research uk, if they did find a cure, what do they do? Wrap up the organisation and make everyone redundant? 

 

14 hours ago, Strokes said:

No you’re misreading me, I’m not assuming anything, just saying it’s something that popped in my head once and now creeps in every so often It’s pure imagination at the bittersweet nature of fixing the problem but then what happens after.

I was talking to someone at the British heart foundation not long ago and they telling me of some progress they made and it ran through my mind then too.

 

Have you ever considered cutting back on the drugs?

[Richard]

Just at a basic level, money that is being raised/donated to further women’s rights/gender equality/combatting gender based violence being spent on prostitues is frankly disgusting. 

 

As said above, I don’t particularly think charity execs are paid too much. They have a very difficult and stressful job and compared to salaries of private companies it’s pittance. Yes it is somewhat expected to earn less in this sector, but there’s still a baseline pay required to attract people - it can’t just rely on altruism. 

[Strokes]

7 hours ago, Buce said:

 

 

Have you ever considered cutting back on the drugs?

No

 

[Mike Oxlong]