Fund raising .. A Self Gratifying act?

[Guest]

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

Killing is a bad action but I'd see it as justice which is right.

Informing for cash is the wrong reason - exactly your choice in the Nazi example.

[Guest]

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!"

Agreed, My point earlier on.

[Trav Le Bleu]

Agreed, My point earlier on.

Going on some adventure holiday as charity raising is the one that annoys me. Why should I pay for someone else to go on a holiday I could only dream of because they're guilt tripping me? Sod off!

And whilst you might see killing as justice, the authorities (and many people) would see it otherwise. My earlier statement stands, we just need to establish right from wrong - which isn't always black or white. Though I've always liked the Discworld's Granny Weatherwax's maxim that, "there are no grey areas, just whites that got dirty!"

[Zingari]

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.

Isn't every surgeon that removes an infected limb that would cause certain death to the patient doing a bad thing for the right reasons ?

Don't you believe that sometimes it may be necessary to be cruel to be kind ?

[dave the caveman]

The 'pull out' technique is certainly a good example of doing the bad thing for the right reason

[Zingari]

The 'pull out' technique is certainly a good example of doing the bad thing for the right reason

are you a catholic dave ?

[stez]

I do lots of charitable work, for my boss, and it doesn't make me feel good.

I only give to charitable causes, that come with threats. For example I sponsored lisa in the marathon because she threatened to take me out to dinner if I didn't.

There's loads of other examples, but I don't like to talk about my selfless and giving nature.

[Daggers]

There's loads of other examples, but I don't like to talk about my selfless and giving nature.

I like the cut of your jib, new kid. You should consider joining the Secret Inner Circle.

[stez]

[quote name=Daggers' timestamp='1

336601959' post='2238522]

I like the cut of your jib, new kid. You should consider joining the Secret Inner Circle.

Is there such a thing? It'd be lovely if there were.

[The People's Hero]

I find it very gratifying but there again that is for a number of reasons and good causes benefit. If fundraising is done effectively, many parties can get something out of it.

[Saxondale]

This boils down to the old argument of whether there is such thing as true altruism. But who gives a stuff? As long as money gets raised for good causes.

I do, however, get pissed off with these clowns who want sponsoring for going on the trip of a lifetime somewhere, their travel costs conveniently being covered by people's sponsorship money. Doing this is tantamount to stealing from a charity.

And I do take great exception to the huge amount of money paid to top charity execs. I think some people find the charity sector a lucrative career path, which is a bit wrong somehow. I would force charities by law, as a condition of keeping charity status, to print their 'efficiency ratio' (ie. how much of their revenue actually ends up with good causes) on all of their promotional literature.

[ozleicester]

I only give to charities i disagree with.

Conservative Party

Horse racing association

Fox Hunting clubs

Save Kony

[Captain...]

This boils down to the old argument of whether there is such thing as true altruism. But who gives a stuff? As long as money gets raised for good causes.

I do, however, get pissed off with these clowns who want sponsoring for going on the trip of a lifetime somewhere, their travel costs conveniently being covered by people's sponsorship money. Doing this is tantamount to stealing from a charity.

And I do take great exception to the huge amount of money paid to top charity execs. I think some people find the charity sector a lucrative career path, which is a bit wrong somehow. I would force charities by law, as a condition of keeping charity status, to print their 'efficiency ratio' (ie. how much of their revenue actually ends up with good causes) on all of their promotional literature.

I would agree that maybe a cap on what they take in terms of salary or greater visibility on what happens with the money would be good. But I disagree that it is seen as a lucrative industry, Some charities take in millions and millions in donations a year as "profit", if a private sector company did that the directors would get paid a hell of a lot more than 100K figures mentioned a few pages back.

Take Barnardo's from Mack's post: * Barnardo's: Its chief executive, Martin Narey, earns a salary of £166,532.

From Wiki: As of 2010, it spends over £190 million each year on more than 400 local services aimed at helping these same groups

That salary is less than 0.1% of the money used ( this is after all costs, including salaries, have been met).

[James.]

This boils down to the old argument of whether there is such thing as true altruism. But who gives a stuff? As long as money gets raised for good causes.

I do, however, get pissed off with these clowns who want sponsoring for going on the trip of a lifetime somewhere, their travel costs conveniently being covered by people's sponsorship money. Doing this is tantamount to stealing from a charity.

And I do take great exception to the huge amount of money paid to top charity execs. I think some people find the charity sector a lucrative career path, which is a bit wrong somehow. I would force charities by law, as a condition of keeping charity status, to print their 'efficiency ratio' (ie. how much of their revenue actually ends up with good causes) on all of their promotional literature.

Agree with the first two points particularly the second one. We made sure we paid every penny of the costs involved in our challenge (I even donated an estimate of the admin fees that Just Giving charged on everyone else's donations).

However I really don't think many people consider the charity industry lucrative. Firstly the number of people who make it in the charity sector to salaries like those CEO's is very small, secondly those CEO's could get paid a lot more in an equivalent role in the private sector and thirdly for the masses that work in the lower levels of charities their salaries really aren't particularly attractive (e.g. international development charities are inundated with job applications which is more to do with the nature of the work, the opportunity to travel, etc than the salaries which are often lower because of this huge supply of applicants).

Publishing an efficiency ratio is a good idea though - I definitely think there should be more transparency around this, preferably through regulation.

[Mack]

I would agree that maybe a cap on what they take in terms of salary or greater visibility on what happens with the money would be good. But I disagree that it is seen as a lucrative industry, Some charities take in millions and millions in donations a year as "profit", if a private sector company did that the directors would get paid a hell of a lot more than 100K figures mentioned a few pages back.

Take Barnardo's from Mack's post: * Barnardo's: Its chief executive, Martin Narey, earns a salary of £166,532.

From Wiki: As of 2010, it spends over £190 million each year on more than 400 local services aimed at helping these same groups

That salary is less than 0.1% of the money used ( this is after all costs, including salaries, have been met).

I still dont see why anyone at a charity should not accept taking a salary to live and nothing more.

Their whole aim after all is to donate as much money as possible to the cause they are championing.

No one needs to live a luxurious life from charitable funds in my opinion.

That extra 60k a year could fund an entire children's project somewhere.

[Captain...]

I still dont see why anyone at a charity should not accept taking a salary to live and nothing more.

Their whole aim after all is to donate as much money as possible to the cause they are championing.

No one needs to live a luxurious life from charitable funds in my opinion.

That extra 60k a year could fund an entire children's project somewhere.

Maybe they are unscrupulous bastards, but if they are worth their salary because they generate 10 times that amount in extra donations, then we are getting back to doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

Some hippy dippy save the earth type that has spent all their life working in a charity shop, is not going to be a good business person and have the skills to run a huge organisation like Barnados.

Who is going to make a charity more money, candidate A who really believes in the cause and will work for a bag of lentils and use of the shower:

Or candidate B who will demand a six figure salary, company car and his cock sucked by the secretary on a daily basis:

[Saxondale]

Maybe they are unscrupulous bastards, but if they are worth their salary because they generate 10 times that amount in extra donations, then we are getting back to doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.

Some hippy dippy save the earth type that has spent all their life working in a charity shop, is not going to be a good business person and have the skills to run a huge organisation like Barnados.

Yeah, in principle, but do they though? I might be wrong, but I think many of the high profile charity execs (Narey included) are ex civil servants. If they were paying top money for a Theo Paphitis sort then I could understand.

[steveherbe]

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!"

Wouldn't it have been better to send the beans direct to the starving child?

[Zingari]

How flippin hard can it be to run a string of charity shops ?

Free labour , free stock , no rates or rent ( or is it reduced ? )

Daft old women customers who'll buy any old tat .

I reckon I could make a healthy profit with that sort of business , even if the staff do nick a bit of the best old tat

[Rincewind]

The reason some are probably paid is they have the skills normal part time volunteers do not. Some may be retired executives accountants etc but there may be some who cannot find work or do not want to work for a company making millions and feel working for a charity organization more fulfilling (self gratifying)

Not all charity goods are old tat. I bought a nice pin-striped suit last year. Fitted me perfect which a Marks an Spener one would need to be altered. Books for a quid or less cant be grumbled at.

[Trav Le Bleu]

Isn't every surgeon that removes an infected limb that would cause certain death to the patient doing a bad thing for the right reasons ?

Don't you believe that sometimes it may be necessary to be cruel to be kind ?

But that is not bad. It would be bad if it didn't need removing and being cruel to be kind, well I think I'd like to see that a lot more, because I think people are too scared of how they can be misrepresented for it.

[Mack]

My mother has taken things to a charity shop recently and has been told to jog on with the stuff, including a sofa.

[Zingari]

But that is not bad. It would be bad if it didn't need removing and being cruel to be kind, well I think I'd like to see that a lot more, because I think people are too scared of how they can be misrepresented for it.

If a military pilot shot down a commercial plane that had been hijacked and heading to cause mass destruction , would that not be doing a bad thing for a good reason ?

(I realise the passengers are doomed either way)

i'm not disagreeing , just asking your opinion

[Webbo]

If a military pilot shot down a commercial plane that had been hijacked and heading to cause mass destruction , would that not be doing a bad thing for a good reason ?

(I realise the passengers are doomed either way)

i'm not disagreeing , just asking your opinion

No, because the building the plane is heading for is already rigged with explosives.

[Zingari]

No, because the building the plane is heading for is already rigged with explosives.

i know that ,but the fighter pilot don't