hugorune wrote: I think he just stopped clicking his fingers and people stopped dying.

feather wrote:
And he's so fucking humble as well.

The big calamities like the Haiti earthquake or the Boxing Day Tsunami draw in huge amounts on money and they always seem to line the pockets of the rich and not the people who most need it.

When Australia had its firestorm in Victoria over 100 M, was donated to about 200 people effected, mainly so they could rebuild their house's and businesses, still nothing has happened that is substantial, this was over 4 years ago.

Whenever there are large sums of money involved, corruption is inevitable. When billionaires give it's partly to off set their tax, instead of paying it to the government coffer's.

A few years ago in the Big Issue mag there as a artical about how most charities only get between 5p and 6p in the pound over 90p goes towards administration costs

nirvana wrote: That's why I said never to sign up with chuggers in the street.
Donate directly to the charity.

nirvana wrote:
Well I've known youngsters who've worked as chuggers (thank you for that term, feather - it's a new one to me) and though I don't remember the exact figure, they get a healthy percentage of what they collect as their 'wages'. I think it was >10%.

I distrust the bigger organisations for all the reasons mentioned, but do give regularly to the local children's hospice and a place near here that offers rehabilitation and education to severely handicapped children. I've been to play with the kids at the latter establishment a couple of times, and they're an inspiration. You could break your heart watching them, but they don't sit moping about - they're cheerful little characters, who never stop pushing themselves. Also the staff there will work double hours for free at the drop of a hat to look after them. They're amazing.

Unlike that self-satisfied tw*t, Bono.

A friend of mine was a chugger once. He needed a job and I don`t think he made very good money really but there are worse jobs.

I would also say that many companies are poorly run and for the benefit of the few. Charities are no different but of course you can shop around and find a better charity to give to. Staff should earn money after all as they are doing work and need to live etc just like anybody else. The problem is when those charity board members get stupid money and then lose millions in donations as has been the case numerous times.

To answer the op I think it would be down to the individual case and if it was a person genuinely sorry about their past. Their past might also be a factor. Of course generally giving to charity will not come close to making up for anything bad you have done.

I must say though that to say charity is not effective sounds like a bullshit excuse to not donate to a worthy cause. There are some out there.

feather wrote:


I was not talking about chuggers in the street im talking about oxfam ,cancer research to name a few who take more than 90p in the pound towards administration costs.

nirvana wrote:
I assume you have a source for your figures.

saving you the trouble

www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Showcharit...8&SubsidiaryNumber=0

i-baster wrote:
I agree and share you r concern that some people might indeed use the corruption and/ineffectiveness of some charities as an excuse to be stingy, but as I read this thread, fortunately nobody has done that here imho.

It's also true that some people I have known in real life considered their subscription to whatever as "doing their bit" and kiscence to be a mean bunch of gits to people in need right in front of them
i-baster wrote:
Oxfam

The CEO of Oxfam, Barbara Stocking, is on £75,000 and she was awarded a Dame Commander of the British Empire (DBE).
She led the "modernisation" of the NHS, led Oxfam into joint ventures with the private sector and has her sights on a positionin the UN.
www.moneyweek.com/news-and-charts/profil...cking-of-oxfam-51541

That may be so mikey but it is more like 30% not 90% on admin.

For the record.
I am not criticising the chugger on the street. (My own daughter did it for a short time). They tend to be people with high values wishing to do something to help the various causes. Actually they're just another layer of victims in the process because they play upon their consciences to motivate sales conversions/commission.

Her experience was that the company employing the peeps on the street operated on high pressure sales techniques and target setting. The company doesn't give a damn if a Bengal Tiger is saved or a well is sunk in a Sudanese village, they're just pitches.

Back to the OP though.
No giving some of the proceeds of corrupt, destructive business practices to charitable causes does not give absolution.

That said, would I take that money from them to address needs?
Fuck yes.
I'd rather see some of it go to alleviate peoples suffering than it being used to 'invest' in a Van Gogh which would then sit in a Swiss vault.

i-baster wrote:
I don't have them figures either but I imagine that they fluctuate from charity to charity.

One like Feed the Children apparently publicly claim to get 80% of donations to the children in need.

Yet their CEO, Larry Jones, still earns $ 155,786.

Whichever way you look at it, you could halve that salary and feed a lot of hungry children.

mikey mikey wrote:
He probably thinks his salary is justified as he does charitable work.

mikey mikey wrote:
I was talking about Oxfam specifically since nirv already claimed that 90p in the pound went on admin and that does not appear to be the case. I provided the link and it appears to be less than 30% on admin. You might not like 30% going to admin but imagine how much would not get done if you just took Oxfam out of the picture entirely.

i-baster wrote:
Actually this is very high indeed

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/oct/21/v...tor.charitablegiving

Halving the senior management staff's salaries would be a good way to make a start in halving that admin cost back to between the 5% to 15% recommended zone.

Well it is actually more like 25% if you do the math but still it is much less than 90%. Maybe not perfect but not as bad as was claimed.

i-baster wrote:
Claimed by whom?

Certainly not by me.

It was nirvana. I just hate to see people throwing around things they made up as facts. It is dishonest.

I think Oxfam is a pretty good charity to support as far as U.K, charities go. I agree that finding a direct route to a good cause is best but you can not cure problems just by throwing money at them so I would also suggest that people try to get involved more directly. Having said that I say it to myself as well.

I can tell you from first hand experience that charity organisations accounts are subject to rigorous scrutiny by funding bodies and the taxman.
The organisations constitution and oversight provisions must comply with strict regulations for charitable status to be granted and sustained.
A 90% admin provision would not be tolerated unless extreme circumstances justifying that situation could be clearly demonstrated.
(One example might be the first year of establishing the charity).