The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Whilst doing homework waiting for friends in the student lounge at college (stay with me)...I heard, what is to me, the dreaded sound of clincking money in a collection cup/bucket/hat/coffee jar. Then it dawned on me, children in need is soon...I quickly turned around and saw somebody walking up to random students saying 'give money for charity' and I thought 'ah don't come up to me'.
Now don't get me wrong, it's not the charity I have the problem with (as i explained to a friend later that day) it's the people who do it. I really don't want to be a stick in the mud but i should at least be able to expect people to do something for my money (baked bean bath??) if it's going to a good cause. As I said, I have no problem giving money to charity but the people who collect it are just idiots. The aforementioned friend, in the chairty discussion, even said that he knew someone who got sponsered to cycle somewhere or other and actually kept the money...i know this is dipping into another matter but I'd really be annoyed if I knew that happened...and whos to say it isn't?! not to be all paranoid or anything.
anywhoo, i just thought i'd say, if your collecting money; at least do something for it!
oh yeah, and about the person collecting in my college, i readyed some money but he didn't come over :)
Now don't get me wrong, it's not the charity I have the problem with (as i explained to a friend later that day) it's the people who do it. I really don't want to be a stick in the mud but i should at least be able to expect people to do something for my money (baked bean bath??) if it's going to a good cause. As I said, I have no problem giving money to charity but the people who collect it are just idiots. The aforementioned friend, in the chairty discussion, even said that he knew someone who got sponsered to cycle somewhere or other and actually kept the money...i know this is dipping into another matter but I'd really be annoyed if I knew that happened...and whos to say it isn't?! not to be all paranoid or anything.
anywhoo, i just thought i'd say, if your collecting money; at least do something for it!
oh yeah, and about the person collecting in my college, i readyed some money but he didn't come over :)
Page:
Belldandy wrote:
> That figure was an average, and I didn't come up with it. Got it from
> a lecture two weeks back at University givn by a professor who
> teaches, and writes, on Third World issues.
But it's still wrong. This is from the Christian Aid website:
"How does Christian Aid spend its money?
Out of every pound we receive, 75p is spent on tackling poverty on behalf of the poorest people in the world; 11p is spent on campaigning and education, to change the structures of inequality that keep people poor; 12p is spent on fundraising; 2p is spent on administration."
And this is from the Save the Children website:
"Here is a breakdown of Save the Children's expenditure in 2000/01. We spent £91.4 million on charitable expenditure (which included £1.3 million on management and administration of the charity), £13.9 million on publicity and fundraising, and £9 million on retail activities. This adds up to a total expenditure of £114.3 million."
So for Oxfam, Christian Aid and Save the Children (these are the three biggest overseas charities I can think of right now) that statistic is not only wrong but almost reversed. If there are any major charities that buck this trend then I'd be surprised. As for it being an average: it's going to take an *awful* lot of organisations spending more than 85% of their income on administration to make your lecturer's statistic true.
This is what I think: either you misheard that statistic; or your lectuter is talking about charity *shops* which is entirely different; or your lecturer is talking out of his or her hat.
> That figure was an average, and I didn't come up with it. Got it from
> a lecture two weeks back at University givn by a professor who
> teaches, and writes, on Third World issues.
But it's still wrong. This is from the Christian Aid website:
"How does Christian Aid spend its money?
Out of every pound we receive, 75p is spent on tackling poverty on behalf of the poorest people in the world; 11p is spent on campaigning and education, to change the structures of inequality that keep people poor; 12p is spent on fundraising; 2p is spent on administration."
And this is from the Save the Children website:
"Here is a breakdown of Save the Children's expenditure in 2000/01. We spent £91.4 million on charitable expenditure (which included £1.3 million on management and administration of the charity), £13.9 million on publicity and fundraising, and £9 million on retail activities. This adds up to a total expenditure of £114.3 million."
So for Oxfam, Christian Aid and Save the Children (these are the three biggest overseas charities I can think of right now) that statistic is not only wrong but almost reversed. If there are any major charities that buck this trend then I'd be surprised. As for it being an average: it's going to take an *awful* lot of organisations spending more than 85% of their income on administration to make your lecturer's statistic true.
This is what I think: either you misheard that statistic; or your lectuter is talking about charity *shops* which is entirely different; or your lecturer is talking out of his or her hat.
unknown kernel wrote:
> Sorry about the long and excrutiating detail, but I like Oxfam and
> that statistic is unfairly used to beat them about the head.
Then I'd better not start on how the work of Oxfam, and other NGO's is increasingly seen as undermining developing countries governments, culture and so on, and in some cases considered racialised.....I'll save that lot for when I'm feeling enthusiastic...:)
~~Belldandy~~
> Sorry about the long and excrutiating detail, but I like Oxfam and
> that statistic is unfairly used to beat them about the head.
Then I'd better not start on how the work of Oxfam, and other NGO's is increasingly seen as undermining developing countries governments, culture and so on, and in some cases considered racialised.....I'll save that lot for when I'm feeling enthusiastic...:)
~~Belldandy~~
unknown kernel wrote:
> How do you come up with these things?
That figure was an average, and I didn't come up with it. Got it from a lecture two weeks back at University givn by a professor who teaches, and writes, on Third World issues.
~~Belldandy~~
> How do you come up with these things?
That figure was an average, and I didn't come up with it. Got it from a lecture two weeks back at University givn by a professor who teaches, and writes, on Third World issues.
~~Belldandy~~
Dr Duck wrote:
> I've heard that figure too, specifically about oxfam though...
I did some work for Oxfam once, so this one of the few things that I have an *informed* opinion on :)
It's true that the shops don't make a lot of money - it's actually worse than Belldandy's statistic, about ten pence in the pound. But Oxfam shops are run like a business, with all profits going to direct aid - and for any business a 10% profit isn't bad. Either way, it generates money that wouldn't otherwise be there: people *could* just give a whole pound, but a lot of people won't part with their cash unless they get a scratched Wham record in return.
Anyway, most of Oxfam's spendable income (minus collection costs of about 10%) comes from donations and grants. Of this 2% goes on adminisration, and about 20% on programme development and management. So, depending on what spin you put on it, of the pound you *give* to Oxfam between 58 and 88 pence actually 'does any good'. I can't see the problem with this, because the rest of the money makes sure that the good gets done.
Sorry about the long and excrutiating detail, but I like Oxfam and that statistic is unfairly used to beat them about the head.
> I've heard that figure too, specifically about oxfam though...
I did some work for Oxfam once, so this one of the few things that I have an *informed* opinion on :)
It's true that the shops don't make a lot of money - it's actually worse than Belldandy's statistic, about ten pence in the pound. But Oxfam shops are run like a business, with all profits going to direct aid - and for any business a 10% profit isn't bad. Either way, it generates money that wouldn't otherwise be there: people *could* just give a whole pound, but a lot of people won't part with their cash unless they get a scratched Wham record in return.
Anyway, most of Oxfam's spendable income (minus collection costs of about 10%) comes from donations and grants. Of this 2% goes on adminisration, and about 20% on programme development and management. So, depending on what spin you put on it, of the pound you *give* to Oxfam between 58 and 88 pence actually 'does any good'. I can't see the problem with this, because the rest of the money makes sure that the good gets done.
Sorry about the long and excrutiating detail, but I like Oxfam and that statistic is unfairly used to beat them about the head.
I've heard that figure too, specifically about oxfam though...
Belldandy wrote:
> About 85% of all money raised goes on administration costs in the
> country it is raised in.
>
> So 15p of every pound actually does some good....
How do you come up with these things?
> About 85% of all money raised goes on administration costs in the
> country it is raised in.
>
> So 15p of every pound actually does some good....
How do you come up with these things?
The thing I hate is those people in flourescent bibs carrying clipboards who accost you on the street to see if you have a 'minute' - for which read £10 a month - for some worthy cause or other. If I'm going to give money to charity then I'll do it; I don't need some student telling me that I should. And in case you're wondering why those generous souls are always so cheerful, it's because they get paid SIX POUNDS AN HOUR. Greedy little so-and-sos.
I thought so! :-)
Fair enough :)
SHEEPY wrote:
> Yes, giving animals a nice home is more important than research in
> cancer. Isn't it?
Animals are better than humans.
Anyway, I figure - no, I know - that most people give to those charities, so they're not going to go short, relatively speaking. So I choose to help the little furwy hanimules.
Anyway, if you're concerned about cancer - http://www.ud.com
Download it and keep it running. I do.
> Yes, giving animals a nice home is more important than research in
> cancer. Isn't it?
Animals are better than humans.
Anyway, I figure - no, I know - that most people give to those charities, so they're not going to go short, relatively speaking. So I choose to help the little furwy hanimules.
Anyway, if you're concerned about cancer - http://www.ud.com
Download it and keep it running. I do.
Page: