Fund raising .. A Self Gratifying act?

[purpleronnie]

i doubt if it would last very long

sloppy seconds?

[Zingari]

sloppy seconds?

If you like , so long as you hum the countdown theme while it's my turn .She'd appreciate that .

[purpleronnie]

If you like , so long as you hum the countdown theme while it's my turn .She'd appreciate that .

Like you I might not last that long.

[purpleronnie]

Do you agree that it depends on whether they are using the donations to fund their trip or not?

People saying "your donations will pay for my travel and expenses and anything left over will go to the charity" is very different to "we are paying for the trip ourselves so your donations will all go to the charity".

mmm I guess, obviously you would like all monies to go to charity, but even if it did it doesn't sit well with me. If you ant sponsorship from me do something you wont enjoy.....or you might aswell say I'm off down the pub sponsor me.

[Captain...]

mmm I guess, obviously you would like all monies to go to charity, but even if it did it doesn't sit well with me. If you ant sponsorship from me do something you wont enjoy.....or you might aswell say I'm off down the pub sponsor me.

I don't think it is about enjoyment, but it has to be a challenge, I don't enjoy watching Eastenders, will you sponsor me for that?

Skydiving is not a challenge, unless you have a fear of heights, and are doing so to raise money for a charity that helps people with a fear of heights, or performs research into finding a cure for it. The paralysed woman that completed the london marathon in 16 days on her prostheic legs, did she enjoy it? Is she now allowed to enjoy the feeling of acomplishment she now has?

That is the same for everyone, running a marathon is not an enjoyable experience, being able to say you have done is.

When you get down to it, there is a finite amount of money we are prepared to give to charity, that amount is different for everyone, but we all have a limit, the more opportunities there are to donate, the more likely we are to reach that limit, but there is a saturation point, which at times I feel like I have reached and that will lead to a backlash and people actually donating less then they would if they weren't constantly pestered by people asking for donations.

It is a fine line, but as a nation we give a hell of a lot to charity and part of that is people raising money by doing things they want to do anyway, enjoy doing and would probably do regardless, but have decided to raise money on top of that, is that really such a bad thing?

[Smudge]

In my opinion these salaries are disgusting.

Everyone who works for a charity should take the minimum amount possible out to maximise the charitable donations to the people they are for.

I wonder if the CEO of Barnardos sits around the pool in some exclusive holiday resort and thinks of all the poor, abused defenceless kids that could have benefited if he wasn't living the good life on their money.

I wonder if he thinks or cares when someone donates to his charity that a chunk of that money is going to paying the mortgage on his huge house?

Asking someone to head up a very large organization on a full time basis requires someone who has the the networking skills required to induce large donations to their cause.

You also need the the ability to recruit a large unpaid board of directors who can also bring the 'deep pockets' to the table. People like Richard Branston, Warren Buffett and the like will have philanthropic funds available, you can't just send any swinging dick in to meet them and secure them as a benefactor. Charities have a lot of competition, to be successful you need someone who can get the job done. If the money doesn't come in the beneficiaries are the ones who suffer.

[Guest]

But if you want to give to charity why do you need someone to climb a mountain or run a marathon to do it.

Just donate.

[James.]

Asking someone to head up a very large organization on a full time basis requires someone who has the the networking skills required to induce large donations to their cause.

You also need the the ability to recruit a large unpaid board of directors who can also bring the 'deep pockets' to the table. People like Richard Branston, Warren Buffett and the like will have philanthropic funds available, you can't just send any swinging dick in to meet them and secure them as a benefactor. Charities have a lot of competition, to be successful you need someone who can get the job done. If the money doesn't come in the beneficiaries are the ones who suffer.

Completely agree. Saying they should be paid the minimum amount is an unbelievably simplistic thing to say.

But if you want to give to charity why do you need someone to climb a mountain or run a marathon to do it.

Just donate.

Déja vu! A lot of people do just donate. What's wrong with doing both? Challenges often raise awareness and provide funds for charities that people simply wouldn't ever have heard of before.

[Mack]

Asking someone to head up a very large organization on a full time basis requires someone who has the the networking skills required to induce large donations to their cause.

You also need the the ability to recruit a large unpaid board of directors who can also bring the 'deep pockets' to the table. People like Richard Branston, Warren Buffett and the like will have philanthropic funds available, you can't just send any swinging dick in to meet them and secure them as a benefactor. Charities have a lot of competition, to be successful you need someone who can get the job done. If the money doesn't come in the beneficiaries are the ones who suffer.

Whilst I take on board your point I fail to see how morally anyone could suck 100k plus a year out of a charity for their own personal gain when there are others in desperate life saving need of that money.

I couldn't sleep at night if that was me. I suppose it takes a special breed of ****.

[Captain...]

But if you want to give to charity why do you need someone to climb a mountain or run a marathon to do it.

Just donate.

Say I donated £1000 every year to my favourite charity. That is enough, I feel satisfied that I contribute, but then someone asks me to sponsor them for running a marathon, they are doing so for a different charity to the one I support, but one I would be quite happy supporting, and they ask me to sponsor them £1 a mile, so £26, I think about the number of times I have spunked that in a night out, and it doesn't seem like that much to go to a good cause, so I do.

Now I have donated £1026.

as I said we all have a limit on how much we will donate, but we don't actually know what that is until we reach it, and we won't reach it unless people keep on asking.

[Captain...]

Whilst I take on board your point I fail to see how morally anyone could suck 100k plus a year out of a charity for their own personal gain when there are others in desperate life saving need of that money.

I couldn't sleep at night if that was me. I suppose it takes a special breed of ****.

Hang on so someone who works tirelessly on a much lower salary than someone doing a similar job in the private sector to raise as much money as possible for worthy causes is a special breed of ****?

As opposed to everyone else who works in the private sector, who contribute very little time and money for charitable causes and demand much higher salaries for doing so, and more often than not contribute to the problems which charities fight. What are they?

If you don't want people to be financially rewarded for being good at their jobs, then you better get down to St Pauls with your tent and start protesting about capitalism.

Anyway, how do you know that they then do not donate large parts of their salary to other charities?

[Trav Le Bleu]

It's better to do a good thing for the wrong reason than to do a bad thing for the right reason.

[James.]

I couldn't sleep at night if that was me. I suppose it takes a special breed of ****.

lol

I'd love to know what you do for charity Mack that makes you so much better than all those ****'s.

[Guest]

It's better to do a good thing for the wrong reason than to do a bad thing for the right reason.

Why?

[Trav Le Bleu]

Why?

Does it need explaining?

[Mack]

Hang on so someone who works tirelessly on a much lower salary than someone doing a similar job in the private sector to raise as much money as possible for worthy causes is a special breed of ****?

As opposed to everyone else who works in the private sector, who contribute very little time and money for charitable causes and demand much higher salaries for doing so, and more often than not contribute to the problems which charities fight. What are they?

If you don't want people to be financially rewarded for being good at their jobs, then you better get down to St Pauls with your tent and start protesting about capitalism.

Anyway, how do you know that they then do not donate large parts of their salary to other charities?

You're right I don't know.

But anyone who lives a luxurious life off a salary from a charity is hardly going to start giving large chunks of it away, besides it would look better on them and their charity to publicly accept a much lower amount in salary in the first place.

I think all people should be made aware that when they are running their bollocks off in a baboon outfit in the marathon a percentage of the money they raise will go to bertie big bollocks who takes a kings ransom to run the charity and justifies it by comparing his role to a private company solely created to make profit for owners or shareholders.

In my opinion there should be laws about such salaries at charities.

It's also my opinion that there are plenty of people working in charities on a cushy number taking a tidy salary from the good will of others.

Having said that, as many of the fund raisers are partly doing so for self gratification then I suppose they can all sit on the not totally as they seem step together.

[Guest]

Does it need explaining?

Seems a bit philosophical I'd like to hear your reasoning. Also just because an action is "better" doesn't mean it should be done.

[Captain...]

Seems a bit philosophical I'd like to hear your reasoning. Also just because an action is "better" doesn't mean it should be done.

Think of it this way, what is better: To give freely and generously with no thought of your own self gratification to a charity that is actually giving the money to corrupt African politicians, who are using it to buy weapons.

Or Raising money for Cancer Research UK by Running the London Marathon, even though you are only raising the money to get a place in the marathon.

Edit: Obviously the best thing is to do the right thing for the right reason, but that wasn't an option.

[Trav Le Bleu]

It's hard to think of an example of doing something bad for the right reason - but rather that the reason might seem right to the one carrying out the action. So for example; It's better to have stood against the Nazis in WW2 because there was money to be made out of it, than it is to have supported the Nazis because you were being part of the community and being a model citizen. Just off the top of my head.

[MikeyT]

When I did the two fundraising events to raise money for cancer, I did it cos it's an evil bastard of a disease, and the more money raised the better. It hits home more when it's someone you know as well.

I also did a charity photo shoot this past Saturday to help get money for the JDRF (Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation). Yes, while I got some good shots to add to my portfolio, again it's great to raise money for something like this. It was set up by my mate who's son has diabetes, I also wanted to be a part cos my dad has Diabetes too (albeit he's not a juvenile )

Yes It's gratifying on some levels, but for the most part I did those things to help and to try and make a difference, no matter how small.I hope I can do a hell of a lot more in future too.

[davieG]

Pretty much everything we do is for self gratification, we live in a mostly I'm all right Jack society where how you affect others by what you do seems to be the last thing on most peoples minds so for someone to do something self gratifying that shows they are thinking about how it will affect other people is ok with me.

[Guest]

It's hard to think of an example of doing something bad for the right reason - but rather that the reason might seem right to the one carrying out the action. So for example; It's better to have stood against the Nazis in WW2 because there was money to be made out of it, than it is to have supported the Nazis because you were being part of the community and being a model citizen. Just off the top of my head.

But why is that better? that's my question. From a personal point of view you could be wrong also you are using hindsight which you couldn't do when making the decision.

I would kill a paedophile who had raped my child (a bad thing for the right reason) rather than inform the police for the reward (good thing bad reason).

[Trav Le Bleu]

But why is that better? that's my question. From a personal point of view you could be wrong also you are using hindsight which you couldn't do when making the decision.

I would kill a paedophile who had raped my child (a bad thing for the right reason) rather than inform the police for the reward (good thing bad reason).

You are saying that killing is right then? And that rewarding people is bad?

[FoxyPV]

I did something for charity that neither made me feel good afterwards nor did I enjoy doing. I raised over £200 which was a drop on the ocean but I felt that by doing this it may have helped someone somewhere who needed it.

By having a gimmick you are more likely to get people to part with their cash.

On the other hand, we organise a charity football match for movember every year in which people pay to play or watch. It's good craic and for what we think is a good cause.

[Trav Le Bleu]

I did something for charity that neither made me feel good afterwards nor did I enjoy doing. I raised over £200 which was a drop on the ocean but I felt that by doing this it may have helped someone somewhere who needed it.

By having a gimmick you are more likely to get people to part with their cash.

On the other hand, we organise a charity football match for movember every year in which people pay to play or watch. It's good craic and for what we think is a good cause.

This is what I've never understood. Imagine the following conversation....

"Will you give £5 to help a starving child?"

"No."

"But I'm going to sit in a tub of baked beans."

"Why didn't you say, you mad loon!?! Have a tenner!"