Quote: Renegade Carpark @ April 12 2012, 5:48 PM BSTI agree, all of the men were portrayed as violent scum. Thank goodness they had a woman riding a motorbike to balance it out.
I read the news today oh boy! Page 772
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ April 12 2012, 5:48 PM BSTI agree, all of the men were portrayed as violent scum. Thank goodness they had a woman riding a motorbike to balance it out.
I shall be complaining to the Belgian consulate.
Cycling with out sufficent scrape proof clothing can lead to potentially serious accidents.
There are laws about this sort of thing. European laws.
Quote: Harridan @ April 12 2012, 5:30 PM BSTThat was a great ad, shame they had to ruin it with needless sexism, as usual.
Yup
Really pissed off with the Tories pussying out of the charity tax loophole. So many corporations have changed their status to a charitable trust to avoid paying tax or start up their own charities to funnel and launder cash and then fudge the figures afterwards.
Now the charities - most of whom are corrupt and use the donations to gamble on the stock market - are prostrating themselves in front of the media and peddling out ready made sob stories and tales of future doom.
What will happen if rich people don't give money to cancer research? Probably the same thing as if they didn't, we'd still die of f**king cancer.
I've gotta say working for a charity, if they closed the loop hole.
Mostly it'd be real charities who generally aren't good with money who'd take a bath.
It's the made up bullshit ones who'd get away with it.
I mean most charities these days are social businesses who recieve the bulk of their funding from direct government grants anyway.
The charity loophole is kind of like giving people a choice of what there taxes are spent on. Which probably not a good thing.
Like I say most charities are social businesses that recieve the bulk of their funds from the government anyway.
Quote: Tursiops @ April 12 2012, 11:00 PM BSTThe charity loophole is kind of like giving people a choice of what there taxes are spent on. Which probably not a good thing.
Totally disagree. Government funding is a slow moving diplodocus that takes ages to get in the right direction and without jabbing won't.
Charities can identify a specific problem, show how it can be adressed and wait for sluggardly state funds to catchup.
AIDs treatment, specialised treatment for soldiers with PTSDs, hospices, homeless shelters, counselling for kids who were abused etc etc. Is all stuff that were done for years by charities before the state caught up. And even now the charitable sector leads the way.
The alternative is suggesting you actually trust the twats in Westminster to do the right thing.
Quote: sootyj @ April 12 2012, 10:55 PM BSTMostly it'd be real charities who generally aren't good with money who'd take a bath.
Most of the real charities get loads of small donations from members of the public and aren't effected by the changes in the law.
But thanks to the panic mongering of the tax lobbyists working for the massive corporations, they're making it sound like the uber rich are the only ones keeping the charities afloat. Charity is all well and good, but we need tax money to pay for basic services so we don't all rely on charity in the future.
However, even the word 'charity' is one of those sacrosanctly emotive things that you are only allowed to talk about in hushed and revered tones and criticising it in any way is akin to smashing up some puppies with a hammer.
Charity finances are a complex thing. Small donations from the public are too unpredictable to rely one. One of the reasons so many employ chuggers is because they produce steady incomes. Even though they cost eat up a hefty percentage of what they raise.
A million pound donation a year will run your hospice/life boat station/helpline etc without fear of a funding dip.
Problem being the people who donate that much are usually shits trying to clean their reputation or dodge tax.
Creating the awful paradox, where charities will be much more critical of those asking for money than those giving it.
I suppose being an old leftie I tend to think to be chary of social spending that depends on the benevolence of the privileged, but I suppose one should be pragmatic - whatever works.
Mind you a lot of charities just seem to be run as businesses with highly paid execs on big expense accounts feathering their own nests, so I am not sure that pound per pound charity necessarily represents better value than direct Government spending.
Quote: sootyj @ April 12 2012, 11:25 PM BSTA million pound donation a year will run your hospice/life boat station/helpline etc without fear of a funding dip.
These charities will be uneffected by the changes to the law, again because they are the decent ones and will get money regardless.
Look at Great Ormond Street, they regularly get £600 million per year and yet the board of trustees are being taken to court and investigated over the way they've squirrelled money away into their own bank accounts. The whole charity system needs a massive overhaul and much more scrutiny.
In the meantime, I'd ask you all to give generously to the Renegade Carpark Fund For Overseas Development, where I use tax free money to set up sweat shops in the Third World employing child labour. I'm helping the starving kiddies by giving them jobs - mainly rooting through toxic rubbish to strip precious metals - but, you know, it's charity.
Above a certain size all organisations need highly paid execs.
You know why? Cos people who can manage big complex organisations and lead them are a rarety. I'm certainly not one.
Actually I get quite pissed off with the idea that because you work for a charity you should wear a hair shirt.
The bulk of care work is done by social business and charities in the UK. Almost all of whom have leadership paid in 6 figures.
Thing is they don't do the same unbelievably f**king awful and frankly evil mess the state did of the same job 30 years ago. The lefty bleating that poorly paid, civil servants should run everything. Is enough to make me vote Veritas.
The left has had its chance and it has blown it.
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ April 12 2012, 11:36 PM BSTThese charities will be uneffected by the changes to the law, again because they are the decent ones and will get money regardless.
Look at Great Ormond Street, they regularly get £600 million per year and yet the board of trustees are being taken to court and investigated over the way they've squirrelled money away into their own bank accounts. The whole charity system needs a massive overhaul and much more scrutiny.
In the meantime, I'd ask you all to give generously to the Renegade Carpark Fund For Overseas Development, where I use tax free money to set up sweat shops in the Third World employing child labour. I'm helping the starving kiddies by giving them jobs - mainly rooting through toxic rubbish to strip precious metals - but, you know, it's charity.
Charities need to maintain a large surplus to carry on services they provide.
The RNLI recently got told off for maintaing something like a 3rd of its donations in surpluses. The response was they need a years complete operating costs in hand, because people shouldn't drown because they had to close down stations.
I'm more concerned with the stealthy increase in spending on campaigning as oposed to actually practical things.
A friend of mine has worked in the finance departments of several major charities and to say she is disillusioned would be an understatement. Little old ladies giving their time to work in charity shops would probably be unimpressed to know that charity execs were using their widows mites to buy one another expense account lunches at posh restaurants.
I agree there are many areas where both central and local government feeble management and ideological stupidity have made outsourcing an attractive option, but if charities are going to be run as businesses subcontracting Government work perhaps they should just become real businesses and drop the pretence.
Really how much should a charity chief exec get paid?
Half the public sector wage or a quarter the private sector?
How about staff? Should I tithe my salary back to the charity I work or? They call us the 3rd sector because truthfully we earn a 3rd less than most other people in the field.
Most charities do both. Subcontracting business for some services and raising funds for others.
Theres no pretence. Only in the cloudy eyes of disilluisoned lefties who could do with a generous dose of reality.
Quote: sootyj @ April 12 2012, 11:44 PM BSTThe lefty bleating that poorly paid, civil servants should run everything. Is enough to make me vote Veritas.
I'd rather have a poorly run charity that isn't corrupt and has accountability then an extremely poorly run charity full of rich people giving each other high paying jobs on each other's boards without a single piece of scrutiny.
It's always Lord This and Lady That on the list of trustees, each one doing as little as possible and earning as much as possible from the good nature of the plebs. Thanks for running that Sport Relief Mile Prole Bag, my new office chair is very comfy.
If PPP has taught us anything, it's don't let the private sector get near anything worthwhile because they'll screw it up and steal all the cash. Shame the Tories can't use the blueprint of thier misguided NHS reforms and apply it to the charity sector. I'm sure there are plenty of front line staff who would be more then happy to handle the budgets and assign money where it's needed most.