Daggers Posted 19 December 2006 Posted 19 December 2006 Anyone listening to Radio5 at the moment? In the two years since the tsunami all the money raised in Britain has managed to build...wait for it...nah, have a guess - how many houses do you think have been built in two years? If you guessed over 1000 then you are an idiot, over 500? Laughable. Over 100 then? You have to be kidding. Sixteen. It has taken them two years of flying around, staying in hotels and running up expense accounts, on fact finding missions to build sixteen houses. Makes you wonder if it is ever worth giving money to these charities doesn't it?
The People's Hero Posted 19 December 2006 Posted 19 December 2006 Anyone listening to Radio5 at the moment? In the two years since the tsunami all the money raised in Britain has managed to build...wait for it...nah, have a guess - how many houses do you think have been built in two years? If you guessed over 1000 then you are an idiot, over 500? Laughable. Over 100 then? You have to be kidding. Sixteen. It has taken them two years of flying around, staying in hotels and running up expense accounts, on fact finding missions to build sixteen houses. Makes you wonder if it is ever worth giving money to these charities doesn't it? This will come across as a self-back-patting post but in terms of genuine personal impact, you're much better off donating to my charity. Seriously. This isn't one of my many infantile, stupid posts. Anyway, if anyone does fancy more info, pm me, I shan't further bore you with it.
lookwhaticando Posted 19 December 2006 Posted 19 December 2006 Alas, it's supposed to be rather common. Plenty of other such cases - charities with grand visions of curing everything from toenail fungus to AIDS manage to spend thousands on expenses and just hundreds on their stated goals. Not all charities - there are some well run ones that manage to spend a higher proportion on actual aid, but even they have expenses. The Gates Foundation is managed in such a way that it directs funds only to credible charities who will actually have some impact on their target issues - and if the charity fails to live up to failure standards, they get cut off. We need more of that to make the money count.
The People's Hero Posted 19 December 2006 Posted 19 December 2006 One further thing... we don't expense anything. It all goes straight to those who are supposed to benefit from our endeavours.
Daggers Posted 20 December 2006 Author Posted 20 December 2006 ...it directs funds only to credible charities... We are talking about The British Red Cross ~ shady named group, I admit, maybe someone has heard of them?
lildave3 Posted 20 December 2006 Posted 20 December 2006 That's poor. Sixteen houses in two years is just shambolic, who's building them, multiplex?
lookwhaticando Posted 20 December 2006 Posted 20 December 2006 We are talking about The British Red Cross ~ shady named group, I admit, maybe someone has heard of them? I must have used the term quite loosely I guess. Pretty shocking stuff from the Red Cross there.
hairy Posted 20 December 2006 Posted 20 December 2006 On this issue. Did you know for every pound that you give to The World Wildlife Fund only 1p goes to helping endangered animals and the other 99p goes on administration costs.
Katy Posted 20 December 2006 Posted 20 December 2006 That's disgusting. It p*sses me off how people can play fast and loose with other peoples money - money that people donated out of the kindness of their hearts. Grrrr they should be ashamed!
Daggers Posted 20 December 2006 Author Posted 20 December 2006 On this issue. Did you know for every pound that you give to The World Wildlife Fund only 1p goes to helping endangered animals and the other 99p goes on administration costs. It's because animals (like Rob Kelly) can not be trusted with spending the cash themselves. If you give a white rhino a couple of thousand it'll only go out and get a PS3/flatscreen HD-ready TV combo; quite frankly, this is of no benefit to either the rhino or the other animals of the savanna. In fact, the WWF have received many calls of complaint from irate wildebeest being kept up all night by the rhino's playing Call of Duty 3 until all hours. The final straw for the WWF was when a manatee was found having spent all of its cash on a powerboat. If you look here you can examine the latest set of accounts for the WWF - income ran at £39million in 2005 against running costs of £4,154,000 - not quite 99%
hairy Posted 20 December 2006 Posted 20 December 2006 It's because animals (like Rob Kelly) can not be trusted with spending the cash themselves. If you give a white rhino a couple of thousand it'll only go out and get a PS3/flatscreen HD-ready TV combo; quite frankly, this is of no benefit to either the rhino or the other animals of the savanna. In fact, the WWF have received many calls of complaint from irate wildebeest being kept up all night by the rhino's playing Call of Duty 3 until all hours. The final straw for the WWF was when a manatee was found having spent all of its cash on a powerboat. If you look here you can examine the latest set of accounts for the WWF - income ran at £39million in 2005 against running costs of £4,154,000 - not quite 99% I stand corrected but the running costs seems very low. So everyone who works for WWF only gets £4154 between them? I am sure they spend more than that on promotion. You really cant tell from those accounts how much gets spent where. As I understood it you were far more likely to find a rhino with a crack pipe in its mouth rather than a PS3 controller under its hoof.
Zingari Posted 20 December 2006 Posted 20 December 2006 the only charity i would consider giving to is charity dingle, yes i'd like to rattle her box
Daggers Posted 20 December 2006 Author Posted 20 December 2006 As I understood it you were far more likely to find a rhino with a crack pipe in its mouth rather than a PS3 controller under its hoof. Ain't that the truth...and how often do these sanctimonious charity bastards EVER point this out? Never dammit! Ten pence in every pound collected for the cuddly panda's goes on angel dust. The sick truth is that they spend their sad days too bombed to procreate. Stupid wildlife.
Suffolk_fox Posted 20 December 2006 Posted 20 December 2006 One wonders what those skiving b@stard whales get up to with all the funding going to save them? I bet not ONE of them has bothered getting a job. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man how to fish, and he will spend all day in a boat drinking beer....
lookwhaticando Posted 20 December 2006 Posted 20 December 2006 One wonders what those skiving b@stard whales get up to with all the funding going to save them? I bet not ONE of them has bothered getting a job. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man how to fish, and he will spend all day in a boat drinking beer.... I prefer the Dogbert version: If you give a starving man a fish, he eats for a day. If you teach a starving man how to fish, he buys a silly hat. If you talk to a starving man about fish, then you're a consultant.
The People's Hero Posted 20 December 2006 Posted 20 December 2006 I'm a consultant and I've come to talk to you about fish... Hmm. I could do that!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.