Say for example i was part of an organisation that created wars around the world and was responsible for killing children via wars and starvation and that my business dealings helped to support regimes that killed children and adults through wars and starvation.

Say i was part of an organisation that had stolen most of it's wealth in the past and continued to steal wealth today and had amassed billions through corruption which i gave a legitimate facade to.

Then lets say i did a little bit of charity work on the side and even gave a few thousand of the billions of pounds i had amassed by my corrupt enterprises to charity,would this cancel all the murders i was responsible for?

Would this make me a righteous man with a clean conscience able to stand side by side with my victims of murder and starvation?

Or would i be a disgusting slimy hypocrite not worthy of licking the dirt of these victims feet and responsible for a cynical self serving agenda that dragged me deeper into the bowls of hell ?

Just askin' like

Charity is just papering over the cracks of capitalism, badly.

oioioi wrote:
Bogroll rubbing over the buttcrack, LOL!

Is there a single charity that has ever achieved it's stated aim?

Kids are still homeless/abused, endangered species are still endangered, cancer is on the increase...

oioioi wrote:
If they did that, they would be out of a job.

Genuine charitable work is a great thing, but Charity-R-Us^tm with their CEO's earning six figure salaries: well if I believed in Hell there should be a special place in it for them.


www.firecold.com/videos/comedian-steve-hughes-on-charity

Humanspirt the people you speak of probably due it for the guilt or fame, maybe both.

mikey mikey wrote:
I like that guy
Its amazing how people find it funny isn't it? Comedians have tried to explain this themselves a couple of times, wish I could find the vids.

Steve Hughes is one of the most "on the ball", if not the most, comedian on the circuits atm imo.

www.forbes.com/billionaires/list/

^Think about it any of these 100 people can give millions to charity and it don't mean jack shit....

For these people to give millions to charity is like a regular person giving pocket change to someone on the street.

Like I said they probably give for the guilt or fame, maybe both.

RealAmerican wrote:
To keep the money in the elite circle.
Charities are tax exempt just like religion remember?

EDIT: I should also add that donations to charity are tax deductible for self employed ppl :p

If you're PAYE employed then your life is basically just one big huge buttrape.

I've seen a lot of CEO's and Business men this past year or two become more charitable, or environmentally minded, I think at root the motivations are the continuance of their profit and esteemed positions by appearing more ethical than they really are.
I think charity begins at home, subsidizing African poverty averts any real change taking place there and enforces the attitude that overseas the poor are hopeless, and in this country the poor are lazy.

Guevarista wrote:
Correct, along with subbing their pals who work in the charities. It also ensures that money is spent where the elite want it spent, not necessarily on the poor or the bloke on the street who immediately goes to the offy as the comedian above points out.

There are local charities that would be turning kids away who need help, or even locking their doors for good, if it weren't for money raised by charitable endeavours rolling in.

oioioi wrote:
Didn't Bono end world poverty? I'm sure he got an award for it.

Gilly wrote:
Local charities are essential and most have what little financial support they receive cut every year. They need all the help they can get.

oioioi wrote:
Ditto that.

Gilly wrote:
This is also true. the point is though, that some people have mad a very good living skimming off the top of donations.

Banardos CEO has (not including pension) £105 000 salary, and Cancer Research UK £140 000.

Gilly wrote:
In a non-capitalist society there would still be charitable acts needed and carried out. In a capitalist society efforts are wasted raising funds to allow these charitable acts to have a possibility of even happening as well as being a result of capitalism itself; lack of shelter, food, water should not be an issue for anybody in the 21st century.

Local charities are great.

They know and have a passion for their area and function.
They are by far the most cost-efficient way of tackling issues.

Local government are shit at these things because they are encumbered by jobsworths and procedures designed to ensure that the only outcome is the lack of legal actions. (Which are rarer than hens teeth anyway).

They never see or care about the end results unless they can be photographed with a councillor.
(The last time they saw the councillor was the last time there was an election and they needed a photo for their leaflet).

The problem with the voluntary sector is that there has been a cross pollution of 'professionals' from Local Govt who bring with them expensive garbage like glossy presentations, 'training' weekend/workshops, ego-massaging titles and career ladders.

Don't EVER sign up with a high street chugger. It will take up to 5yrs for your chosen charity to see the dross change left after the middlemen piranhas have chewed off the bulk.

Donate directly to the organisation, buy from their shop or put your change in their rattlebox. That way you know they got it.

hugorune wrote: