# Shitty Charities?



## tbaldwin (Jul 12, 2006)

Just interested to know how much people know about large and small charities.The stuff that they try to hide, the money and the people they abuse..
Stories of corruption and incompetence,welcome.

So anyone going to dish the dirt on the Red Cross,Mencap,The NSPCC,Christian Aid or any of the other dodgy multinational scum....


----------



## Maggot (Jul 12, 2006)

Why? Are you looking for an excuse not to donate?


----------



## spanglechick (Jul 12, 2006)

if you have information that the charities you mention are dodgy scum, why don't you want to tell us about it?  

do you have any sources to back up your statements?


----------



## lizzieloo (Jul 12, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Just interested to know how much people know about large and small charities.The stuff that they try to hide, the money and the people they abuse..
> Stories of corruption and incompetence,welcome.
> 
> So anyone going to dish the dirt on the Red Cross,Mencap,The NSPCC,Christian Aid or any of the other dodgy multinational scum....



You obviously have something to say, why not just say it................?


----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 12, 2006)

lizzieloo said:
			
		

> You obviously have something to say, why not just say it................?


Lets see what others have to say first shall we......


----------



## lizzieloo (Jul 12, 2006)




----------



## spanglechick (Jul 12, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Lets see what others have to say first shall we......


why?


----------



## Biddlybee (Jul 12, 2006)

.


----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 12, 2006)

spanglechick said:
			
		

> why?


Cos im interested and dont want this to be a thread about me or what i have to say...Im sure that other people who go on urban will know certain things about charities like Mencap etc...


----------



## Pingu (Jul 12, 2006)

the pdsa once GAVE me a can of coke from the box being used at the bottle a bola!*

it should have been £1 a ticket.


now if the free cans were multiplied by the number of fundraising events they do thats nearly £25 that they GAVE AWAY that could have gone to good causes.

fucked up dude... fucked up


* we did raise £370 ourselves mind you


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 12, 2006)

You can't expect everybody else to spill if you're not prepared to.

Are you a journalist touting for a story??


----------



## Pingu (Jul 12, 2006)

i started... so over to you mr baldwin.. dish the dirt

heres a taster..

RSPCA head office...

new building...

local branches not getting sufficient funding


----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 13, 2006)

Pingu said:
			
		

> i started... so over to you mr baldwin.. dish the dirt
> 
> heres a taster..
> 
> ...



Going to bed now but yeah i will join in if the thread gets going....There is a lot of dirt and my guess is that a lot of people on urban75 will know quite a lot of different things...


----------



## Andy the Don (Jul 13, 2006)

Will come back to this thread later. Charity mis-management..who'd have thought it..


----------



## D'wards (Jul 13, 2006)

Do you know, there is a charity for out-of -work advertising execs!

Is there a least deserving charity than that?


----------



## bluestreak (Jul 13, 2006)

yes.  i used to work for the law society, who are a registered charity.  and i used to process invoices, so i know where the money went.

mind you, after meetings we'd go into the meeting rooms and scarf the left-over food and drinks.  wooohooooo!


----------



## knopf (Jul 13, 2006)

NSPCC budget for 2006-2007 = £138 million
NSPCC budget for services for children & young people 2006-2007 = £60m. (43% of the total budget)

Lovely.


----------



## Andy the Don (Jul 13, 2006)

knopf said:
			
		

> NSPCC budget for 2006-2007 = £138 million
> NSPCC budget for services for children & young people 2006-2007 = £60m. (43% of the total budget)
> 
> Lovely.



Is that accounted for under the new SORP rules..??


----------



## knopf (Jul 13, 2006)

Andy the Don said:
			
		

> Is that accounted for under the new SORP rules..??


I'd have to know what they were before I could answer.


----------



## Andy the Don (Jul 13, 2006)

D'wards said:
			
		

> Do you know, there is a charity for out-of -work advertising execs!
> 
> Is there a least deserving charity than that?




National Advertising Benevolent Society (NABS).. Played in their rugby 7's tournament years ago. Went up against Channel 4 Wales who had Rupert Moon, Emyr Lewis & a number of other very good professional or club players on their team.


----------



## Andy the Don (Jul 13, 2006)

knopf said:
			
		

> I'd have to know what they were before I could answer.



Statement of Regulatory Practices. The rules that govern how charities show their annual accounts. Controlled by the Charities Commission. They have recently been changed to give charities accounts more transparency & allow the layman to see how much of a charities income goes on its core objectives.


----------



## subversplat (Jul 13, 2006)

I don't see why people are getting all up in arms over this question (apart from that tbaldwin is being vague as ever...) because I, for one, _am_ looking for an excuse not to give my money to charlatans and scamsters. If there are sterling examples of more selfless charities then I don't mind bunging them a few quid as and when I've got it, but I'm fucked if I'm paying for some corporate sponsor dinner wankfest and big shiny London offices.


----------



## zoltan (Jul 13, 2006)

every.fuckin.private.school.is.a.fuckin.registered.charite.even.fuckin.dulwich.college.fuckers.


----------



## beeboo (Jul 13, 2006)

Andy the Don said:
			
		

> National Advertising Benevolent Society (NABS).. Played in their rugby 7's tournament years ago. Went up against Channel 4 Wales who had Rupert Moon, Emyr Lewis & a number of other very good professional or club players on their team.



I think many/most industries have a benevolent society.  There is a benevolent society for people in the confectionary industry, called 'Sweet Charity'  

The local hospice gave us a thank-you evening for all the money we'd raised for them and they bought cheese and pate _from Waitrose_.  

*shakes fist* (possibly sarcastically)


----------



## nobbythenob (Jul 13, 2006)

knopf said:
			
		

> NSPCC budget for 2006-2007 = £138 million
> NSPCC budget for services for children & young people 2006-2007 = £60m. (43% of the total budget)
> 
> Lovely.



All the poxy ads on tv.


----------



## Dougal (Jul 13, 2006)

Directors of charities are often a self perpetuating group of very well paid middle class types.


----------



## bluestreak (Jul 13, 2006)

i think in this case, it would a lot better if people could actually name names rather than tar all charities with the same brush please.

as a professional charity type worker these days it pisses me off when people make vague sentiments that imply the whole thing is a huge swiz, when in fact merely MUCH of it is a huge swiz.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Jul 13, 2006)

knopf said:
			
		

> NSPCC budget for 2006-2007 = £138 million
> NSPCC budget for services for children & young people 2006-2007 = £60m. (43% of the total budget)
> 
> Lovely.



I'm not defending those figures particularly but they do have to pay their staff, have offices, pay for shops, advertising etc. All that stuff has to be paid for somehow.


----------



## lighterthief (Jul 13, 2006)

knopf said:
			
		

> NSPCC budget for 2006-2007 = £138 million
> NSPCC budget for services for children & young people 2006-2007 = £60m. (43% of the total budget)
> 
> Lovely.


Does that £60m _only_ cover direct services to children/young people, or does it include all their campaigning, training, policy and research work as well?


----------



## souljacker (Jul 13, 2006)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> i think in this case, it would a lot better if people could actually name names rather than tar all charities with the same brush please.
> 
> as a professional charity type worker these days it pisses me off when people make vague sentiments that imply the whole thing is a huge swiz, when in fact merely MUCH of it is a huge swiz.



I could tell you some very dodgy stories about one charity, but if I named names it could get someone very close to me in big shit, so I wont.


----------



## Santino (Jul 13, 2006)

Does it rhyme with Moxfam? 

Bave the Mildren?

Peengreace?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jul 13, 2006)

My sister recently got made redundant from one.  Can't say where as she had to sign a contract to not speak about it.

She was treated appallingly though and there's no way that place will ever get a penny from me


----------



## Jonti (Jul 13, 2006)

Figures. I work in IT so being made redundant is something one gets used to. But when I got made redundant by a well-known national charity I was treated very badly. They asked us programmers what retraining we needed ... and then ignored our requests completely. No discussion. No retraining, no careers advice or help. Nothing.   We were just thrown out with the old kit. And this outfit even had an "Investors in People" award. What a joke  

In an earlier redundancy, I was treated *far* better by an ordinary City Bank than by that pretentious "_we're *so* people oriented_" charity.


----------



## knopf (Jul 13, 2006)

lighterthief said:
			
		

> Does that £60m _only_ cover direct services to children/young people, or does it include all their campaigning, training, policy and research work as well?


It doesn't cover campaigning, policy or research -- they're different departments.

What it does cover are things like travel expenses -- which, when you consider that NSPCC management travel first class rail, explains why £3.6m of that £60m will go on travel.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Jul 13, 2006)

knopf said:
			
		

> which, when you consider that NSPCC management travel first class rail, explains why £3.6m of that £60m will go on travel.



That is a fucking disgrace


----------



## Andy the Don (Jul 13, 2006)

lighterthief said:
			
		

> Does that £60m _only_ cover direct services to children/young people, or does it include all their campaigning, training, policy and research work as well?



Under the new SORP these will covered under the organisations core objectives. The cost of support staff will then by allocated under these core objectives (including goverance costs) & costs of activities to generate funds (fundraising).


----------



## trashpony (Jul 13, 2006)

Mrs Miggins said:
			
		

> That is a fucking disgrace



Why?

Why do people think that people working for charities deserve less perks and pay than people doing equivalent roles in the private sector? 

I'm not having a go - I'm just interested. Do people think that people in the charity sector should get paid less because they should be more altruistic? Or that their jobs aren't as hard and so they don't need as many qualifications or experience?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 13, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Do people think that people in the charity sector should get paid less because they should be more altruistic? Or that their jobs aren't as hard and so they don't need as many qualifications or experience?



The first one, I'd have thought.

In this particular case I'm of the opinion, and probably a lot of others are, that travelling first class is essentially pissing huge amounts of money up a wall, and that maybe charities shouldn't be doing that. I think the same for private industry incidentally, but that's up to them.


----------



## Jonti (Jul 13, 2006)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:
			
		

> The first one, I'd have thought.
> 
> In this particular case I'm of the opinion, and probably a lot of others are, that travelling first class is essentially pissing huge amounts of money up a wall, and that maybe charities shouldn't be doing that. I think the same for private industry incidentally, but that's up to them.



But it's not up to the managers in private industry to decide to waste their firm's money. It's really for the shareholders or owners to decide. But they are typically not actually asked, and have very little effective influence.


----------



## trashpony (Jul 13, 2006)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:
			
		

> The first one, I'd have thought.
> 
> In this particular case I'm of the opinion, and probably a lot of others are, that travelling first class is essentially pissing huge amounts of money up a wall, and that maybe charities shouldn't be doing that. I think the same for private industry incidentally, but that's up to them.



It just seems like a really easy target. The cost of a first class open return from Londonto Manchester is £300. It's quiet, there's space to work, they bring you food and you can plug your laptop in. The cost of an open standard class return - which is noisy, there is very little space to work, no power, and you have to get your own food - is £200. 

That doesn't seem like a very sensible cost saving to me.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 13, 2006)

Jonti said:
			
		

> But it's not up to the managers in private industry to decide to waste their firm's money. It's really for the shareholders or owners to decide. But they are typically not actually asked, and have very little effective influence.



Yeah of course. I just meant that as a member of the public I have no particular interest in it.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 13, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> It just seems like a really easy target. The cost of a first class open return from Londonto Manchester is £300. It's quiet, there's space to work, they bring you food and you can plug your laptop in. The cost of an open standard class return - which is noisy, there is very little space to work, no power, and you have to get your own food - is £200.
> 
> That doesn't seem like a very sensible cost saving to me.



Aside from the fact that you should be able to get it for less than £200 quite easily, and that a lot of second class carriages have power now, I think what you're saying there is essentially that £100 _isn't a lot of money._ Maybe to you it isn't, but if you're a charity asking people to cough up a fiver a month or something, and to a lot of people that's a fair amount, it's a pretty bad attitude IMO.


----------



## secretsquirrel (Jul 13, 2006)

Fucking hell. I'm in the private sector and I work in the media - and we would get bollocked for travelling 1st class _anywhere_ unless the client covered it. And that includes long-haul flights (memories of team going to Russia economy class Aeroflot...)


----------



## trashpony (Jul 13, 2006)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:
			
		

> Aside from the fact that you should be able to get it for less than £200 quite easily, and that a lot of second class carriages have power now, I think what you're saying there is essentially that £100 _isn't a lot of money._ Maybe to you it isn't, but if you're a charity asking people to cough up a fiver a month or something, and to a lot of people that's a fair amount, it's a pretty bad attitude IMO.



I'm not saying that £100 isn't a lot of money at all - far from it. I'm talking about cost benefit analysis. An open standard class return to Manchester is £200 - honest. You need an open return in case whatever you're there for runs over - which they regularly do. If you miss your train, then you have to buy another ticket, which costs more so you would have been better off buying the open ticket. 

You're talking about 5 hours on a train. I don't know whether you've ever tried to do serious work in the second class compartment of a train during rush hour but it's pretty difficult - tiny seats and no privacy. If your senior charity executive is spending those five hours staring out the window or reading a book, then that's those five hours which they're being paid for, wasted. And those five hours would probably come to over £100 in terms of their salary (ie if they're on £80k a year, their hourly pay is £60).


----------



## souljacker (Jul 13, 2006)

Alex B said:
			
		

> Does it rhyme with Moxfam?
> 
> Bave the Mildren?
> 
> Peengreace?



 

Its not one of the big ones, but even so, I'll keep the name to myself, ta!


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 13, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> I'm not saying that £100 isn't a lot of money at all - far from it. I'm talking about cost benefit analysis. An open standard class return to Manchester is £200 - honest. You need an open return in case whatever you're there for runs over - which they regularly do. If you miss your train, then you have to buy another ticket, which costs more so you would have been better off buying the open ticket.
> 
> You're talking about 5 hours on a train. I don't know whether you've ever tried to do serious work in the second class compartment of a train during rush hour but it's pretty difficult - tiny seats and no privacy. If your senior charity executive is spending those five hours staring out the window or reading a book, then that's those five hours which they're being paid for, wasted. And those five hours would probably come to over £100 in terms of their salary (ie if they're on £80k a year, their hourly pay is £60).



It's not 5 hours to Manchester on the train. ETA: Actually it is both ways. 

And yeah, I've occasionally worked on the train in second class. It's fine on the whole. I've travelled first class once and it was marginally more comfortable. Have you ever actually seen a serious cost-benefit analysis of the extra work done, btw? Does one exist?

And however sensible it seems to you, the reaction to something like first class travel is always likely to be what you've seen here from the majority of people. Even from a purely practical viewpoint, something like that is likely to have a negative effect on a charity's ability to raise money if it becomes widely known.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Jul 13, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Why?
> 
> Why do people think that people working for charities deserve less perks and pay than people doing equivalent roles in the private sector?
> 
> I'm not having a go - I'm just interested. Do people think that people in the charity sector should get paid less because they should be more altruistic? Or that their jobs aren't as hard and so they don't need as many qualifications or experience?



I don't think that people who work for charities necessarily "deserve" less perks but I do think that every penny spent has been donated and should therefore be spent carefully. I think that it would be a total PR disaster if it were widely known that people working for charities travelled first class - no matter what the benefits to the individual worker.


----------



## trashpony (Jul 13, 2006)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:
			
		

> It's not 5 hours to Manchester on the train.
> 
> And yeah, I've occasionally worked on the train in second class. It's fine on the whole. I've travelled first class once and it was marginally more comfortable. Have you ever actually seen a serious cost-benefit analysis of the extra work done, btw? Does one exist?
> 
> And however sensible it seems to you, the reaction to something like first class travel is always likely to be what you've seen here from the majority of people. Even from a purely practical viewpoint, something like that is likely to have a negative effect on a charity's ability to raise money if it becomes widely known.



There and back silly!  Two and a half hours each way. The reason I used the London to Manchester example is that I've been up twice recently. The first time I went in normal class. There was no room for my laptop and papers, the bloke next to me tried to read what I was writing, there were screaming kids behind me and I ended up cross, tired and got fuck all done. That isn't what happened in first. I got loads done and it was the same as being in the office for five hours. Time is money.

Anyway - my point is that I can completely see why people get up in arms about stuff like this but that there's way more wastage to get your knickers in a twist about. How about the cost of chuggers compared to how much money they bring in? The cost of a full page ad in a national newspaper or a TV 30 second slot? And how much money does that really bring in? 

What I consider truly shocking about charities is that everyone - from the lowliest to the highest paid - gets paid time in lieu. So every second of overtime they put in they get to take as paid holiday. That doesn't happen in the private sector and it's a fucking joke.


----------



## Jonti (Jul 13, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> What I consider truly shocking about charities is that everyone - from the lowliest to the highest paid - gets paid time in lieu. So every second of overtime they put in they get to take as paid holiday. That doesn't happen in the private sector and it's a fucking joke.



Whoa! Calm down there! You're inventing situations.

That is *not* true.  It certainly wasn't true at the Charity I was employed by for a number of years.


----------



## chegrimandi (Jul 13, 2006)

I heard the NSPCC beat babies into happiness. They smash their heads in until they smile.

my mate who knows told me.


----------



## GoneCoastal (Jul 13, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> What I consider truly shocking about charities is that everyone - from the lowliest to the highest paid - gets paid time in lieu. So every second of overtime they put in they get to take as paid holiday. That doesn't happen in the private sector and it's a fucking joke.



Hiya

Depends entirely on where you work as to if you get time in lieu. 
I used to get time in lieu in the NHS for 8 years because it's doesn't show as overtime payments. I'm now in the private sector and have been for almost 10 years I get time in lieu if I work overtime because my time is billed to clients & I can't bill as overtime

One of my friends is v senior at a major retailer and he gets holiday in lieu

So it just depends on where you work and what the policies are afaik

(My mother got goliday in lieu when she was a District Nurse for 20 years too)


----------



## trashpony (Jul 13, 2006)

pete_w_one said:
			
		

> Hiya
> 
> Depends entirely on where you work as to if you get time in lieu.
> I used to get time in lieu in the NHS for 8 years because it's doesn't show as overtime payments. I'm now in the private sector and have been for almost 10 years I get time in lieu if I work overtime because my time is billed to clients & I can't bill as overtime
> ...



I know someone who is very senior at a big national charity, earns around 50k a year and gets TOIL. I don't know anyone in the private sector on that sort of salary with that level of responsibility who earns TOIL. She gets an average of 2 extra weeks' holiday a year. I don't have an issue with equivalent pay, but what does piss me off if if charity workers want their packages equivalent in some respects but not in others. I just think there's a certain level of pay and responsibility you get to where you shouldn't be charging every extra half hour you're in the office.


----------



## trashpony (Jul 13, 2006)

Jonti said:
			
		

> Whoa! Calm down there! You're inventing situations.
> 
> That is *not* true.  It certainly wasn't true at the Charity I was employed by for a number of years.



I'm not. The person I know who I mention in my post above has worked in the sector for twenty years in lots of different charities both big and small and has _always _been paid TOIL.


----------



## bluestreak (Jul 13, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> What I consider truly shocking about charities is that everyone - from the lowliest to the highest paid - gets paid time in lieu. So every second of overtime they put in they get to take as paid holiday. That doesn't happen in the private sector and it's a fucking joke.



i've worked for numerous charities and i've never heard of such a thing.


----------



## Macabre (Jul 13, 2006)

I work for a cancer charity as a scientific researcher and I probably get paid the top end for my qualifications/experince.  Most charities pay their people well as they arent bound by the stock market to fuck over their own staff by paying them as little as they possibley can.  Its not so much that Im being paid well, its more my peers in commerical pharma are being screwed.


----------



## trashpony (Jul 13, 2006)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> i've worked for numerous charities and i've never heard of such a thing.



What really big names you would have heard of charities? Like Sense and Scope and RNIB etc etc? 

Maybe she's just brilliant at negotiating then. Or lying


----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 13, 2006)

Good thread!

Loads of Charities are very dodgy,i wouldnt say all by any means.
The NSPCC are shit as some people have pointed out (to an extent) look at the victoria climbie case...The Red Cross shares in arms companies<snip>As others have mentioned all those posh schools are charities and the biggest earners are shit like National trust....
Ive heard loads more shit about loads of charities the amount some ofthem pay senior staff is a farce...


----------



## Iam (Jul 13, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> What I consider truly shocking about charities is that everyone - from the lowliest to the highest paid - gets paid time in lieu. So every second of overtime they put in they get to take as paid holiday. That doesn't happen in the private sector and it's a fucking joke.



Everyone?

I don't.

Not everyone, then.


----------



## trashpony (Jul 13, 2006)

Iam said:
			
		

> Everyone?
> 
> I don't.
> 
> Not everyone, then.



Okay - I've obviously only ever known people who do. I apologise

*beats self up. again*


----------



## trashpony (Jul 13, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Good thread!
> 
> Loads of Charities are very dodgy,i wouldnt say all by any means.
> The NSPCC are shit as some people have pointed out (to an extent) look at the victoria climbie case...The Red Cross shares in arms companies.....<snip>As others have mentioned all those posh schools are charities and the biggest earners are shit like National trust....
> Ive heard loads more shit about loads of charities the amount some ofthem pay senior staff is a farce...



You started the thread


----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 13, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> You started the thread




Not sure what your saying there?


----------



## Dowie (Jul 13, 2006)

zoltan69 said:
			
		

> every.fuckin.private.school.is.a.fuckin.registered.charite.even.fuckin.dulwich.college.fuckers.



now hang on a miute - that isn't fair - they let in a few token poor kids on scholarships every so often - that is why they are charities

nothing to do with the tax advantages & helping to keep the fees down for the already rich parents - honestly it is all about the token poor kids who probably aren't all that poor but thier aspirational "mummy & daddy" only earn 40k instead of X00k p.a. - so that makes them poor in comparison to the genuin toffs paying full fees


----------



## Iam (Jul 13, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Okay - I've obviously only ever known people who do. I apologise
> 
> *beats self up. again*



Hey, it's a big jump from "I know someone" to "everyone"...


----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 13, 2006)

Dowie said:
			
		

> now hang on a miute - that isn't fair - they let in a few token poor kids on scholarships every so often - that is why they are charities
> 
> nothing to do with the tax advantages & helping to keep the fees down for the already rich parents - honestly it is all about the token poor kids who probably aren't all that poor but thier aspirational "mummy & daddy" only earn 40k instead of X00k p.a. - so that makes them poor in comparison to the genuin toffs paying full fees



And then the twats go on to run the govt ,the army, the charities....


----------



## Jonti (Jul 13, 2006)

zoltan69 said:
			
		

> every.fuckin.private.school.is.a.fuckin.registered.charite.even.fuckin.dulwich.college.fuckers.






			
				Dowie said:
			
		

> now hang on a miute - that isn't fair - they let in a few token poor kids on scholarships every so often - that is why they are charities
> 
> nothing to do with the tax advantages & helping to keep the fees down for the already rich parents - honestly it is all about the token poor kids who probably aren't all that poor but thier aspirational "mummy & daddy" only earn 40k instead of X00k p.a. - so that makes them poor in comparison to the genuin toffs paying full fees


No Dowie, you are wrong. Quite confident, I grant you. But, unfortunately, quite  clueless as well.  

A private school does *not* need to offer scholarships to qualify as a charity. The provision of education is a charitable cause, and so qualifies for charitable status.  Have a read of the Charity Commissioners website.  Or something.


----------



## bluestreak (Jul 13, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> What really big names you would have heard of charities? Like Sense and Scope and RNIB etc etc?
> 
> Maybe she's just brilliant at negotiating then. Or lying




my previous employers include marie curie, macmillan, the law society, the refugee council etc.


----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 14, 2006)

Dougal said:
			
		

> Directors of charities are often a self perpetuating group of very well paid middle class types.



Corrupt and dont really give a shit but rise to the top as there great at crocodile tears.....


----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 14, 2006)

There are 177,000 charities in the UK and loads of them are total shit. Unaccountable and Corrupt....


----------



## trashpony (Jul 14, 2006)

Iam said:
			
		

> Hey, it's a big jump from "I know someone" to "everyone"...



I know. How many more times do you want me to apologise? I was taking my example from 11 major charities. I thought that they would provide a pretty good foundation to draw a conclusion from. I was obviously wrong.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Jul 14, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> There are 177,000 charities in the UK and loads of them are total shit. Unaccountable and Corrupt....



Hang on a minute....do you have anything to back that up at all??

I'm sure that some of them - even a lot of them - could be accused of poor management but outright corruption? Are you sure??


----------



## dolly's gal (Jul 14, 2006)

big news:

charities have to spend money to make money

some of them pay their staff well 

some of them offer TOIL instead of overtime (although the ones i know of offer TOIL for say a weekend of work on an event rather than a couple of hours here and there) 

 

why the fuck are charities always having to defend what they spend and how they spend it to jumped up idiots who know sod all about anything and are just looking for another excuse to scream corruption??

i am personally sick of having to rise to shite like this thread where people's chronic misperceptions and misunderstandings of how charities work go into overdrive. as a sector we are working hard to alleviate all of these bullshit perceptions and are hoping to become more transparent and open in terms of the way we communicate to our supporters in terms of what we spend and how we raise it.

a new coalition called the impACT coalition has been launched by the IoF (institute of fundraising) and a huge number of charities to allay such crap as has been posted on this thread. read all about it here: 

http://www.ncvo-vol.org.uk/impACT/index.asp?id=1158


----------



## Pingu (Jul 14, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Good thread!
> 
> Loads of Charities are very dodgy,i wouldnt say all by any means.
> The NSPCC are shit as some people have pointed out (to an extent) look at the victoria climbie case...The Red Cross shares in arms companies.....<snip>As others have mentioned all those posh schools are charities and the biggest earners are shit like National trust....
> Ive heard loads more shit about loads of charities the amount some ofthem pay senior staff is a farce...




so you goign to post any specifics then or just prove it was a shit troll to save sun journos doing any real research?


----------



## trashpony (Jul 14, 2006)

Pingu said:
			
		

> so you goign to post any specifics then or just prove it was a shit troll to save sun journos doing any real research?



Why bother with facts?


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Jul 14, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> The NSPCC are shit as some people have pointed out (to an extent) look at the victoria climbie case...



What was the NSPCC's role in the Victoria Climbie case?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 14, 2006)

Mrs Miggins said:
			
		

> Hang on a minute....do you have anything to back that up at all???



He's tbaldwin. He doesn't *do* evidence. It gets in the way of his ranting.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Jul 14, 2006)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> He's tbaldwin. He doesn't *do* evidence. It gets in the way of his ranting.




Ah! I see.....


----------



## Pingu (Jul 14, 2006)

Mrs Miggins said:
			
		

> Ah! I see.....




my trollometer didnt even quivver... no wait there it goes.... 

*watches big lorry go past window*


sorry false reading its back showing background trolldiation readings only


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Jul 14, 2006)

Oh well whatever floats you boat I suppose


----------



## Pingu (Jul 14, 2006)

mind you hes got 4 pages so far.. better than some real threads


----------



## trashpony (Jul 14, 2006)

I liked the bit where he posted 'great thread!'

Like it was something he'd just happened across and found dead interesting


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Jul 14, 2006)

What's the thrill do you suppose?


----------



## Pingu (Jul 14, 2006)

Mrs Miggins said:
			
		

> What's the thrill do you suppose?




my money is on a marmite deficiency in the diet.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Jul 14, 2006)

you could be right....


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 14, 2006)

zoltan69 said:
			
		

> every.fuckin.private.school.is.a.fuckin.registered.charite.even.fuckin.dulwich.college.fuckers.


yup. absolutely correct - one of the greatest scandals of all.


----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 14, 2006)

dolly's gal said:
			
		

> why the fuck are charities always having to defend what they spend and how they spend it to jumped up idiots who know sod all about anything and are just looking for another excuse to scream corruption??
> 
> i am personally sick of having to rise to shite like this thread where people's chronic misperceptions and misunderstandings of how charities work go into overdrive. as a sector we are working hard to alleviate all of these bullshit perceptions and are hoping to become more transparent and open in terms of the way we communicate to our supporters in terms of what we spend and how we raise it.
> 
> ...




Ha Ha Ha.....How stupid do you think people are?  Charities say they are all really nice and doing a good job shock.....
Parasite says anyone who argues must be really ignorant shock!!!!!!!!

What a load of wank.

What about the <snip>....What about the billions of £s wasted every year by shitty charities competing with each other?

Anyone who took anything that the NCVO had to say on the subject is clearly very guillible or very corrupt.


----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 14, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> I liked the bit where he posted 'great thread!'
> 
> Like it was something he'd just happened across and found dead interesting



trashpony you cretin...Its preety obvious that i posted good thread because some people had made an effort to post interesting stuff and questions..
I stayed out of it for a while to avoid it becoming the right on urbanites attack tbaldwin again.....


----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 14, 2006)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> He's tbaldwin. He doesn't *do* evidence. It gets in the way of his ranting.




IF YOUR SO KEEN ON EVIDENCE CHECK OUT HOW MANY CHARITIES INVEST IN ARMS COMPANIES AND HOW MANY PAY OVER £100K TO STAFF.

YOU KNOW YOU LOVE EVIDENCE SO MUCH GO AND FIND IT.....

OH YEAH AND CHECK OUT HOW MANAGEMENT COMMITTEES WORK?


----------



## trashpony (Jul 14, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> trashpony you cretin...Its preety obvious that i posted good thread because some people had made an effort to post interesting stuff and questions..
> I stayed out of it for a while to avoid it becoming the right on urbanites attack tbaldwin again.....



I'm doing really well today - I've been called an idiot and a cretin.


----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 14, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> I'm doing really well today - I've been called an idiot and a cretin.


Yeah but its OK cos i meant it in a nice way.....


----------



## dolly's gal (Jul 14, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Ha Ha Ha.....How stupid do you think people are?  Charities say they are all really nice and doing a good job shock.....
> Parasite says anyone who argues must be really ignorant shock!!!!!!!!
> 
> What a load of wank.
> ...



tosser. it is on the nvco website, not that it has much to do with them. it's an innitiative put together by the IoF but i'm guessing that's an organisation you know nothing about.

you really are a dickhead aren't you? and you're interested in learning nothing that doesn't back up the load of old twat you're already coming out with.

this thread is full of shit. end of.


----------



## Pingu (Jul 14, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> IF YOUR SO KEEN ON EVIDENCE CHECK OUT HOW MANY CHARITIES INVEST IN ARMS COMPANIES AND HOW MANY PAY OVER £100K TO STAFF.
> 
> YOU KNOW YOU LOVE EVIDENCE SO MUCH GO AND FIND IT.....
> 
> OH YEAH AND CHECK OUT HOW MANAGEMENT COMMITTEES WORK?




yay

he bit


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 14, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> IF YOUR SO KEEN ON EVIDENCE CHECK OUT HOW MANY CHARITIES INVEST IN ARMS COMPANIES AND HOW MANY PAY OVER £100K TO STAFF.
> 
> YOU KNOW YOU LOVE EVIDENCE SO MUCH GO AND FIND IT.....
> 
> OH YEAH AND CHECK OUT HOW MANAGEMENT COMMITTEES WORK?



Sucker.

It's your thread, you're the one who wants the "dirt", dig it up yourself, fuckwit.

Y'see, if the charities aren't breaking the law, or contravening Charity Commission regulations then there's fuck all you can do.

Not that you want to do anything, eh balders?

You just like shouting the odds.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 14, 2006)

Pingu said:
			
		

> yay
> 
> he bit



Holier than thou Littlejohnesque twats usually do.


----------



## chooch (Jul 14, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> What I consider truly shocking about charities is that everyone - from the lowliest to the highest paid - gets paid time in lieu. So every second of overtime they put in they get to take as paid holiday. That doesn't happen in the private sector and it's a fucking joke.


All the charities I've worked for have had TOIL policies on the tacit understanding that you're far too busy to ever take most of it unless you've reached the point of complete demotivation, in which case you're probably next on the list for the chop when the funding runs out. They've also offered next to no promotion prospects, low pay and plenty of contact with trustees too thick to understand that it's not a hobby for some of their staff.




			
				tbaldwin said:
			
		

> There are 177,000 charities in the UK and loads of them are total shit.


Progress. Last time it was _most_.


----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 15, 2006)

dolly's gal said:
			
		

> tosser. it is on the nvco website, not that it has much to do with them. it's an innitiative put together by the IoF but i'm guessing that's an organisation you know nothing about.
> 
> you really are a dickhead aren't you? and you're interested in learning nothing that doesn't back up the load of old twat you're already coming out with.
> 
> this thread is full of shit. end of.




er what exactly do you think i should learn????? That Rape is OK that taking millions of £s is OK that negligence is OK...That Charities are wonderful,full of wonderful people doing marvellous things?


----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 15, 2006)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> Sucker.
> 
> It's your thread, you're the one who wants the "dirt", dig it up yourself, fuckwit.
> 
> ...



Got a job yet....Or are you still the oldest student in town.....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 15, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Got a job yet....Or are you still the oldest student in town.....



What's up balders, don't you like people knowing what your game is?

I mean, it's a bit pathetic that you have to try and wind me up about me being a student, isn't it?

Is geeta still giving you a hard time for being a "two-timing racist sleazebag" or something?


----------



## Pingu (Jul 15, 2006)

hows the marmite deficiency going?

there should be a charitable organisation set up to help provide marmite to those who need it.

bring back ern.. he was a much better troll.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jul 15, 2006)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> yes.  i used to work for the law society, who are a registered charity.  and i used to process invoices, so i know where the money went.
> 
> mind you, after meetings we'd go into the meeting rooms and scarf the left-over food and drinks.  wooohooooo!



Sorry to be a pedant, but the Law Society is not a charity! They do actually have a charitable fund, though. I wonder if that is what you meant, and the section for which you used to work.

Sorry for the derail...


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jul 15, 2006)

Jonti said:
			
		

> Figures. I work in IT so being made redundant is something one gets used to. But when I got made redundant by a well-known national charity I was treated very badly. They asked us programmers what retraining we needed ... and then ignored our requests completely. No discussion. No retraining, no careers advice or help. Nothing.   We were just thrown out with the old kit. And this outfit even had an "Investors in People" award. What a joke
> 
> In an earlier redundancy, I was treated *far* better by an ordinary City Bank than by that pretentious "_we're *so* people oriented_" charity.



This doesn't surprise me, unfortunately. Charities, like trade unions, seem to make the worst employer!  In both cases, there seems to be a belief that people are there because of their personal commitment to the cause, and take advantage of that. Plus, they are run by committees made up of do-gooders who don't seem to understand that the staff have needs and rights.

IME that is!


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jul 15, 2006)

bluestreak said:
			
		

> i've worked for numerous charities and i've never heard of such a thing.



I have represented people who work for hundreds of charities over the years ('cos it's my job, innit), and being given time off in lieu in the way you describe is, at best, rare!


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jul 15, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Good thread!
> 
> 
> The NSPCC are shit as some people have pointed out (to an extent) look at the victoria climbie case...



I am curious. How does the NSPCC bear the blame for the Climbie case?


----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 16, 2006)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> What's up balders, don't you like people knowing what your game is?



What my game is VP? You strike me at times as an intelligent person....But you seem obsessed by criticising anyone who questions the mutual back slapping liberals.....Why is that?
Why do you so rarely express any kind of a view on aything and just wait for people who do who express anything that goes against a narrow liberal concensus?
Are you just trying to play to the gallery? If so why?

For my part,MYGAME is to question why there are so many charities that are often worse than useless????

Do you really have no experience or knowledge of how shitty charities can be?


----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 16, 2006)

dolly's gal said:
			
		

> big news:
> 
> charities have to spend money to make money
> 
> ...



its amusing in a way this contribution?
For a start nobody said that Charities shouldnt spend any money on promotion etc......Dollys Gal just wants a nice straw man to hide behind while counting the cash cow that is charity......


----------



## Pingu (Jul 16, 2006)

so then dude


what do YOU do to make the world a better place?


----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 16, 2006)

Pingu said:
			
		

> so then dude
> 
> 
> what do YOU do to make the world a better place?



Erm like what?


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Jul 17, 2006)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> I am curious. How does the NSPCC bear the blame for the Climbie case?



He won't tell us.
I asked that earlier on the thread and he hasn't answered.


----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 17, 2006)

Mrs Miggins sorry must have missed it...

The Tottenham Child and Family Centre was situated in Moira Close, Tottenham, and was one of two centres established under a partnership agreement between Haringey council, Haringey Health Care NHS Trust and the NSPCC. 

7.3
 The managers of the centres were employees of either the council or the health authority, but they reported to Catriona Scott who was employed by the NSPCC and was responsible for the day-to-day management of the centres. According to Ms Scott, "The main function of the family centres was to provide planned family services relating to health and welfare." 

The referral


----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 17, 2006)

Pingu said:
			
		

> so then dude
> 
> 
> what do YOU do to make the world a better place?



What do you Pingu?


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Jul 17, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Mrs Miggins sorry must have missed it...
> 
> The Tottenham Child and Family Centre was situated in Moira Close, Tottenham, and was one of two centres established under a partnership agreement between Haringey council, Haringey Health Care NHS Trust and the NSPCC.
> 
> ...



Doesn't really answer my question though does it?


----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 17, 2006)

Mrs Miggins said:
			
		

> Doesn't really answer my question though does it?



Why dont you try and find out some information on the NSPCC and other charities?
Do you think that they are all really great and that anyone criticising them must just be mean and stupid?


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Jul 17, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Why dont you try and find out some information on the NSPCC and other charities?



But you're the one making the accusation, not me. You tell me why Victoria Climbie's death was the NSPCCs fault.




			
				tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Do you think that they are all really great and that anyone criticising them must just be mean and stupid?



No - I just think you are a bit of a twit


----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 17, 2006)

Mrs Miggins said:
			
		

> But you're the one making the accusation, not me. You tell me why Victoria Climbie's death was the NSPCCs fault.


She went to the centre that was managed by somebody from the NSPCC they FAILED to take the signs of abuse seriously...Not exactly impressive is it... The NSPCC spends a huge amount on senior staff and their perks and does very little work with children as it is far too busy spending the donations on advertising and senior staffs salaries....

Do you really not understand that the NSPCC is there supposedly to protect children?

The NSPCC should not only have been aware of the abuse but taken every possible step to alert others to the potential for abuse and murder way before Victoria Climbie died...


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Jul 17, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> She went to the centre that was managed by somebody from the NSPCC they FAILED to take the signs of abuse seriously...Not exactly impressive is it...



Finally!

That is pretty crap - yes.


----------



## lizardqueen (Jul 17, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> er what exactly do you think i should learn????? That Rape is OK that taking millions of £s is OK that negligence is OK...That Charities are wonderful,full of wonderful people doing marvellous things?



WTF is your problem?  You seem to get some sort of kick out of slagging off charities with no real backing for your arguments. Has this come from some personal experience or do you just like stirring trouble?

Of course, not every charity is perfect. But don't tar them all with the same brush - most of them do a lot of good work and are far more productive than people who spend their time moaning on the internet.


----------



## Pingu (Jul 17, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> What do you Pingu?




i asked first


btw i do have a good answer to this, as in i do do something.


----------



## belboid (Jul 17, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> What I consider truly shocking about charities is that everyone - from the lowliest to the highest paid - gets paid time in lieu. So every second of overtime they put in they get to take as paid holiday. That doesn't happen in the private sector and it's a fucking joke.


what a load of cock!  A far far greater problem in the voluntary.chartity sector is people being made to 'donate' hundreds of hours of unpaid overtime every year because they are meant to be 'committed' and/or the charity can't afford to pay any overtime.

Some places offer TOIL, in no small part because they cant afford to pay for over-time, so have to make up for it somehow, and, sometimes, as one of the few ways to recognise that people in the sector are comparatively underpaid.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jul 17, 2006)

Seems to be a lot of naivity on this thread. Charities have to run as businesses,  they have to pay the senior execs competetive salaries in orer to get their charity run well. You pay peanuts, you get monkeys. It'd be interesing to see how well the NSPCC was run if all the top brass were volunteers, or on sub-£30k wages. I'm guessing a lot less cash would make it to the kids.


----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 17, 2006)

lizardqueen said:
			
		

> WTF is your problem?  You seem to get some sort of kick out of slagging off charities with no real backing for your arguments. Has this come from some personal experience or do you just like stirring trouble?
> 
> Of course, not every charity is perfect. But don't tar them all with the same brush - most of them do a lot of good work and are far more productive than people who spend their time moaning on the internet.




Are you really stupid enough to believe that people who work for charities are never critical of them?
What more backing for my arguements do you want??? 
Negligence?Rape?Mismanagement?

Have you actually read the thread?


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Jul 17, 2006)

Put a sock in it will ya?


----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 17, 2006)

ChrisFilter said:
			
		

> Seems to be a lot of naivity on this thread. Charities have to run as businesses,  they have to pay the senior execs competetive salaries in orer to get their charity run well. You pay peanuts, you get monkeys. It'd be interesing to see how well the NSPCC was run if all the top brass were volunteers, or on sub-£30k wages. I'm guessing a lot less cash would make it to the kids.



Chris.... naivity? If you believe that charities need to pay over 100k to people to get the best staff etc. Fair enough its a kind of Thatcherite belief,she would be proud of you....
Do you think charities like the NSPCC are well run??? Dont you think you might be just a bit naive?


----------



## lizardqueen (Jul 17, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Are you really stupid enough to believe that people who work for charities are never critical of them?
> What more backing for my arguements do you want???
> Negligence?Rape?Mismanagement?
> 
> Have you actually read the thread?



Yes thank you.  I have read the thread.   

If you read my post I said that all charities are not perfect.  My problem is with the tone of your thread/posts.  Calling out for people to 'dish the dirt' doesn't seem very constructive and makes me think you're just enjoying a bit of shit stirring.  Couple that with the fact that you refer to anyone who disagrees with you as 'parasites' and 'cretins' and I'm pretty damn sure you're just trying to start an argument.

And for the record, I work for a charity myself and I can assure you that nobody (including the MD) gets paid anywhere near £100k, we don't travel first class, we don't get paid toil for staying an extra half hour in the office, and all our financial info is available for our supporters to see - that way they can make their own decision about whether they give us any money.

I'm sure plenty of charities have dodgy aspects, but so do plenty of commercial organisations.  Thats for the supporter to investigate before they donate.  I just don't think its helpful throwing around accusations that could put people off donating to charity at all.


----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 17, 2006)

lizardqueen said:
			
		

> I'm sure plenty of charities have dodgy aspects, but so do plenty of commercial organisations.  Thats for the supporter to investigate before they donate.  I just don't think its helpful throwing around accusations that could put people off donating to charity at all.




I think if people give the issue of the everexpanding numbers of charities some serious thought it can only be good.....
If people really support social justice then serious questions have to be asked about the role of charities...


----------



## ChrisFilter (Jul 17, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Chris.... naivity? If you believe that charities need to pay over 100k to people to get the best staff etc. Fair enough its a kind of Thatcherite belief,she would be proud of you....
> Do you think charities like the NSPCC are well run??? Dont you think you might be just a bit naive?



I happen to know a fair bit about the senior level running of a charity. Like anything, you want the best, you have to pay for it. On the whole you need to have a pretty impressive track record to command a top level sary in a top level position in any industry.


----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 17, 2006)

ChrisFilter said:
			
		

> I happen to know a fair bit about the senior level running of a charity. Like anything, you want the best, you have to pay for it. On the whole you need to have a pretty impressive track record to command a top level sary in a top level position in any industry.



On the whole?? Far too often bullshit finds it way to the top.


----------



## Iam (Jul 17, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> I know. How many more times do you want me to apologise? I was taking my example from 11 major charities. I thought that they would provide a pretty good foundation to draw a conclusion from. I was obviously wrong.



You poor, martyred soul.

baldwin, your angry ranting and inability to actually present a coherent case isn't really helping, you know. Try dealing in specifics - and no, you haven't yet... you've talked about allegations, directors and mistakes whilst darkly hinting at perpetrations of great malfeasance, as far as I can see. Go on. Just try? Once? Tell us what you "know"...

Top post, DG.


----------



## Pingu (Jul 17, 2006)

so anyhow

just what was it that you do again mr baldwin?

i didnt quite catch your answer


----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 18, 2006)

Pingu said:
			
		

> so anyhow
> 
> just what was it that you do again mr baldwin?
> 
> i didnt quite catch your answer



Well the question what do i do to make the world a better place is a bit wanky isnt it....Who is choosing exactly what makes the world a better place...
If i had a well paid Job in whats laughably called the voluntary sector would that make me a good person or stuff i do in my social life? Or what tea i buy? What exactly do you mean?


----------



## Iam (Jul 18, 2006)




----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 18, 2006)

ChrisFilter said:
			
		

> I happen to know a fair bit about the senior level running of a charity. Like anything, you want the best, you have to pay for it. On the whole you need to have a pretty impressive track record to command a top level sary in a top level position in any industry.



That people continue to believe stuff like this allows corruption and negligence to fester in charities.

People dont really know enough about charities full stop. Most people are not aware that places like Eton etc are charities or just how much of the public sector was broken down inot charities..
Charities get millions of £s of public money and the public is unaware of just how badly many of them are run.


----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 18, 2006)

Pingu said:
			
		

> so anyhow
> 
> just what was it that you do again mr baldwin?
> 
> i didnt quite catch your answer




Try asking a straightforward question? What exactly do you think counts as making the world a better place?


----------



## Andy the Don (Jul 18, 2006)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> I have represented people who work for hundreds of charities over the years ('cos it's my job, innit), and being given time off in lieu in the way you describe is, at best, rare!



I work in a charity & work at least 1 - 3hrs extra per day, just to stay on top on my workload & have never been offered TOIL or overtime. The one time I mentioned my workload I was told the reason I have to work the extra hours to keep up was that I was not "time managing" myself correctly & sent on atime managemnet course..


----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 18, 2006)

Iam said:
			
		

> You poor, martyred soul.
> 
> baldwin, your angry ranting and inability to actually present a coherent case isn't really helping, you know. Try dealing in specifics - and no, you haven't yet... you've talked about allegations, directors and mistakes whilst darkly hinting at perpetrations of great malfeasance, as far as I can see. Go on. Just try? Once? Tell us what you "know"...
> 
> Top post, DG.




First time i have been accused of "darkly hinting at perpetrations of great malfeasance"
I bet you just love charities?


----------



## Pingu (Jul 18, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Try asking a straightforward question? What exactly do you think counts as making the world a better place?




that definition is an individual one. what i consider a "better place" is possibly not what you consider a "better place". but for the sake of argument lets call it something you do that gives you no more reward than a nice warm fuzzy feeling that you have done something right and made a difference

stop dodging the question and tell us what it is you do.

and sitting on your arse playing at being a pseudo intelectual philosopher doesnt count


----------



## chooch (Jul 18, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> If people really support social justice then serious questions have to be asked about the role of charities...


Aye. But with standard complications- my definition of social justice is probably worlds away from yours.  



			
				tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Try asking a straightforward question? What exactly do you think counts as making the world a better place?


That's the motherfucking rub. Charities aren't a friendly group of ruddy-cheeked pioneers pulling in the same direction, any more than people, companies or governments are. In the UK they're any registered organisation that meets the current definition of charitable activity (soon to change) and works to the current set of regulations. One of the advantages of having umpteen charities, some of them in sharp disgareement, is that differing views of what makes the world a better place can be advanced. One of the  disadvantages of having umpteen charities, some of them in sharp disgareement, is that differing views of what makes the world a better place can be advanced. Complaining about charities _competing with each other_ misses the point unless their charitable aims are sufficiently similar, in which case they may be thinking about merging anyway (e.g the 2 big UK cancer research charities).
Disagreement is an inevitable part of their independent existence. If they didn't disagree they might as well merge into the _Unchallenging Timid Feelgood Love Fund_. Which I wouldn't support.


----------



## Iam (Jul 19, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> First time i have been accused of "darkly hinting at perpetrations of great malfeasance"
> I bet you just love charities?



But that's what you're doing, so it should hardly come as a great shock to you.

Forgive me, but I cannot possibly think what on earth would have led your apparently diseased brain to think I would answer a question that you have posed, when you have danced like a ballerina around everything asked of you, relying on self-righteous indignation as an accompaniment and providing nothing of substance but derranged witterings...

You can continue swivelling, old son.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 19, 2006)

chooch said:
			
		

> Aye. But with standard complications- my definition of social justice is probably worlds away from yours.
> That's the motherfucking rub. Charities aren't a friendly group of ruddy-cheeked pioneers pulling in the same direction, any more than people, companies or governments are. In the UK they're any registered organisation that meets the current definition of charitable activity (soon to change) and works to the current set of regulations. One of the advantages of having umpteen charities, some of them in sharp disgareement, is that differing views of what makes the world a better place can be advanced. One of the  disadvantages of having umpteen charities, some of them in sharp disgareement, is that differing views of what makes the world a better place can be advanced. Complaining about charities _competing with each other_ misses the point unless their charitable aims are sufficiently similar, in which case they may be thinking about merging anyway (e.g the 2 big UK cancer research charities).
> Disagreement is an inevitable part of their independent existence. If they didn't disagree they might as well merge into the _Unchallenging Timid Feelgood Love Fund_. Which I wouldn't support.




You glancingly touch on a point that I feel really should be made, and that Mr Baldwin, even with his considerable inrellectual gifts, doesn't appear to have noticed, and that's of regulation, and more importantly, who regulates charities in the UK.

Its easy to bang on abut this or that charity paying too much to their directors, this or that charity failing in their duty of care, this or that charity being wasteful of donations, but where's the banging on about how their regulator allows them to get away with this malfeasance?

Talk to anyone who's had dealings with them (I have), and you'll be told that the Charity Commission is useless, unles you happen to be a multi-million pound charity who might give them bad publicity. They're creakingly slow, they enforce their regulations asymmetrically, they're arbitrary and they're a bastion of sinecures, to name but a few faults.

If you want to make sure charities are run with proper regard to their remit, then you've first got to change their regulatory regime, make it politically neutral, and give it the money and manpower to enforce its' regulations. THEN you might not have "scandals" quite so often.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 19, 2006)

Iam said:
			
		

> But that's what you're doing, so it should hardly come as a great shock to you.
> 
> Forgive me, but I cannot possibly think what on earth would have led your apparently diseased brain to think I would answer a question that you have posed, when you have danced like a ballerina around everything asked of you, relying on self-righteous indignation as an accompaniment and providing nothing of substance but derranged witterings...
> 
> You can continue swivelling, old son.



Ah, the beauty of properly-used language.


----------



## Iam (Jul 19, 2006)

Ta.

Been FAR too nice about his dancing skills, though.


----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 19, 2006)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> You glancingly touch on a point that I feel really should be made, and that Mr Baldwin, even with his considerable inrellectual gifts, doesn't appear to have noticed, and that's of regulation, and more importantly, who regulates charities in the UK.
> 
> Its easy to bang on abut this or that charity paying too much to their directors, this or that charity failing in their duty of care, this or that charity being wasteful of donations, but where's the banging on about how their regulator allows them to get away with this malfeasance?
> 
> ...



Not sure giving the charity commision more money or powers is a real solution.. There are just far too many charities and public schools etc how can they be charities?????
177,000 charities is a huge number and people on here have shown their ignorance in just how big and shit the charitable sector is.
People really seem ignorant of how health and public services were made into charities. A lot of people did really well out of that...It was one of Thatchers key successes that seems never to be commented on.


----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 19, 2006)

Pingu said:
			
		

> that definition is an individual one. what i consider a "better place" is possibly not what you consider a "better place". but for the sake of argument lets call it something you do that gives you no more reward than a nice warm fuzzy feeling that you have done something right and made a difference
> 
> stop dodging the question and tell us what it is you do.
> 
> and sitting on your arse playing at being a pseudo intelectual philosopher doesnt count



1 Hippy shit
2 Work for a Charity
3 Thats me stuffed then.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Jul 19, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Not sure giving the charity commision more money or powers is a real solution.. There are just far too many charities and public schools etc how can they be charities?????
> 177,000 charities is a huge number and people on here have shown their ignorance in just how big and shit the charitable sector is.
> People really seem ignorant of how health and public services were made into charities. A lot of people did really well out of that...It was one of Thatchers key successes that seems never to be commented on.



You're fucking hilarious mate - keep it up  
Invoking the name of Thatcher now. Ho ho ho.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Jul 19, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> 1 Hippy shit
> 2 Work for a Charity
> 3 Thats me stuffed then.


Nah - you've lost me there - what does that mean?


----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 19, 2006)

Mrs Miggins said:
			
		

> You're fucking hilarious mate - keep it up
> Invoking the name of Thatcher now. Ho ho ho.




What a very clever reply.........
You have shown your mediocrity off very well....Asked me a question about Victoria Climbie.....Jumping in showing your ignorance but nothing about rapes,fraud or charities having shares in arms companies.....If youve no interest in that what are you on this thread for?


----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 19, 2006)

Mrs Miggins said:
			
		

> Nah - you've lost me there - what does that mean?




Are you being serious there?


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Jul 19, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> What a very clever reply.........
> You have shown your mediocrity off very well....Asked me a question about Victoria Climbie.....Jumping in showing your ignorance but nothing about rapes,fraud or charities having shares in arms companies.....If youve no interest in that what are you on this thread for?



Well it keeps popping up in my mailbox and I can't resist having a look at the crap you're spouting. It's spot on


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Jul 19, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Are you being serious there?


Yes


----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 19, 2006)

Got to get back to work 20 mins helping people then back to Urban for a few hours to wind up the twats....


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Jul 19, 2006)

Well at least now you're being honest haha!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 19, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Not sure giving the charity commision more money or powers is a real solution..


Lucky that isn't what I proposed then, isnt it?


> There are just far too many charities and public schools etc how can they be charities?????


Because their pupils go on to be in government and make sure they get treated well, what else?


> 177,000 charities is a huge number...


I notice you haven't quantified or categorised these charities at all. So, how many are little "single interest" charities for local hospices or animal sanctuaries and the like?
How many of them are "friends of..." charities for hospitals, parks, zoos and the like?
How many of them are incorporated into the welfare sector?

etc etc etc.

See, the number "177,000" itself means *nothing*, it's what each of those 177,000 charities does or doesn't do that's important, not the volume.


> and people on here have shown their ignorance in just how big and shit the charitable sector is.


So insteading of farting on about it why don't you tell us about how big and shit the charity sector is, details rather than vague generalisations.


> People really seem ignorant of how health and public services were made into charities. A lot of people did really well out of that...It was one of Thatchers key successes that seems never to be commented on.


Why don't they comment on it? Because, in the form you're attibuting to it, it didn't happen.

If you'd have said "health and welfare work started incorporating the contributions of the charitable sector, with government passing over more and more remit to the sector, as well as large-scale contracts for services" people might know what you're talking about.


----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 19, 2006)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> So insteading of farting on about it why don't you tell us about how big and shit the charity sector is, details rather than vague generalisations.
> 
> Why don't they comment on it? Because, in the form you're attibuting to it, it didn't happen.
> 
> If you'd have said "health and welfare work started incorporating the contributions of the charitable sector, with government passing over more and more remit to the sector, as well as large-scale contracts for services" people might know what you're talking about.




Its a bit depressing when i read a thread and VP is one of the people who makes more sense on it?
But farting on,vague generalisations............
The <snip> being removed after Rape Allegations.Red Cross and plenty of other charities having shares in Arms dealers..NSPCC general allround uselessness and Victoria Climbie.....Some of the Salaries paid to senior staff and their perks.....
Have you got anything more specific?

The last sentence????? Dont you know how many charities were set up by former members of health and local authorities? To take over work like supporting people etc?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 19, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Its a bit depressing when i read a thread and VP is one of the people who makes more sense on it?
> But farting on,vague generalisations............
> The <snip>.being removed after Rape Allegations.Red Cross and plenty of other charities having shares in Arms dealers..NSPCC general allround uselessness and Victoria Climbie.....Some of the Salaries paid to senior staff and their perks.....
> Have you got anything more specific?


Your repeating of the same handful of cases over and over again qualifies as "vague generalisations".
If you're expecting people to extrapolate from your few examples that charities are "shitty" then it isn't going to happen, is it? They're not going to listen to you unless you provide them with *credible* evidence that the situation is as bad as you claim, are they?



> The last sentence????? Dont you know how many charities were set up by former members of health and local authorities? To take over work like supporting people etc?


Yes, and a damn sight more charities hired in people direct from executive positions in local authority social services depts.


----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 19, 2006)

My sons school were collecting for Cancer research. He told them he thought it was a really bad idea..He said "my Dads got Cancer and he hates Cancer research and so do all the people on his ward"
He persuaded people instead to donate to a local hospice..
Funnily enough at 11 he understands that not all charities are the same and that some of them are very dubious in the way they spend money....


----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 19, 2006)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> Your repeating of the same handful of cases over and over again qualifies as "vague generalisations".
> If you're expecting people to extrapolate from your few examples that charities are "shitty" then it isn't going to happen, is it? They're not going to listen to you unless you provide them with *credible* evidence that the situation is as bad as you claim, are they?
> 
> 
> Yes, and a damn sight more charities hired in people direct from executive positions in local authority social services depts.




1 As bad as i claim.....Rape not as bad as i claim? or Fraud? or Victoria Climbie? How much worse do you think it can get?

2  I really dont believe that..Do you have any stats to back that up?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 19, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> My sons school were collecting for Cancer research. He told them he thought it was a really bad idea..He said "my Dads got Cancer and he hates Cancer research and so do all the people on his ward"
> He persuaded people instead to donate to a local hospice..
> Funnily enough at 11 he understands that not all charities are the same and that some of them are very dubious in the way they spend money....


I'm not a big fan of C.R. myself, ever since my nan died of a double whammy of a tumour and leukemia 25 years ago and we raised a load of money, only to be warned by an old girl in their offices that only about 30% went on research.

The money went to trinity hospice instead.

Thing is, not all charities spunk money, and the new accounting rules mean they'll have to justify expenditure much more than they used to. You'll always have charities that take the piss (I can think of several that did so back in Queen Victoria's day let alone now), but you can't condemn them all because of that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 19, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> 1 As bad as i claim.....Rape not as bad as i claim? or Fraud? or Victoria Climbie? How much worse do you think it can get?


Sorry, were you having a wank or something when you should have been reading the line I wrote that says " If you're expecting people to extrapolate from your few examples that charities are "shitty" then it isn't going to happen, is it?"


> 2  I really dont believe that..Do you have any stats to back that up?


You don't believe that charities were hiring people directly out of social services depts? 

Ah, then you probably think there was an entirely different reason for local authorities introducing clauses into their employment contracts stipulating that senior staff couldn't leave employment with them and take employment with any contractor the council used within 6 months.

*Can* you think of another reason that local authorities did so, balders?


----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 19, 2006)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> I'm not a big fan of C.R. myself, ever since my nan died of a double whammy of a tumour and leukemia 25 years ago and we raised a load of money, only to be warned by an old girl in their offices that only about 30% went on research.
> 
> The money went to trinity hospice instead.
> 
> Thing is, not all charities spunk money, and the new accounting rules mean they'll have to justify expenditure much more than they used to. You'll always have charities that take the piss (I can think of several that did so back in Queen Victoria's day let alone now), but you can't condemn them all because of that.



VP I never said ALL.....If that was what i believed i wouldnt bother working would i....Im not saying all charities are shit or all the workers are shit....Im saying that loads are......Based on my experience and from what ive heard from people who worked for different charities over the years.
#
I started the thread cos i think people are shockingly naive about a £40 billion a year industry.
People coming on to defend charities have made some really stupid assumptions that show a deep rooted conservatism....
#Im very lucky where i work now but my manager a few years back was a cross between Jeffrey Archer and Anne Widdecombe....

So all things considered its no suprise that im such a bitter and twisted individual....


----------



## tbaldwin (Jul 19, 2006)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> You don't believe that charities were hiring people directly out of social services depts?
> 
> Ah, then you probably think there was an entirely different reason for local authorities introducing clauses into their employment contracts stipulating that senior staff couldn't leave employment with them and take employment with any contractor the council used within 6 months.
> 
> *Can* you think of another reason that local authorities did so, balders?



1 Of course i do but that wasnt what i was questioning.
2 What reason are you ASSUMING?


----------



## chooch (Jul 20, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> VP I never said ALL.....If that was what i believed i wouldnt bother working would i....Im not saying all charities are shit or all the workers are shit....Im saying that loads are.......


In the other thread:



			
				tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Given the facts on how much money goes to Charities from publically funded bodies its sad that there is not much more interest in just how shit *most* of them are.






			
				ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> the number "177,000" itself means nothing


...unless you're making a rash claim about 'most' charities, in which case it's useful for pointing out the population size you're extrapolating to from a smaller than smallish sample.


----------



## GoneCoastal (Jul 20, 2006)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> Ah, then you probably think there was an entirely different reason for local authorities introducing clauses into their employment contracts stipulating that senior staff couldn't leave employment with them and take employment with any contractor the council used within 6 months.


That's a fairly common clause in employment contracts... it's in mine for conflict of interest reasons... and I'm in the private sector


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 20, 2006)

pete_w_one said:
			
		

> That's a fairly common clause in employment contracts... it's in mine for conflict of interest reasons... and I'm in the private sector



Yep, but look at standard employment contracts for social services executives and the like 15-20 years ago and you won't  find the same clause.

My point is that there was a concerted movement to insert such clauses in the late '80s and early '90s because there was, quite literally, a "brain drain" from soc serv depts into the charitable sector, usually soon after a charity had won a contract to provide services to a local authority under CCT (compulsory competitive tendering, another of Thatcher, Jenkin and Heseltine's little ideas for shafting local govt). 

I know that one of the social welfare trusts/think-tanks (Rowntree, I think) did a report back around 1990 on the extent of crossover and the problems caused to local services by this kind of crossover, but at least two-thirds of my papers are in storage, so digging out the correct reference would be a labour of love I don't have time to undertake.


----------



## clmk (Aug 7, 2006)

After glancing at shelter and what they do, how they spend their money, I have to say that most charities are complete and utter shit, for instance shelter spends ludicrous amounts on high pay for administration and hardly anything in terms of helping people, looking at the homeless population in brighton and what shelter did for them........Trash so called charities and do it yourself, you want to help the homeless? or someone with cancer? bloody get together and make an effort for a co-ordinated strike across the country to get back our services....Cancer research should be coming out of universities and hospitals, not from charity of the wage slave who is barely trying to pay their bills.....There are plenty of offices/shelter charity shops, that can be converted into overnight shelter so the homeless don't have to freeze to death on the street, or get kicked by some drunk bigoted violent shithead.......

but no, a nice quick solution of putting a couple of pennies here and there to this and that charity which will go into some rich oxbridge toff's pocket, so you can go back to watching tv and reading the sport....


----------



## dolly's gal (Aug 7, 2006)

clmk said:
			
		

> After glancing at shelter and what they do, how they spend their money, I have to say that most charities are complete and utter shit, for instance shelter spends ludicrous amounts on high pay for administration and hardly anything in terms of helping people, looking at the homeless population in brighton and what shelter did for them........



source please?

i have worked for shelter for 5 1/2 years and i'm not sure i agree at all with what you're saying about "ludicrously high admin spend". charities need to spend money on admin, people don't seem to understand that. they need to spend money to make more money - why is that such a difficult concept to grasp??  

and clmk, while direct action is a commendable way to try and deal with the ills of the world, your stance in this instance is very simplistic. homelessness is about more than people sleeping rough. shelter help, through advice and advocacy, people to find and keep a decent, affordable, safe home - they don't just move them into hostels (which is not a sustainable form of accommodation in the longer term). so turning our shops and offices into hostels would actually be of no benefit at all! all the homeless and badly housed people we help would end up spending their lives living in shite temporary accommodation. how would that help them???

i suggest you take a look at what shelter actually does (it does not provide accommodation, although this is a common misconception) before you start making alternative suggestions for their office and shop space (incidentally, the retail outlets raise millions of pounds each year, so you might want to bare that in mind before you completely right them off).


----------



## Iam (Aug 7, 2006)

clmk said:
			
		

> After glancing at shelter and what they do, how they spend their money, I have to say that most charities are complete and utter shit



Most ridiculuous extrapolation... ever.

Well done, have a biscuit, gimboid.


----------



## zenie (Aug 7, 2006)

clmk said:
			
		

> but no, a nice quick solution of putting a couple of pennies here and there to this and that charity which will go into some rich oxbridge toff's pocket, so you can go back to watching tv and reading the sport....



Where is the love?


----------



## clmk (Aug 7, 2006)

Iam said:
			
		

> Most ridiculuous extrapolation... ever.
> 
> Well done, have a biscuit, gimboid.



I have browsed loads of charities and some of them look legitimate bu most of them look like buisnesses taking advantage of peoples charity and pocketing a lot of money, then throwing a few crumbs at the actual cause...


----------



## dolly's gal (Aug 7, 2006)

clmk said:
			
		

> I have browsed loads of charities and some of them look legitimate bu most of them look like buisnesses taking advantage of peoples charity and pocketing a lot of money, then throwing a few crumbs at the actual cause...



source?


----------



## Iam (Aug 7, 2006)

clmk said:
			
		

> I have browsed loads of charities and some of them look legitimate bu most of them look like buisnesses taking advantage of peoples charity and pocketing a lot of money, then throwing a few crumbs at the actual cause...



And yet, you didn't say that. You mentioned that you _glanced_ at *one* and then decided they're *all* the same. That's what your post says... Tell me, did you go out and see what the charity do? Or did you just sit on your arse and look it up on a website? Because you might not get a true picture from a load of figures.

It's obviously very easy to make these sinister allegations, and I suppose if you wipe broadly enough across the entire canvas of charities, you may well find that some of them are mismanaged, or even occasionally intentionally run as they shouldn't be by people who are not committed to the cause. Just like everyone else. Hospitals sometimes lose patients. Schools are not always able to reach all students. These things happen even when the best of intentions are in evidence, so shall we conclude that all schools and hospitals are worthless? Because that's similar to the intelligent line of researched reasoning you've presented above.

However, I'm _still_ waiting for anyone to provide evidence - or even anything other than rants and hints - of intentional financial malpractise at a charitable organisation in the UK. Someone must be able to come up with one of these cases that we keep hearing hints of? tbaldwin failed to raise more than a few eyebrows with his suggestions of what he knew.

Oh, and anyone who wishes to criticise how charities operate today purely on the basis that they're run like a business would seem to have very little idea of what is required to keep a national organisation in a competitive area running on a day-to-day basis...

But you rant away, eh? Good chap.


----------



## dolly's gal (Aug 8, 2006)

Iam said:
			
		

> Oh, and anyone who wishes to criticise how charities operate today purely on the basis that they're run like a business would seem to have very little idea of what is required to keep a national organisation in a competitive area running on a day-to-day basis...



what he said!


----------



## tbaldwin (Aug 8, 2006)

Iam said:
			
		

> However, I'm _still_ waiting for anyone to provide evidence - or even anything other than rants and hints - of intentional financial malpractise at a charitable organisation in the UK. Someone must be able to come up with one of these cases that we keep hearing hints of? tbaldwin failed to raise more than a few eyebrows with his suggestions of what he knew.
> 
> Oh, and anyone who wishes to criticise how charities operate today purely on the basis that they're run like a business would seem to have very little idea of what is required to keep a national organisation in a competitive area running on a day-to-day basis...
> 
> But you rant away, eh? Good chap.




Sad complacent bollocks.....That Mencaps former chair was quietly replaced after Rape allegations may not mean much to you.....Or the NSPCCs role in the Climbie case????
Maybe you just dont give a shit about anyone but yourself? Charities waste billions of £s every year and they are badly managed and regulated.
Corruption is widespread and growing....Complacent attitudes like yours only serve to increase the problem.


----------



## trashpony (Aug 8, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Sad complacent bollocks.....That Mencaps former chair was quietly replaced after Rape allegations may not mean much to you.....Or the NSPCCs role in the Climbie case????
> Maybe you just dont give a shit about anyone but yourself? Charities waste billions of £s every year and they are badly managed and regulated.
> Corruption is widespread and growing....Complacent attitudes like yours only serve to increase the problem.



Can you back up either of those two allegations? And what do either of them have to do with financial mismanagement?


----------



## tbaldwin (Aug 8, 2006)

trashpony said:
			
		

> Can you back up either of those two allegations? And what do either of them have to do with financial mismanagement?



tp.....If you were that interested you could look up the Victoria climbie case.....You might have noted that i already dealt with the NSPCCs role as seen by the enquiry if you read the thread earlier....
Mencaps case has been mostly hushed up but if your interested you could research it.....Financial mismanagement is a seperate issue but also VERY relevant...Charities are often very dodgy and exploit the good will and naivety of the general public..
People often assume that if you work for a Charity you must be a GOOD person....I always like to put people straight on that...A lot of people work in Charities because the pay is good and they dont have to work too hard.


----------



## Iam (Aug 8, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Sad complacent bollocks.....That Mencaps former chair was quietly replaced after Rape allegations may not mean much to you.....Or the NSPCCs role in the Climbie case????
> Maybe you just dont give a shit about anyone but yourself? Charities waste billions of £s every year and they are badly managed and regulated.
> Corruption is widespread and growing....Complacent attitudes like yours only serve to increase the problem.



Yeah, that's me, Mr Heartless. Shit, you got me, Sherlock! If only we were all truth warriors, like you. You fucking plankton...

 

Same old, same old then, eh balders? Nothing new, just the same stuff. Can you relate the "information" you've provided regarding those two specific cases to the point I made above regarding generalisations, or is that beyond your clearly limited capacities? Whilst you're at it, can you please provide some *proof* of this alleged "widespread and growing" corruption other than your randomly punctuated wibbling, perhaps?

No, of course you can't. Because it doesn't exist outside your tabloidy imagination. We didn't think so... You're nothing but a shouty twit. Get over it.


----------



## Iam (Aug 8, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> tp.....If you were that interested you could look up the Victoria climbie case.....You might have noted that i already dealt with the NSPCCs role as seen by the enquiry if you read the thread earlier....
> Mencaps case has been mostly hushed up but if your interested you could research it.....Financial mismanagement is a seperate issue but also VERY relevant...Charities are often very dodgy and exploit the good will and naivety of the general public..
> People often assume that if you work for a Charity you must be a GOOD person....I always like to put people straight on that...A lot of people work in Charities because the pay is good and they dont have to work too hard.



More silly generalisations from Shouty Sam.

I'd offer you a biscuit, too, but I've given the last one away. How about a doggy chew?


----------



## tbaldwin (Aug 8, 2006)

Iam said:
			
		

> No, of course you can't. Because it doesn't exist outside your tabloidy imagination. We didn't think so... You're nothing but a shouty twit. Get over it.



What a fantastic brain you have....You have really shown what depth of understanding you have of the issue here.......

Anybody who disagrees with you is obviously just a THICK TABLOID READER...... Your intellect and experience shines like a beacon of hope........

Charities are all marvellous and do wonderful things......And anyone who says different is NASTY THICK and they dont know what there talking about......

Its just a tabloidy imagination that sees anything wrong with Charities.....

Marie Antoinette 2006


----------



## Iam (Aug 8, 2006)

No, it's a tabloidy imagination that exptrapolates one instance and one allegation into a blanket comment about an entire industry. That's how the tabloids report...

That's what you've consistently done, demonstrating again and again your  inescapable commitment to cretin-hood, then getting all ranty and upset (but quite entertaining, it must be said) when anyone asks you for more information...

There's no accusations been made of you reading anything, son.

Fuck off.


----------



## tbaldwin (Aug 8, 2006)

Iam said:
			
		

> No, it's a tabloidy imagination that exptrapolates one instance and one allegation into a blanket comment about an entire industry. That's how the tabloids report...
> 
> That's what you've consistently done, demonstrating again and again your  inescapable commitment to cretin-hood, then getting all ranty and upset (but quite entertaining, it must be said) when anyone asks you for more information...
> 
> ...




Like a lot of people on Urban your politics seems to be primarily based on how clever you think you are.......
Still where would we be without the SNOBS???????????


----------



## Iam (Aug 8, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Like a lot of people on Urban your politics seems to be primarily based on how clever you think you are.......
> Still where would we be without the SNOBS???????????



You've done your argument a world of good there, sunshine. You have to love internet analysis. 

Quality stuff.

"I talk vapid, pointless shite all the time, then get upset and cry when people question or disagree with me. I'm tbaldwin!"

Good lad, you're good value entertainment.


----------



## tbaldwin (Aug 8, 2006)

Iam............What was your main points again?  If you think Charities are all great could you at least say why?
Do you think they are beyond criticism? Have you read the Transcript of the Victoria Climbie case? Do you know anything about Charities with shares in Arms companies? Were you aware of Mencaps chair being quietly pushed out after rape allegations?
What exactly is your interest in this thread? Have you ever worked for a Charity?


----------



## Iam (Aug 8, 2006)

Hmmm, deja-vu...




			
				Iam said:
			
		

> Forgive me, but I cannot possibly think what on earth would have led your apparently diseased brain to think I would answer a question that you have posed, when you have danced like a ballerina around everything asked of you, relying on self-righteous indignation as an accompaniment and providing nothing of substance but derranged witterings...
> 
> You can continue swivelling, old son.



From this very thread!!

But go on, then, I will...




			
				tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Iam............What was your main points again?



That it's incredibly, assininely stupid to extrapolate the few isolated cases you can scramble for evidence of after the accusation to every single organisation there is.



> If you think Charities are all great could you at least say why?



No, I haven't said that. You seem determined to be very black and white regarding this. It's not all either wonderfully fluffy goodness or evil blackness. However, you have alluded several times that all charities (that's what you've hinted) are intentionally mismanged to steal funds from the public and they never do anything of worth. Now it's your turn to back that up...



> Do you think they are beyond criticism?



Nothing is beyond _justifiable_ criticism. Unsupported ranting is a different matter. You're well within your rights to do it, but I'm unsure why you're surprised at the responses you get.



> Have you read the Transcript of the Victoria Climbie case?



No, it's not and never has been relevant to me. Can you explain how it is anything other than an instance of an organisation getting something wrong, please? As I've already said, even when the best will in the world is evident, mistakes can and will be made.

I expect, being perfect as you are, that's a bit hard to accept. But it's the way the world is.



> Do you know anything about Charities with shares in Arms companies?



Yes. Can you explain how those few can be extrapolated to all charities, please?



> Were you aware of Mencaps chair being quietly pushed out after rape allegations?



No. Again, in light of what I've posted twice now above, how is this single, unsubstantiated rumour relevant to ALL charities, please?



> What exactly is your interest in this thread?



Amongst other things, pointing out that you talk a massive amount of bollocks, almost constantly. Should you be allowed to do that unfettered, perhaps? Am I oppressing you? Restricting your freedom of speech?



> Have you ever worked for a Charity?



Yes.

Right, your turn... Can you now answer all the questions you've previously dodged or ignored on this thread, please?

I won't hold my breath, eh.


----------



## tbaldwin (Aug 8, 2006)

Iam i havent said all charities are shit...Some are generally preety good.....But the way charities are run and regulated is not good.......

Your snobbery gets in the way of your ability to read......Its easy to dismiss criticism of charities as "tabloid twittery" etc but you really dont seem to give a shit about what charites do or dont do.....
You just seem happy as long as you can use the word EXTRAPOLATE.....Over and over again.....
Very Impressive...........


----------



## Uncertainty (Aug 10, 2006)

There is also a lot of wasteful competition in the third sector. I have heard MDs of charities say publicly that there should be consolidation, but there is no "mechanism" or event that leads to this (although there is precedent). Why do we need MacMillan, Cancer Research, Breakthrough and Marie Curie? They have been furiously trying to reposition themselves as differentiated (to use the adspeak) these past few years. Breakthrough in particular have problems ahead: they have vast amounts of cash and sweet FA to do with it, having pretty much done their job of "raising awareness" amongst thekey groups. Apparently they are setting up a research funding arm so that they have at least one bottomless pit into which to pour their cash.

I do disagree strongly with tbaldwins assertion that most of the charities are shit. From the bits and pieces I have read, it is often the smaller (by far the majority) charities that do the best work. Stuff like local fundraisers for xray scanners and so on tend to have direct accountability and use more volunteer time, so they can often achieve a higher social impact per quid spent than big charities with cumbersome bureaucracies and flash offices (although that is also a bit of generalised statement).


----------



## tbaldwin (Aug 10, 2006)

Uncertainty.....
There is a hell of a lot of competition amongst local charities too.....Charities are very competitive bidding to do basically the same work as each other nad wasting millions in the process..

There are far too many charities...You named a few Cancer charities but there are hundreds or maybe thousands more....

For every small charity that is run effectivelly and provides value for money i bet you there are another 5 or 6 that are a shower of shit.....


----------



## Iam (Aug 12, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Very Impressive...........



A bit like your obvious lack of knowledge of whatever it is you keep ranting about all over the boards is.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> There are far too many charities...You named a few Cancer charities but there are hundreds or maybe thousands more....


Something like 80% of the charities on the CC's books at any one time are the little buggers, local museums and the like, whose charitable status helps enable them to stay open and claim gift-aid on legacies etc.


> For every small charity that is run effectivelly and provides value for money i bet you there are another 5 or 6 that are a shower of shit.....


But it's no good just saying stuff like that, is it? If you want to be taken seriously you've got to back up your claims.

I mean, you're claiming that at best only one *in every six* charities is run effectively, but you keep rehashing two or three cases to support your claim.

And then you wonder why people take the piss out of you.

Ever thought of popping up Speaker's Corner? Go on, I'll bring some eggs and tmatoes for people to chuck at you, and then you can feel like a true prophet, scorned in his own land!


----------



## tbaldwin (Aug 12, 2006)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> Something like 80% of the charities on the CC's books at any one time are the little buggers, local museums and the like, whose charitable status helps enable them to stay open and claim gift-aid on legacies etc.
> 
> But it's no good just saying stuff like that, is it? If you want to be taken seriously you've got to back up your claims.
> 
> ...



Ive worked for and managed charities and been on lots of different committees and seen how shit they are......There are things i cantbe specific about.....But the NSPCC or Mencap or Red Cross or Christian Aid are some examples of whats wrong with bigger charities and the point that places like Eton and Gordonstone are Charities is also important........

My experience is extensive and i think loads of charities are shockingly shit......
And loads of people who work for charities are shitbags......Not all by any means i mean i love the people i work with mostly.......er sort of......

PS Good idea about speakers corner.....Not sure about wasting food though.....Perhaps you could contact a charity about some old eggs?


----------



## clmk (Aug 17, 2006)

Slaggin of charities like this is really damaging to the good charities out there who actually are incredibly good, and are genuinely and efficiently out to fund a good cause. 

  Rather than just have a dissing match against the actual organisations as a whole, why not just throw turds at the greedy, vile little shits that have wormed their way in?


----------



## tbaldwin (Aug 17, 2006)

clmk said:
			
		

> Slaggin of charities like this is really damaging to the good charities out there who actually are incredibly good, and are genuinely and efficiently out to fund a good cause.
> 
> Rather than just have a dissing match against the actual organisations as a whole, why not just throw turds at the greedy, vile little shits that have wormed their way in?




The reason so many vile turds can worm there way in though is the naivety about charities.....
There are loads of good things that Charities do in the UK but loads of people working for them are shitbags.....

Im not saying that everyone who works for charities is a shitbag or that all charities are shit.......But far too many are......Many many people who work for charities agree with me....


----------



## Jografer (Aug 17, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> For every small charity that is run effectivelly and provides value for money i bet you there are another 5 or 6 that are a shower of shit.....



The most up to date figure from the Charity Commision is that there are 167,752 registered charities in England & Wales. According to you between 27,959 and 23,965 are 'a shower of shit'.

I've gone through your posts, and you've mentioned 8 specific charities. So I reckon you now have to show evidence for a minimum of 23,957 other charities to make your claim stand up.

... unless of course you are using a very small number of instances to smear a whole industry.....


----------



## tbaldwin (Aug 21, 2006)

Jografer said:
			
		

> The most up to date figure from the Charity Commision is that there are 167,752 registered charities in England & Wales. According to you between 27,959 and 23,965 are 'a shower of shit'.
> 
> I've gone through your posts, and you've mentioned 8 specific charities. So I reckon you now have to show evidence for a minimum of 23,957 other charities to make your claim stand up.
> 
> ... unless of course you are using a very small number of instances to smear a whole industry.....




I reckon people who think charities are all good should post up evidence that contradicts what im saying....So far they havent really come up with much...have they?


----------



## Jorum (Aug 21, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> I reckon people who think charities are all good should post up evidence that contradicts what im saying....So far they havent really come up with much...have they?


I could claim you are are a bigotted pain in the arse nazi horse molester.

Unless you can post evidence that contradicts what I'm saying.

I HAVE A SOLUTION TO ALL OF THIS:
If you think charities are shite don't donate anything. Last time I checked it wasn't compulsory. If having a reason also helps your conscience all the better.

Or alternatively charities could employ people who can afford to work for nothing, set up premises in a rent free building and ask all their suppliers and service providers to do it all for free.


----------



## tbaldwin (Aug 21, 2006)

Jorum said:
			
		

> I HAVE A SOLUTION TO ALL OF THIS:
> If you think charities are shite don't donate anything. Last time I checked it wasn't compulsory. If having a reason also helps your conscience all the better.
> .




Sadly this reply is typical of the ignorance of most of the posters on here.....Very sad that people jump in without realising some real basics............ Loads of Charities get virtually no money from Individuals but are solely financed by govt money....Eg Tax......
Loads more get a huge % of there cash this way...They are badly managed and monitored....


----------



## TeeJay (Aug 21, 2006)

fuck off baldwin


----------



## lighterthief (Aug 21, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Loads of Charities get virtually no money from Individuals but are solely financed by govt money....Eg Tax......<snip>....They are badly managed and monitored....


Could you provide some specific names, please?


----------



## tbaldwin (Aug 21, 2006)

TeeJay said:
			
		

> fuck off baldwin


Evidence pleeease.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Aug 21, 2006)

Gosh, is this thread still running?

Why?

I never did work out what it or its orginator were trying to achieve.


----------



## Iam (Aug 21, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Evidence pleeease.



Oh, the irony.

Nurse, 5ccs of give-a-shit for baldwin's readers, please, stat!


----------



## tbaldwin (Aug 21, 2006)

lighterthief said:
			
		

> Could you provide some specific names, please?



What cos your too stupid to work out what im saying? How many names would you like....100,000 or so....Sorry bit short of time...Maybe you could use your brain?????


----------



## lighterthief (Aug 21, 2006)

Oh I see, it's that kind of thread.  Sorry.


----------



## extra dry (Aug 21, 2006)

I havent had a chance to read the entire thread, but I have a friend who has worked pretty much non stop for a charity here, and lets just say that she has not been paided a bean, but she says it is a charity and that people in the office don't get paid.

Where as if she where to go on a mission to,lets say the middle east,she would get 45 dollers a day.  Now theres the rub she works maybe 35-40 hours a week, and she has to work in a second job to pay rent and food etc.

So my advice to her was leave the charity and work full time in a paid job, but she is determined to do her humanitarian bit.....I don't it's all bit like they take advantage of skilled hard working people...


----------



## tbaldwin (Aug 22, 2006)

extra dry said:
			
		

> I havent had a chance to read the entire thread, but I have a friend who has worked pretty much non stop for a charity here, and lets just say that she has not been paided a bean, but she says it is a charity and that people in the office don't get paid.
> 
> Where as if she where to go on a mission to,lets say the middle east,she would get 45 dollers a day.  Now theres the rub she works maybe 35-40 hours a week, and she has to work in a second job to pay rent and food etc.
> 
> So my advice to her was leave the charity and work full time in a paid job, but she is determined to do her humanitarian bit.....I don't it's all bit like they take advantage of skilled hard working people...



There are lots of people who do seem really committed to working hard for a cause.. But there are also many who just take the piss.
People like your friend give these piss takers a fig leaf of respectability to hide behind.


----------



## Jografer (Aug 22, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> I reckon people who think charities are all good should post up evidence that contradicts what im saying....So far they havent really come up with much...have they?



Sooo..... if I say all blokes are child molestors, it's not up to me to come up with evidence that they are, but in fact up to them to come up with evidence that they are not, to use your "logic"...

.... the principle is innocent until proven guilty..... and I've seen no evidence from you as yet..... so innocent it is then..


----------



## White Lotus (Aug 24, 2006)

Seems to be a "catch 22" for charities here, no?  If they pay market rates (equivalent to commercial or public sector) for jobs and give their staff decent working conditions, they're "wasting our money".  And if they pay staff less than market rates and expect them to do unpaid overtime and work in some dingy backroom, they're exploitative.  

So plenty of excuses not to support charities - for those looking for them.


----------



## Mungy (Aug 24, 2006)

I can only comment on how the charity sector has affected my trade in secondhand books. Famox are the worst of the bunch. All their stock in their book shops is donated, yet they charge the same or even higher prices than traders such as myself who have to buy the books to sell. 

I can't stick a bin in Sainsbury's car park asking for donations of books. Well maybe I could if I could afford one, but no doubt they would charge me rent as I am not a charity.

On the Wirral, charities get an 80% discount on their business rates, the council can also waive the other 20% if they wish. I assume other councils are the same. 

Famox sell online via a site that when it was set up was for professional book sellers. Now I can imagine that this site has welcomed Famox as no doubt it will raise their profile. I wonder if Famox are charged a commission for each sale they make like I have to?

Famox claim to be the biggest secondhand book seller in Europe. They are a charity ffs.

The book stores of most charities are often staffed by people who haven't got the guts to go into the book trade full time, many are often retired professionals with a pension and see the book trade as a nice hobby to take them into their dotage. I know of several part time traders who work in charity shops and skim off the good stuff that they then sell at book fairs for thier own profit - they have openly admitted this to me  

I feel better for that


----------



## tbaldwin (Aug 24, 2006)

White Lotus said:
			
		

> Seems to be a "catch 22" for charities here, no?  If they pay market rates (equivalent to commercial or public sector) for jobs and give their staff decent working conditions, they're "wasting our money".  And if they pay staff less than market rates and expect them to do unpaid overtime and work in some dingy backroom, they're exploitative.
> 
> So plenty of excuses not to support charities - for those looking for them.




What i object to is not charities paying decent wages to all their staff but some paying huge amounts to some really shitty staff and paying others shit wages....
I also object to the way they waste so much public money on what basically amounts to competition with other charities.
I also think its dangerous that so many people are so nieve about charities.


----------



## tbaldwin (Aug 24, 2006)

Jografer said:
			
		

> ..... and I've seen no evidence from you as yet..... so innocent it is then..



Read the thread.....


----------



## Guineveretoo (Aug 24, 2006)

Mungy said:
			
		

> I can only comment on how the charity sector has affected my trade in secondhand books. Famox are the worst of the bunch. All their stock in their book shops is donated, yet they charge the same or even higher prices than traders such as myself who have to buy the books to sell.
> 
> I can't stick a bin in Sainsbury's car park asking for donations of books. Well maybe I could if I could afford one, but no doubt they would charge me rent as I am not a charity.
> 
> ...



None of this, per se, sounds bad to me. Surely it all depends on what the charity is doing with the money they make by doing all of this?

If it is genuinely going to "good causes" then why shouldn't they be given tax and other breaks to help them maximise the money?


----------



## Uncertainty (Aug 25, 2006)

Guineveretoo said:
			
		

> If it is genuinely going to "good causes" then why shouldn't they be given tax and other breaks to help them maximise the money?



Why shouldn't charities pay tax like other organisations? There are plenty of non-profit and charity trading organisations that pay taxes. Admittedly the amount of money from commercial activity is small compared to legacies, but it is the fastest growing source of fundraising revenue for the sector.

You could also argue a strong case that charities are selling "a sense of doing right". Baldwin is right about one very important point: we seldom can measure whether Charity A or Charity B is best at delivering the outcomes we want. At least if they are paying tax we know that we are not being fleeced any more than by a commercial organisation.


----------



## tbaldwin (Aug 25, 2006)

According to "Charity Times"  asurvey of charity trustees has shown 94% of them say they do not really have the all the skills they need to carry out their job"

Which kind of backs up my point about how badly many charities are run....
They have an income of £40 billion a year in the UK and the way many of them are run is a disgrace.


----------



## White Lotus (Aug 25, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> According to "Charity Times"  asurvey of charity trustees has shown 94% of them say they do not really have the all the skills they need to carry out their job"
> 
> Which kind of backs up my point about how badly many charities are run....
> They have an income of £40 billion a year in the UK and the way many of them are run is a disgrace.


A charity's trustees are the supervisory board and they cannot by law receive any payment for what they do.  Yes there are moves to provide more training but there are limits to what you can expect of people in their spare time in an unpaid job.  Consequently most charities are run by the executive, with the trustees in a "non executive director" role. 

So what is _your_ solution, tbaldwin?  Should there be a change of law allowing charity trustees to be paid to do the job - or would you object to that?


----------



## zippyRN (Aug 26, 2006)

Pingu said:
			
		

> i started... so over to you mr baldwin.. dish the dirt
> 
> heres a taster..
> 
> ...



problem of any organisation with what are effectively multiple seperate  organisations working under the same name ....

the RSPCA is effectively three seperate organisations :-

1. the national pressure group and the 'business' 

2. the Inspectorate

3. local branches


----------



## zippyRN (Aug 26, 2006)

knopf said:
			
		

> It doesn't cover campaigning, policy or research -- they're different departments.
> 
> What it does cover are things like travel expenses -- which, when you consider that NSPCC management travel first class rail, explains why £3.6m of that £60m will go on travel.




which sort of blows some holes in the arguement then 

 although poor governance practice over expenses is a big issue ...

that siad   on occaisions it is cheaper to go first class than standard ( advanced purchase tickets, free food and drink on the train rather than paying subsistance ...)


----------



## zippyRN (Aug 26, 2006)

Mrs Miggins said:
			
		

> I don't think that people who work for charities necessarily "deserve" less perks but I do think that every penny spent has been donated and should therefore be spent carefully. I think that it would be a total PR disaster if it were widely known that people working for charities travelled first class - no matter what the benefits to the individual worker.



 a lot of charities have significant earned  'business' income  through

service delivery as contractors for local and central governemnt or the NHS 

training and consultancy services - big money spinner for some charities 

trading income from wholly owned subsidiaries  - often grown from supplies depts ....


----------



## zippyRN (Aug 26, 2006)

Jonti said:
			
		

> Whoa! Calm down there! You're inventing situations.
> 
> That is *not* true.  It certainly wasn't true at the Charity I was employed by for a number of years.



and equally  many businesses   paty overtime or allow time in lieu - even the NHS !!!!


----------



## zippyRN (Aug 26, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> HOW MANY PAY OVER £100K TO STAFF.



and your point ?

 charities have to be better run than businesses ...

two masters in the government to serve  HMRC and the charity commissioners...

the big charities are big businesses -  would you rather they be run by clueless middle class housewives and transferrable skill deficient retired Army SNCOs / police / trumpton who can't get a  job on the outside ?


----------



## Dhimmi (Aug 26, 2006)

Terre Blanche rescue fund, Bill Oddie's Bearded Tit Appeal and Buy a chum for Thatch...


----------



## thought (Aug 26, 2006)

Depends on how you define charity.

Most charities I know have paid and none paid staff.

paid staff are almost always paid above national minimal wage, and get some interesting perks. (free books, free clothes, free meals, etc ) I worked for one, large mental health charity, in a local branch, for a while, and got travel expenses paid to london first class 12 times a year, for basically a networking meeting. (piss up with food)

At the same time, our local branch, was struggling to find money to pay for its client group to go away for a weekend. (by pay i mean cover basic insurance costs)

When I donate to a local charity, I expect that money, and the goods to stay local, ie in the local community. This is especially when I can be bothered to take it to the shop. Another charity, sells it on line.

http://feedback.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewFeedback&userid=oxfamshop&frm=1742

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/ClientAlphaList
I have been told that many shops sell independantly on line, for other charities, not necessarily using their shop names.

This is not only taking from the countries, both in historical ways.. after all many fine goods are sent abroad, but also from independant traders, who dont get the extensive perks that charities get... eg.. reduced buisness rates, free staffing, large set up grants. Is this really FAIR TRADE?

If we walk away from the shop front of a charity and start looking behind the scenes at the work they do, then it is another ball all together.

The main kind of charities in the UK are..

Help people,
Help animals,
Help retired staff/ benevolant socieites.

Some animal charities, are not that scrupulus... many are.... 

Why do we need charity anyway? Surely charity is really a tax via the back door? They even get tax relief on our donations now as well!

However interesting article on RNIB.

.http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/youandyours/yy_20040409.shtml

Helping its clients isnt that important, if it costs them....

Then we consider charity at crisis relief level...

I remeber listening too one report on the Television (which was cut very short, and never replayed, to my knowledge) when a local person, complained that at least one major charity arrived, and spent its first couple of hours, putting its   advertsing posters up. And undid a lot of the work which local people had put into the rescue process, buy not communicating with them...

(if i could find a link on this, I would post it, and i will try and look for one later next week)
Now that is really helping... isnt it  


I agree with charity at local level, but not when it is taking away from local community in ANY countryl. Which is what many of them are now doing.


----------



## Uncertainty (Aug 26, 2006)

By fundraising revenue received the biggest causes were (source):
Research
Children
Religious Organisations (taking 12.6%)
Overseas Aid

So the UK pays 12.6% of its charity money every year to homophobes, sexists, racists and all-round backward bigots. You gotta admit that tbladwin has a point.


----------



## thought (Aug 28, 2006)

What i find interesting in my quick scan of this article, is the lack of corralation of information regarding donations to shops, in goods. It mentions buying from shops, but not donating...

Also how is time valued in the charity sector?

When you consider the turn over of some shops, this factor cant really be ignored... can it?


----------



## trashpony (Aug 28, 2006)

Uncertainty said:
			
		

> By fundraising revenue received the biggest causes were (source):
> Research
> Children
> Religious Organisations (taking 12.6%)
> ...



If people want to donate their cash to religious organisations, surely that's up to them. You may not like it but I don't see how it backs up anything tbaldwin has said in this thread.


----------



## Popvulture (Aug 28, 2006)

I have been reading this thread and still don't have a clue what is being argued. Is it that charities are a bad thing, in principle? Or is that charities in this country do not deliver in the things that they say they do?

If the terms of tbaldwin's argument were properly framed in his first post, there wouldn't be some ridiculous debate about 50 different issues, all on the same thread.


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 8, 2006)

White Lotus said:
			
		

> A charity's trustees are the supervisory board and they cannot by law receive any payment for what they do.  Yes there are moves to provide more training but there are limits to what you can expect of people in their spare time in an unpaid job.  Consequently most charities are run by the executive, with the trustees in a "non executive director" role.
> 
> So what is _your_ solution, tbaldwin?  Should there be a change of law allowing charity trustees to be paid to do the job - or would you object to that?




The solution would be looking again at the whole role of charities. It would mean stopping the ridiculous situation where Schools like Eton and Harrow are charities..
It would mean looking again at how transparent the operations and shareholdings of charities are.
It would mean that charities that basically survive on public sector money were no longer classed as charities and were answerable to the wider community.


----------



## Mrs Miggins (Sep 8, 2006)

NO WAY IS THIS THREAD STILL GOING!!!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 8, 2006)

Mrs Miggins said:
			
		

> NO WAY IS THIS THREAD STILL GOING!!!!



Don't worry, you'll get used to balders resurrecting his threads after weeks of inactivity. He does it all the time, even when he's got sweet bollock all to add.

I think he's a bit lonely!


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 8, 2006)

ViolentPanda said:
			
		

> I think he's a bit lonely!




How could i be lonely with so many friends, you being just one of the unofficial stalkers..


----------



## White Lotus (Sep 8, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> The solution would be looking again at the whole role of charities. It would mean stopping the ridiculous situation where Schools like Eton and Harrow are charities..
> It would mean looking again at how transparent the operations and shareholdings of charities are.
> It would mean that charities that basically survive on public sector money were no longer classed as charities and were answerable to the wider community.


Let's see ... 25 Aug to 8 Sept ... it took you 2 weeks to come up with that?  Okay then.

How do you propose that "charities that basically survive on public sector money" should be "answerable to the wider community" then?  Because normally charities that receive state funding do so because they provide a service, eg running an old people's home, for which they have tendered.  Sometimes they win tenders because of the additional value provided by volunteers, or because they aren't looking to make a profit on the job, unlike a private contractor.  So a charity may be able to offer a better deal - giving a better service for less of our taxes or council tax.  In what way do you object to that?

As for the schools - yes I've seen that reaction often.  However, providing education is "a public good".  Private schools could make the case that every child they educate saves the state the cost of a place in the state sector, also that their charitable makeup allows them to offer bursaries to children from less advantaged homes.  I'm no fan of private schools, but those arguments cannot be dismissed.  

Lastly ... "operations and *shareholdings* of charities"?  Do you actually understand what charities are?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 9, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> How could i be lonely with so many friends, you being just one of the unofficial stalkers..




Stalker?

Don't flatter yourself.

I mean, I know it makes you more comfortable to think that people are stalking you, having stalkers makes you sound vaguely interesting, but the reality is that people read threads, and some of those people even post on them. Even more surprising (for you, anyway) is that many people disagree with the negativist pap you write.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 10, 2006)

Another classic baldwin thread. This time, it's charities...whatever next? Hospitals that kill?


----------



## chooch (Sep 10, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> The solution would be looking again at the whole role of charities. It would mean stopping the ridiculous situation where Schools like Eton and Harrow are charities..


You´ll have been following this, of course.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 10, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Like a lot of people on Urban your politics seems to be primarily based on how clever you think you are.......
> Still where would we be without the SNOBS???????????



It's always about the other person being more "clever" than you. Which makes me think that you have some sort of problem with ideas and intellectuals. Either that or you're some sort of Year Zero type who adores what Pol Pot did for Cambodia.


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 15, 2006)

White Lotus said:
			
		

> Let's see ... 25 Aug to 8 Sept ... it took you 2 weeks to come up with that?  Okay then.



Shit didnt realise just how important this thread is....I know i should have made it my major priority......


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 15, 2006)

White Lotus said:
			
		

> How do you propose that "charities that basically survive on public sector money" should be "answerable to the wider community" then?  Because normally charities that receive state funding do so because they provide a service, eg running an old people's home, for which they have tendered.  Sometimes they win tenders because of the additional value provided by volunteers, or because they aren't looking to make a profit on the job, unlike a private contractor.  So a charity may be able to offer a better deal - giving a better service for less of our taxes or council tax.  In what way do you object to that?
> 
> As for the schools - yes I've seen that reaction often.  However, providing education is "a public good".  Private schools could make the case that every child they educate saves the state the cost of a place in the state sector, also that their charitable makeup allows them to offer bursaries to children from less advantaged homes.  I'm no fan of private schools, but those arguments cannot be dismissed.
> 
> Lastly ... "operations and *shareholdings* of charities"?  Do you actually understand what charities are?




1 Councils and other public funders need to be much more open about what they fund and why.
I dont object to charities winning temders but if they are replacing the work done in previous years by the local or health authorities surely it would be a good idea to make them more not less accountable?

2 A supporter of charities and of public schools eh erm.

3 A bit more than you id guess.


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 15, 2006)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> Another classic baldwin thread. This time, it's charities...whatever next? Hospitals that kill?




nino do you have anything to say on this or any other issue? Apart from baldwins a bad person......


----------



## Iam (Sep 15, 2006)

How rich, when all you have contributed yourself is bluster.


----------



## Iam (Sep 15, 2006)

nino_savatte said:
			
		

> It's always about the other person being more "clever" than you. Which makes me think that you have some sort of problem with ideas and intellectuals.



Are you calling me an intellekshual??


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 15, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> nino do you have anything to say on this or any other issue? Apart from baldwins a bad person......



"Bad"? Where did I say you were "bad"? Lay off the hallucinogens, friend.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 15, 2006)

Iam said:
			
		

> Are you calling me an intellekshual??



Yesh. Now I'm off to East Angular if you don't mind.


----------



## White Lotus (Sep 15, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> 1 Councils and other public funders need to be much more open about what they fund and why.
> I dont object to charities winning temders but if they are replacing the work done in previous years by the local or health authorities surely it would be a good idea to make them more not less accountable?


What I asked was, how you would go about achieving that.  Do you have any actual suggestions to offer, or not?  And is there any reason why charities should be more accountable than private companies tendering for the same service? 


> A supporter of charities and of public schools eh erm.


Was this in response to me saying "I'm no fan of public schools (but this is the justification they use ...)"?  If so I'd suggest you actually read the posts you're replying to


> 3 A bit more than you id guess.


Doubtful, if you believe charities have shareholders.


----------



## lighterthief (Sep 15, 2006)

White Lotus said:
			
		

> Doubtful, if you believe charities have shareholders.


Heaven knows why I'm defending him, but I do believe he said _shareholdings_.  Many charities hold shares.


----------



## White Lotus (Sep 15, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Shit didnt realise just how important this thread is....I know i should have made it my major priority......


Important enough for you to resurrect a thread that had been dead for 2 weeks, apparently.


----------



## White Lotus (Sep 15, 2006)

lighterthief said:
			
		

> Heaven knows why I'm defending him, but I do believe he said _shareholdings_.  Many charities hold shares.


Okay, fairy 'nuff.  Though he did have the opportunity to point that out himself.


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 15, 2006)

White Lotus said:
			
		

> Important enough for you to resurrect a thread that had been dead for 2 weeks, apparently.



But not enough too drop everything and check it out everyday and reply immediately...


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 15, 2006)

White Lotus said:
			
		

> What I asked was, how you would go about achieving that.  Do you have any actual suggestions to offer, or not?  And is there any reason why charities should be more accountable than private companies tendering for the same service?
> 
> Was this in response to me saying "I'm no fan of public schools (but this is the justification they use ...)"?  If so I'd suggest you actually read the posts you're replying to
> 
> Doubtful, if you believe charities have shareholders.




1 I didnt say they should be more accountable did i???????? But organisations that get public money should be more accountable in general

2 So do you think charitable status should be withdrawn from charities or not as you think that they do some public good!!!!

3 Charities have shares some in arms companies as i think most people with even a passing interest would know....Your point about me thinking that charities having shareholders is laughable.
Have you actually read much of this thread?


----------



## Jografer (Sep 15, 2006)

White Lotus said:
			
		

> Important enough for you to resurrect a thread that had been dead for 2 weeks, apparently.



Don't feed the troll !!!!!!!!


----------



## White Lotus (Sep 15, 2006)

Jografer said:
			
		

> Don't feed the troll !!!!!!!!


Good point.

With over 167,000 registered charities in England & Wales, any sweeping statement about "charities" - eg "OMG charities own shares in arms companies WTF !!!!!!" is pretty meaningless.  And the title of the thread is pretty indicative of the OP's aims.  I think I'll give it a rest.


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 18, 2006)

Its interesting that people attempting to put me right about charities,show such a lack of knowledge on the subject..Ignorance is bliss for some of the charities who make a fortune out of it.

In the UK its a £40 billion industry. These days more and more work that was once done by the public sector is now being done by charities...Yet there is very little in the way of really monitoring how this work is being done....And as this thread has shown not really much interest from the general public.


----------



## Iam (Sep 18, 2006)

It's because no one cares what you think, baldwin. You're not important in the slightest.

I'd have thought you'd be used to it by now.


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 18, 2006)

Iam said:
			
		

> It's because no one cares what you think, baldwin. You're not important in the slightest.
> 
> I'd have thought you'd be used to it by now.




The thread is about charities and when you consider they have an Income of £40 billion a year then whatever people think of me kind of pales into insignificance or at least it should.... But why do people have so little to say on the subject.I would have thought lots of people on urban75 have a lot of experience of charities and how they work.


----------



## Iam (Sep 18, 2006)

Would you? That's nice, deary.


----------



## Pigeon (Sep 18, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> ..Ignorance is bliss for some of the charities who make a fortune out of it.



So have any of them approached you to be patron?


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 18, 2006)

Pigeon said:
			
		

> So have any of them approached you to be patron?



What do you think?


----------



## Pigeon (Sep 18, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> In the UK its a £40 billion industry. These days more and more work that was once done by the public sector is now being done by charities...Yet there is very little in the way of really monitoring how this work is being done....And as this thread has shown not really much interest from the general public.



To be fair, far more public sector work's being hived off to corporate scum like GSL, who are far less accountable than even the crappest charity.

But why let accuracy get in the way of polemic?


----------



## Pigeon (Sep 18, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> What do you think?



You'd be my first choice.


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 19, 2006)

Pigeon said:
			
		

> To be fair, far more public sector work's being hived off to corporate scum like GSL, who are far less accountable than even the crappest charity.
> 
> But why let accuracy get in the way of polemic?




Polemic erm....Pigeon?   So what proof do you have that corporate scum are less accountable than charities?


----------



## Pigeon (Sep 20, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Polemic erm....Pigeon?   So what proof do you have that corporate scum are less accountable than charities?



Try this:

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2005...#search="allegations of assault by GSL staff"

Can you seriously tell me a charity contracted to provide statutory services would get away with a record like this?

To be fair, there is a tendency for charities to get co-opted into governmental agendas, taking money to provide services and then losing the advocacy edge that makes their work of any value in the first place.

But that's still a different issue to the privatisation of services which should be provided by the public sector and the competetive tendering which ensures that contracts are provided to those who can deliver the goods cheapest.


----------



## Pigeon (Sep 20, 2006)

Duplicate post removed


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 20, 2006)

Pigeon said:
			
		

> Try this:
> 
> http://www.statewatch.org/news/2005...#search="allegations of assault by GSL staff"
> 
> Can you seriously tell me a charity contracted to provide statutory services would get away with a record like this?



YES.


----------



## Pigeon (Sep 20, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> YES.



For example...?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Sep 20, 2006)

A mate of mine came over last night...for the last three years he's been volunteering on a youth project for children in danger of offending and it's basically to keep them out of trouble...they've got really arsey about paying his expenses (bus ride there and bus ride back) so they've lost him...he's on benefits so basically he needed those expenses to be paid...they've taken him for granted and done things like not bothering to inform him when the project is closed, using him when the salaried staff are off sick to keep the project going....you can judge a charity by how they treat their volunteers in my experience.


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 20, 2006)

Pigeon said:
			
		

> For example...?




<snip>
Sorry, the word allegedly doesn't prevent us from getting sued...also there is a rotating chair so we could potentially have 5 libel cases to defend


----------



## Pigeon (Sep 20, 2006)

<snipped for reasons given above>


----------



## Iam (Sep 20, 2006)

I don't see why it's such an apparently difficult issue in the first place.

No one is _made_ to donate to any charity, as far as I am aware (although I'm willing to be corrected).

So, if one is planning to donate, surely it is your own responsibility to check whether you feel that the organisation which you are going to give money to is something you believe to be a good cause and which is going to use that money in a way which you believe is productive or you agree with?

If you should discover that they may invest that money or otherwise put it to a use which you are not comfortable with - that they have overheads which you cannot agree with, they invest money in pursuits which you find morally unacceptable or they pay their directors salaries which you believe to be unreasonable - you have the choice not to donate to that charity. You also have the choice not to use the services of that charity if you feel strongly that they do not serve their intended purpose.

Or, you could take what you perceive to be major problems with a few charities and try to use that as a basis for arguing that there is deep-rooted wrongness in the sector as a whole, and then act in a surprised or incredulous manner when people aren't motivated to leap to their feet and crusade for "the truth"...


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 20, 2006)

Sorry Iam...But that just shows your arguing from a position of ignorance.
Loads of public money goes into charity coffers via local and health authorities.


----------



## Iam (Sep 20, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Sorry Iam...But that just shows your arguing from a position of ignorance.
> Loads of public money goes into charity coffers via local and health authorities.



The problem here is that you'll quickly and happily dismiss any position that doesn't support your own as ignorance, whilst all the time failing to be able to justify *any* of that which you say. It's a desperately poor debating style, balders, it really is.

The charity for which I work receives *no* health service funding (and our finances are a matter of public record). We do, however, as part of our publically announced finances fund entirely or support a variety of posts within the NHS which would have to be paid for by your taxes, or not exist at all otherwise. If you believe that this is not always the case, please provide something other than assertions that "I know what I'm talking about" to back up your case - surely not an unreasonable request, despite your repeated, glaring inability to do so?

I think it's pretty clear to anyone with more than a disconnected, wandering grey braincell that you're the one here who hasn't got the vaguest idea of what you're talking about. A common trait in your posts, though, isn't it old fella?


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 20, 2006)

Iam you work for a charity and you dont even know that loads of charities get public funding via local and health authorities....You seem typical of why so many charities are shite....


----------



## Iam (Sep 20, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Iam you work for a charity and you dont even know that loads of charities get public funding via local and health authorities....You seem typical of why so many charities are shite....



Yeah, of course you're right, Meldrew.

Well done for avoiding the point again, you sad old sack of spunk. You've consistently shown on this thread what an utter moron you really are.

Still, you keep pointing the finger and attributing blame... Perhaps you could work in some comments about "the left", whilst you're at it...?


----------



## Iam (Sep 20, 2006)

Tell you what, Meldrew...

Why don't you prepare a report for the the Charities Commission, enclosing the evidence* which you have collected in your years of careful investigation, along with your no doubt earth-shattering revelations* about how things should be done?

Perhaps if you do a really good job, the BBC will give you your own show?



*Evidence and revelations which have singularly and consistently failed to appear as anything other than allusion during the several month course of this thread, right here!


----------



## lighterthief (Sep 20, 2006)

I think this thread should be locked/binned, as it's going nowhere.


----------



## Jografer (Sep 20, 2006)

lighterthief said:
			
		

> I think this thread should be locked/binned, as it's going nowhere.



It keeps nearly dying off, then some-one pops along a feeds the troll a bone  ... still, lets all count it as "care in the community" for Mr B, being charitable as we all are....


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Sep 20, 2006)

I'm going to lock it if there's any more on it that could land U75 with a whacking great bill defending a libel action though.....I jolly nearly completely deleted it earlier on.


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 20, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> I'm going to lock it if there's any more on it that could land U75 with a whacking great bill defending a libel action though.....I jolly nearly completely deleted it earlier on.




Its kind of difficult with people accusing me of not having anything of substance to say being ignorant about charities etc etc...I understand your point about libel etc fair enough....But if people were really that interested they could try and find out for themselves.

Sadly as Iam showed even people working for charities seem stunningly ignorant about them. This means that huge amounts of public money is wasted.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Sep 20, 2006)

Well, tbaldwin, it was just a bald statement...you could have put a link to another site (without repeating the accusation on here) that's prepared to risk legal action, or that has a fighting fund...if it was summat said on Private Eye, for example link to it.....


----------



## Iam (Sep 20, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Sadly as Iam showed even people working for charities seem stunningly ignorant about them. This means that huge amounts of public money is wasted.



Of course, as you "know" (   ) so much, you already know that my job is to know about computer networks, not about charity management... 

Mrs M, he can't possibly link to any of this stuff he "knows" (   ) about. It only exists within the confines of his imagination.

I await the baldwin report with great interest. It should be a groundbreaking read...

I'm going now before I expire here from laughing at you, Meldrew.


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 20, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> Well, tbaldwin, it was just a bald statement...you could have put a link to another site (without repeating the accusation on here) that's prepared to risk legal action, or that has a fighting fund...if it was summat said on Private Eye, for example link to it.....




Er i didnt get the stuff from another website.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Sep 20, 2006)

Well then, not a lot I can suggest. Because we don't carry ads and despite generous donations from posters, the editor runs this site at a loss, and he's not exactly rolling in dosh anyway, we just can't risk it. Sorry.


----------



## Pigeon (Sep 20, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Its kind of difficult with people accusing me of not having anything of substance to say being ignorant about charities etc etc...I understand your point about libel etc fair enough....But if people were really that interested they could try and find out for themselves.




Nevertheless, the example you cited was of an individual connected to a charity who's (apparently) been accused of criminal acts. That hardly demonstrates why charities are universally shit, does it?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Sep 20, 2006)

Accused by whom? If the police have arrested or charged the individual then there will be information somewhere online that can be linked to. I suspect that it's rumour if there's nothing else anywhere..


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 20, 2006)

Pigeon said:
			
		

> Nevertheless, the example you cited was of an individual connected to a charity who's (apparently) been accused of criminal acts. That hardly demonstrates why charities are universally shit, does it?




Have is said "charities are universally shit" or are you just talking bollocks again?


----------



## Pigeon (Sep 20, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> Accused by whom? If the police have arrested or charged the individual then there will be information somewhere online that can be linked to. I suspect that it's rumour if there's nothing else anywhere..



Given the source, I think you're probably on the money.


----------



## Pigeon (Sep 20, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Have is said "charities are universally shit" or are you just talking bollocks again?



Sorry. Have I been putting words of more than one syllable in your mouth?


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 20, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> Accused by whom? If the police have arrested or charged the individual then there will be information somewhere online that can be linked to. I suspect that it's rumour if there's nothing else anywhere..



Charges were not pressed against the individual as it was felt that the people abused would not make good witnesses but this very high profile charity shunted him quietly out of the door and have their best to cover their tracks.

A lot of p-eople are aware of this man.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Sep 21, 2006)

I'm afraid it's usual for people with learning disabilities to have no protection under the law....even if the police put massive effort into getting evidence the CPS usually drop the case.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Sep 21, 2006)

btw, people strongly suspected of abusing vulnerable people are put onto various lists (I think the NHS one is called 'the pink list') so that they are flagged up as unsuitable to work with vulnerable people but these lists operate in a very grey area of the law.


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 21, 2006)

Pigeon said:
			
		

> Given the source, I think you're probably on the money.




If you really wanted to know find out yourself..It was the now x chair of the organisation. Find out his name and google it.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Sep 21, 2006)

You didn't actually say ex-chair in the post I snipped


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 21, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> You didn't actually say ex-chair in the post I snipped




Your right but i have in other posts...But apologies for that.It was stupid.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Sep 21, 2006)

What other posts?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Sep 21, 2006)

OK, I've found most of your allegations and having had a very helpful PM from another poster who gave me a link to a news story, it was never the 'chair', the 'ex-chair' or 'the person in charge' as you've stated in many posts....it was an advisor...I'm really taking a very dim view of this......


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 21, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> OK, I've found most of your allegations and having had a very helpful PM from another poster who gave me a link to a news story, it was never the 'chair', the 'ex-chair' or 'the person in charge' as you've stated in many posts....it was an advisor...I'm really taking a very dim view of this......




Apologies but i think you may not have all the info on this.

The point of the thread was not to air one spefic allegation but to take a critical look at a £40 billion industry.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Sep 21, 2006)

Well actually I've found out who you were on about in the disabilty press thanks to someone who pointed me in the right direction and then I did further research from that point and your info was wrong....there was a minuscule grain of truth but basically you were fingering the wrong people rather than the person you had in mind.


----------



## extra dry (Sep 23, 2006)

little up date on my friend and the charity she working for...they left for pakistan, via five other countries including saudi arabia, dubai, uae, amoung others.  

 they got to pakistan, they have no transport, the contract with with the pakistan army is not 100% correct, the paper work is being looked at and the people are stuck in the capital..luckly my mate did not go with them.
 you can read about this charity on www.handforhelp.cz they look all professional and 'with it' the reality is far different.  She still has not been paid for work and they expect her to deal with all problems from home.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 23, 2006)

So Baudouin, that axe that you've been grinding must be worn wafer thin by now.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2006)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> Well actually I've found out who you were on about in the disabilty press thanks to someone who pointed me in the right direction and then I did further research from that point and your info was wrong....there was a minuscule grain of truth but basically you were fingering the wrong people rather than the person you had in mind.


Hardly surprising.
Loads of people on this thread have asked balders for facts, and all he did over the pages of the thread was reiterate his vague claims, so it doesn't exactly come as a shock that those vague claims turn out to be inaccurate.

Mind you, he'll probably have you down as a "LIBERAL SUPREMACIST" (tm tbaldwin, man of the people  ) now that you've openly contradicted him.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Sep 23, 2006)

Well, That's OK, I'd far rather be described as a liberal supremacist or a liberal reformist or even a woolly-minded liberal than 'hard left' which I have been accused of on here.....I can actually reveal that I nominated a Lib-Dem for election at the last council elections.....I'm not a party member though.


----------



## tbaldwin (Sep 25, 2006)

Good thread!

Loads of Charities are very dodgy,i wouldnt say all by any means.
The NSPCC are shit as some people have pointed out (to an extent) look at the victoria climbie case...The Red Cross shares in arms companies<snip>As others have mentioned all those posh schools are charities and the biggest earners are shit like National trust....
Ive heard loads more shit about loads of charities the amount some ofthem pay senior staff is a farce...


Quite a few other good contributions on this thread from different people....
Its good to question the role of charities as they have become more and more important and influential in recent years...

In the UK its a £40billion a year industry...Plenty of people know that the way they work is far from satisfactory.


----------



## Uncertainty (Oct 1, 2006)

The government is now actively encouraging public money into the hands of the charity sector despite there being, as admitted by many in the sector, some serious unprofessionalism. Handing out public money to charities makes their activities unaccountable - even less accountable than private companies where we can at least buy shares or arrange product boycotts and influence decisions that way.

The Mayor recently announced £30m of Londoners' money will be spent on "capacity building" in the charity sector. The money will, wherever possible, be given to crappy little local charities who are inefficient and often inexperienced at delivering the stuff they are meant to be doing. A lot of that money could directly compete with small businesses setting up across London as social enterprises aim to get a slice of the public dosh.

The reason why is because, when the LDA last doled out the cash it all went to private contractors who could make promises to "get people into training and then jobs" as opposed to a lot of these tin-pot organisations who, therefore, did not win the cotnracts to handle the money. This time around the big organisations are deliberately excluded and the bar has been lowered in terms of what the organisations have to achieve in order to qualify for funding.

The problem with this is that this money is meant to be spent on regenerating London. So the poorest Londoners are the ones who are actually going to lose out. And when it appears to cost 20x more to help every kid out of poverty then the usual suspects will start fucking bleating about how corporate involvement has taken all the profit.


----------



## tbaldwin (Oct 2, 2006)

Uncertainty said:
			
		

> The government is now actively encouraging public money into the hands of the charity sector despite there being, as admitted by many in the sector, some serious unprofessionalism. Handing out public money to charities makes their activities unaccountable - even less accountable than private companies where we can at least buy shares or arrange product boycotts and influence decisions that way.
> 
> The Mayor recently announced £30m of Londoners' money will be spent on "capacity building" in the charity sector. The money will, wherever possible, be given to crappy little local charities who are inefficient and often inexperienced at delivering the stuff they are meant to be doing. A lot of that money could directly compete with small businesses setting up across London as social enterprises aim to get a slice of the public dosh.
> 
> ...




I think this is a good point....Some people mistakenly assume that a Charity will not be as bad as a private company but that isnt neccesarilly so. And Charities are often really badly run....
Some of the people working for Charities are very used to making up impressive stats to get funding....But what they deliver in reality is nowhere near as good as they like to pretend.


----------



## lighterthief (Oct 2, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> The NSPCC are shit as some people have pointed out (to an extent) look at the victoria climbie case...


What exactly did the NSPCC do (or not do) in this case?


----------



## beeboo (Oct 2, 2006)

tbaldwin said:
			
		

> Good thread!
> 
> Loads of Charities are very dodgy,i wouldnt say all by any means.
> The NSPCC are shit as some people have pointed out (to an extent) look at the victoria climbie case...The Red Cross shares in arms companies<snip>As others have mentioned all those posh schools are charities and the biggest earners are shit like National trust....
> Ive heard loads more shit about loads of charities the amount some ofthem pay senior staff is a farce...



How long are you going to keep flogging this thread using the same few woolly examples of why 'loads of charities are very dodgy'?

What is your motivation exactly?  It feels like you're just fishing around, waiting for people to come up with a few anecdotes about bad experiences so you can add them to your (rather poor) list.

I'm not denying there is a debate to be had about the role and functioning of charities, but it's fairly clear you're not the person to have it with.


----------



## tbaldwin (Oct 2, 2006)

lighterthief said:
			
		

> What exactly did the NSPCC do (or not do) in this case?




Look thru the thread and you will find the NSPCC didnt exactly cover themselves in glory....Even the public enquiry showed them right up....There are notes on the enquiry on the net if your interested?


----------

