I won't have a word said against charity clothing collections. I haven't had to buy a bin liner in years.
Giving to charity. Page 2
Quote: Tursiops @ 14th November 2013, 11:16 PM GMTI won't have a word said against charity clothing collections. I haven't had to buy a bin liner in years.
My concern about giving to charities is how much does the charity actually receive? I've heard (though this is unverified) that if you give a monthly donation to charities that advertise on TV, the money from the first year's worth of donations essentially goes to the marketing company that does the advertising.
I try to donate to charities where at least 80% of my donation is used on the cause itself.
Quote: Will Cam @ 14th November 2013, 11:07 PM GMTThat's why I like the Salvation Army (and I am an atheist!). You never hear anything about them. They seem to genuinely just want to help anyone and no one is forced or coerced into taking on their thinking.
Unless you're gay, of course: http://www.richarddawkins.net/news_articles/2013/6/10/salvation-army-says-gays-need-to-be-put-to-death#
Quote: Will Cam @ 14th November 2013, 11:14 PM GMTI have charity clothing bins, or door collections, that on closer inspection are a private company who donate 'an amount' to the well known charity you think is actually getting all the proceeds.
Exactly. I only fill the bag for Marie Curie as they have their own collection, though more often I just go to the shop.
Quote: DeathbyMonkey @ 14th November 2013, 11:19 PM GMTMy concern about giving to charities is how much does the charity actually receive? I've heard (though this is unverified) that if you give a monthly donation to charities that advertise on TV, the money from the first year's worth of donations essentially goes to the marketing company that does the advertising.
I try to donate to charities where at least 80% of my donation is used on the cause itself.
There's a really interesting TED talk on the need for charities to spend money to generate money, in the same way that businesses do. Charities would be more successful for their causes if they took risks and had a more entrepreneurial approach, but they play it safe and do less good because we pounce on any perceived waste of our donations. http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong.html
Quote: Will Cam @ 14th November 2013, 11:14 PM GMTI have charity clothing bins, or door collections, that on closer inspection are a private company who donate 'an amount' to the well known charity you think is actually getting all the proceeds.
There's one we get all the time which amuses/disgusts me which says "Our company has helped needy children in the past, and will do so again!" ...which I'm sure amounts to them popping 50p in a collection tin at some point.
Hm, a relative of mine worked in the financial department of a number of large national charities; she is quite scathing on the subject of waste, citing little old lady's giving their widow's mite so that charity executives could have expense account lunches. She works now for some tiny organisation supplying goats to villages in Africa or some such, and is much happier
Well, there's duck-house waste and then there's project-that-didn't-work-out waste.
Thanks for all the replies. I expected to be told to piss off and mind my own business!
I do a weekly hospice lottery (Compton) and, as will surprise no-one, I give to cats charities. I prefer to do this by buying a box of food and putting it in the collecting bin at Asda. Unless they're paying their chief exec in pouches of tuna and trout I expect my donation to directly benefit pussy cats.
Regarding clothes collections. Again I prefer to take anything I have to the local charity shop (CPL!) as I'm sure I read once that some clothes collections are done by organised Armenian gangs who actually give a tiny proportion to the charity.
Charities that I would not give to are ones like Help For Heroes, for reasons which may be too contentious for here, and Children In Need.
Having moved all the personal stuff out, I gave British Heart Foundation the key to my late mother's house and they raised £150 from a couple of items.
I put nice flowers in my front garden for the local community to enjoy.
Quote: Will Cam @ 14th November 2013, 11:14 PM GMTI have charity clothing bins, or door collections, that on closer inspection are a private company who donate 'an amount' to the well known charity you think is actually getting all the proceeds.
Did you mean "I hate" not "I have"
Quote: Harridan @ 14th November 2013, 11:22 PM GMTUnless you're gay, of course: http://www.richarddawkins.net/news_articles/2013/6/10/salvation-army-says-gays-need-to-be-put-to-death#
Richard Dawkins can suck a f**k
http://www.hoax-slayer.com/salvation-army-gays-put-to-death-interview.shtml
their stance is far closer to those in the Catholic church who do outreach. The beliefs are not reflected in their practice, e.g. if you are hungry they will give you dinner, if you need a bed they will provide one and if you need counselling they will try and arrange it.
At no point if you are a recipient of their support do they give a toss or ask about your faith or sexuality.
If you want to join them as a memberthat's a diferent issue.
The SA is both one of the most efficent and important charities for the poor and forgotten in the UK and also about the most misrepresented and insulted.
I've worked with them and they put most other homeless, poverty charities to shame not least of all in the effincey of donation, to operating costs.
A lot of this dislike is because they used to be very preachy and overbearing. You don't get dinner if you don't pray etc. But that was almost 200 years ago when they were one of the first charities, so you know give them a break.
Richard Dawkins didn't write that article, and it was just the first one that came up on Google, and your link confirms that the story is true but that the Salvation Army apologised for it later. Plenty of religious charities do good, and they do good for people who don't necessarily follow their belief system, but they are still repulsive to me.
The Salvation Army will never ever get one penny from me because they use their good work as a shield to protect them while they campaign against gay rights.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/24/us/beliefs-salvation-army-hears-dissent-over-gay-views.html?_r=0
Having read through most of those sources, I think you have some slightly mischeivous journalists.
Most shelters and certainly all street level ones that I've ever worked with, simply don't accomadate couples or families whatever your persuasion.
It's a real weakness and contributes to people staying on the streets to long. And reflects an unfortunate mix of a hangover of Christian morality and a more modern fear they'll just be shagging and fighting.
Neither view is helpful.
As it is the Salvation Army is a collection of religious fundamentalists who happen to do God's work. Whilst that means they do it more efficently, because being fundies they don't need much funding. It does create a situation that they support a whole raft of people they supposedly despise and consider hell bound.
I mean I worked for a very liberal homeless charity that had such bizarrely tolerant attitudes to booze, drugs and sex that it caused more havoc than help.
Quote: Tursiops @ 14th November 2013, 11:32 PM GMTHm, a relative of mine worked in the financial department of a number of large national charities; she is quite scathing on the subject of waste, citing little old lady's giving their widow's mite so that charity executives could have expense account lunches. She works now for some tiny organisation supplying goats to villages in Africa or some such, and is much happier
The charity I work for has tight expenses rules at all levels.
But when we do a conciense raiser or fundraiser at Westminster we pay through the nose.
And when inviting execs of funds etc I suspect we pay more for lunch.
It's because it's what's expected.
Most charities have budgets in the hundreds of millions, the government has billions in welfare and health to dish out.
So advocacy and campaigning to make sure it goes to where the charity considers to be the right place, is the only way to go.
Quote: DeathbyMonkey @ 14th November 2013, 11:19 PM GMTMy concern about giving to charities is how much does the charity actually receive? I've heard (though this is unverified) that if you give a monthly donation to charities that advertise on TV, the money from the first year's worth of donations essentially goes to the marketing company that does the advertising.
I try to donate to charities where at least 80% of my donation is used on the cause itself.
Again that's a toughie, Mind, National Autistic Society, Mencap etc are spending millions campaigning against ATOS, benefits caps etc.
Should they be spending that money on direct grants to the needy and disabled?
No because if they win those c**ts in government won't be able to cut off the hundreds of millions they're planning to.
The Salvation Army may dish out dinners and beds, but Shelter do a much better job of demanding to know why people are hungry and homeless.
Quote: DeathbyMonkey @ 14th November 2013, 11:19 PM GMTMy concern about giving to charities is how much does the charity actually receive? I've heard (though this is unverified) that if you give a monthly donation to charities that advertise on TV, the money from the first year's worth of donations essentially goes to the marketing company that does the advertising.
I try to donate to charities where at least 80% of my donation is used on the cause itself.
Again that's a toughie, Mind, National Autistic Society, Mencap etc are spending millions campaigning against ATOS, benefits caps etc.
Should they be spending that money on direct grants to the needy and disabled?
No because if they win those c**ts in government won't be able to cut off the hundreds of millions they're planning to.
The Salvation Army may dish out dinners and beds, but Shelter do a much better job of demanding to know why people are hungry and homeless.