Red Nose Day
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
jamiemartin721  Reading 17 Mar 15 3.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
After all its the 'charity workers' who make the difference right, not the people that they're paid to extract the money from. Lets hear it for the Charity workers, giving their time so heroically when they could be working for Arse.com on 5-10% more for 50 hour weeks, and no job security. Heaven forbid if the little people who actually give the money complain, tsk tsk.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 Superfly The sun always shines in Catford 17 Mar 15 4.58pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Soulman has a famous scene???!!?!?!?!
Lend me a Tenor 31 May to 3 June 2017 John McIntosh Arts Centre with Superfly in the chorus |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| legaleagle 17 Mar 15 8.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Mar 2015 3.25pm
After all its the 'charity workers' who make the difference right, not the people that they're paid to extract the money from. Lets hear it for the Charity workers, giving their time so heroically when they could be working for Arse.com on 5-10% more for 50 hour weeks, and no job security. Heaven forbid if the little people who actually give the money complain, tsk tsk. Always good to read a stream of invective from someone who hasn't actually got a clue about average reality on the ground and is so uncharitably consumed by bile.Nobody minds "little people" complaining.Its narrow minded people rather... I'm against Comic Relief etc for many of the reasons given by others.I also agree that charities play a negative role in that they are an excuse for the state not to fund and to cut provision.I also get sick of people accosting me daily trying to get me to sign up to a direct debit for well-known charities.But do note those people are not employees of the charities in question. But, the average charity is one you never will have heard of.It's small and runs and survives on a shoestring with help from dedicated staff flogging their guts out because they believe in what they are doing and being paid a relatively low salary (I earned about £10k a year for a highly skilled job) including most of those in senior positions at such charities.That doesn't mean they should be particularly praised.Rather,just not slagged off needlessly. So,by all means slag off Red Nose Day (I hate it personally and the celebs and avoid it like the plague ) and a few high profile examples of charities where people earn a lot at the top but try not to let blind prejudice cloud you to quite such an extent.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| reborn 18 Mar 15 8.41am |
|
|---|---|
|
And.....at least they are doing SOMETHING Which is more than 99% of this board. #justsaying
My username has nothing to do with my religious beliefs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 18 Mar 15 9.41am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote reborn at 18 Mar 2015 8.41am
And.....at least they are doing SOMETHING Which is more than 99% of this board. #justsaying I'm going out on a limb, but I'd say that more than 1% of people have given money to charity or make donations, or give money in some way. I bought a 1000 wheelchair for a friend recently, because the NHS wouldn't pay for it (she needs a special wheelchair, because she has a disease that leaves her physically incapable of wheeling herself). I also used to volunteer teaching convicts basic IT skills, and support a number of charitable causes. We can all make a difference without someone shoving buckets under our noses, boosting their flagging pop careers or doing something 'zany' or running a marathon they'd have run anyhow. You're not doing anything special. I'm not against charity per se, but the sanctimonious righteousness that seems to come with certain causes and the persistant need to shove them in peoples faces when they don't support 'their annual zany stunts'. Things like Comic Relief, Live Aid etc are a parasite that debases us, as a society. Pictures of Staving Children Sell Records and all that (because f**k knows charity singles are almost certainly s**t records). I don't have a problem with people who directly work for a charity either. Its the idea that somehow working in 'Charity' as a company, has any special value.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 18 Mar 15 9.45am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 17 Mar 2015 8.50pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 Mar 2015 3.25pm
After all its the 'charity workers' who make the difference right, not the people that they're paid to extract the money from. Lets hear it for the Charity workers, giving their time so heroically when they could be working for Arse.com on 5-10% more for 50 hour weeks, and no job security. Heaven forbid if the little people who actually give the money complain, tsk tsk. Always good to read a stream of invective from someone who hasn't actually got a clue about average reality on the ground and is so uncharitably consumed by bile.Nobody minds "little people" complaining.Its narrow minded people rather... I'm against Comic Relief etc for many of the reasons given by others.I also agree that charities play a negative role in that they are an excuse for the state not to fund and to cut provision.I also get sick of people accosting me daily trying to get me to sign up to a direct debit for well-known charities.But do note those people are not employees of the charities in question. But, the average charity is one you never will have heard of.It's small and runs and survives on a shoestring with help from dedicated staff flogging their guts out because they believe in what they are doing and being paid a relatively low salary (I earned about £10k a year for a highly skilled job) including most of those in senior positions at such charities.That doesn't mean they should be particularly praised.Rather,just not slagged off needlessly. So,by all means slag off Red Nose Day (I hate it personally and the celebs and avoid it like the plague ) and a few high profile examples of charities where people earn a lot at the top but try not to let blind prejudice cloud you to quite such an extent. Edited by legaleagle (17 Mar 2015 11.04pm) By Charity Workers I mean those who work for the 'Company' of charity, the executives, project managers, directors, marketers or the fund raising executives, not the people in the front line actually doing the work, such as a Macmillian Nurse. If your job, is paid, to raise money for charity, you're nothing special. Just a mook in a job, pretending that somehow you're making a difference - Unless of course you're giving a percentage of your wages to that charity. But I doubt it.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 18 Mar 15 10.04am |
|
|---|---|
|
Many of what you think of as charity workers are not "employed" by charities,but are people "employed" on a casual basis for low remuneration by companies used by big charities (a small minority of actual overall charities) raising very large scale funds,to raise money,a million miles away from the "average" charity.Hence the difference between the people trying to get you to sign up for a direct debit with a major charity and the person (often a volunteer) standing with a tin in your high street. In my experience,the bulk of people actually employed by charities are not primarily involved in fund raising but rather in administering and/or directly providing the "service/help" that the charity in question gives,be it veterinary treatment/refuges for abandoned animals,free legal advice for people who couldn't otherwise afford it, small local social services/mental heath support charities, and a million other things.If you are going to have the service,its not possible without individuals administering and providing it.It often requires more than just a group of untrained volunteers going "out there" including,heaven forbid, small scale "executives" and"project managers" and,to make it possible in the first place small scale "fund raisers". There are those who might think working for perhaps a third of the going rate they could get elsewhere raising funds or working generally in an average charity might not be a lot different to "giving some of your wages to charity", rather than being a "mook" "pretending" Edited by legaleagle (18 Mar 2015 10.32am)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 18 Mar 15 10.32am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 18 Mar 2015 10.04am
Many of what you think of as charity workers are not "employed" by charities,but are people "employed" on a casual basis for low remuneration by companies used by big charities (a small minority of actual overall charities) raising very large scale funds,to raise money,a million miles away from the "average" charity.Hence the difference between the people trying to get you to sign up for a direct debit with a major charity and the person (often a volunteer) standing with a tin in your high street. No problem with the volunteer, but those who are paid, and hang around on the streets trying to 'push' direct debits are just working stiffs, doing nothing special other than just doing a s**ty job like most of us. They're nothing special just because its a 'charity'. I work in Defense, earning less than I would in the private market, but that doesn't have any other value other than me doing a well paid job. There is no extra nobility, I'm not keeping the country safe, or protecting our citizens, I'm just doing my job. Quote legaleagle at 18 Mar 2015 10.04am
The bulk of people actually employed by charities are not primarily involved in fund raising but rather in administering and/or directly providing the "service/help" that the charity in question gives,be it a refuge for abandoned animals,free legal advice for people who couldn't otherwise afford it, St John's Ambulance,meals for old people, charities like MIND, NSPCC and a million other things.If you are going to have the service,its not possible without individuals administering and providing it. They're good people in my book, doing work, that I generally believe should shame the state. A respite care nurse is a nurse, irrespective who pays them though, doesn't really matter if your a NHS or McMillian Nurse. Quote legaleagle at 18 Mar 2015 10.04am
There are those who might think working for perhaps a third of the going rate they could get elsewhere raising funds in an average small charity might not be a lot different to "giving some of your wages to charity", rather than being a "mook" pretending". Edited by legaleagle (18 Mar 2015 10.18am) This last part applies very much to me. I could work in charity and do good, but by way of what I can command elsewhere, I'm much better off working elsewhere and contributing money to charitable causes (as are the charities), and I think that's a significant fact. For example, if your the CEO of Oxfam, why not work for three times as much in the private sector and then donate a third of that directly to Oxfam. Similarly, how much administration and employees does a charity directly need, does it really need to spend 70% of its income on maintaining its existence, so that only 30% of donations are channeled out? Why are people working for some charities drawing very large salaries, far in excess of the cost of a very nice lifestyle? A lot of these organisations I'd hazard have become overly focused on their own internal structure at the cost of causes they support.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| legaleagle 18 Mar 15 10.42am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Mar 2015 10.32am
Quote legaleagle at 18 Mar 2015 10.04am
Many of what you think of as charity workers are not "employed" by charities,but are people "employed" on a casual basis for low remuneration by companies used by big charities (a small minority of actual overall charities) raising very large scale funds,to raise money,a million miles away from the "average" charity.Hence the difference between the people trying to get you to sign up for a direct debit with a major charity and the person (often a volunteer) standing with a tin in your high street. No problem with the volunteer, but those who are paid, and hang around on the streets trying to 'push' direct debits are just working stiffs, doing nothing special other than just doing a s**ty job like most of us. They're nothing special just because its a 'charity'. I work in Defense, earning less than I would in the private market, but that doesn't have any other value other than me doing a well paid job. There is no extra nobility, I'm not keeping the country safe, or protecting our citizens, I'm just doing my job. Quote legaleagle at 18 Mar 2015 10.04am
The bulk of people actually employed by charities are not primarily involved in fund raising but rather in administering and/or directly providing the "service/help" that the charity in question gives,be it a refuge for abandoned animals,free legal advice for people who couldn't otherwise afford it, St John's Ambulance,meals for old people, charities like MIND, NSPCC and a million other things.If you are going to have the service,its not possible without individuals administering and providing it. They're good people in my book, doing work, that I generally believe should shame the state. A respite care nurse is a nurse, irrespective who pays them though, doesn't really matter if your a NHS or McMillian Nurse. Quote legaleagle at 18 Mar 2015 10.04am
There are those who might think working for perhaps a third of the going rate they could get elsewhere raising funds in an average small charity might not be a lot different to "giving some of your wages to charity", rather than being a "mook" pretending". Edited by legaleagle (18 Mar 2015 10.18am) This last part applies very much to me. I could work in charity and do good, but by way of what I can command elsewhere, I'm much better off working elsewhere and contributing money to charitable causes (as are the charities), and I think that's a significant fact. For example, if your the CEO of Oxfam, why not work for three times as much in the private sector and then donate a third of that directly to Oxfam. Similarly, how much administration and employees does a charity directly need, does it really need to spend 70% of its income on maintaining its existence, so that only 30% of donations are channeled out? Why are people working for some charities drawing very large salaries, far in excess of the cost of a very nice lifestyle? A lot of these organisations I'd hazard have become overly focused on their own internal structure at the cost of causes they support.
If everyone works in the private sector and donates large sums,who will be left with the requisite skills to opt for instead working necessarily full time for a third of the going rate to actually enable service provision to take place?..its a necessary thing...which doesn't mean a whole rang of choices including your suggested one are not valid as well as alternatives. In some instances,ie disaster relief,its very hard not to have very large overheads,ie getting relief supplies to somewhere like Vanuatu.So not all large overheads equate to "fat cat" charity workers creaming off donations to enjoy a very comfortable lifestyle. You also generalise too much about charities, most of which are very small,your (not necessarily invalid) prejudices against the some of the "big boys".Most charities are far too small,being able to afford to employ full-time only a small number of people,to have anything like the issues your posts might suggest are the general situation. Edited by legaleagle (18 Mar 2015 10.48am)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 18 Mar 15 10.54am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote legaleagle at 18 Mar 2015 10.42am
You make a choice.But,that doesn't mean its right to slag off those that decide to spend time working for a charity,rather than your model.This discussion didn't arise from charity workers seeking praise for being altruistic,but rather from them being inappropriately generically slagged as a group If everyone works in the private sector and donates large sums,who will be left with the requisite skills to opt for instead working necessarily full time for a third of the going rate to actually enable service provision to take place?..its a necessary thing...which doesn't mean a whole rang of choices including your suggested one are not valid as well as alternatives. You also generalise to charities, most of which are very small,your (not necessarily invalid) prejudices against the some of the "big boys".Most charities are far too small,being able to afford to employ full-time only a small number of people,to have anything like the issues your posts might suggest are the general situation. Edited by legaleagle (18 Mar 2015 10.43am) Please, if you're working raising funds for charity, you're coercing people to give you money they otherwise didn't want to. Big charities use their financial capacity to corner the market in 'donations', by flooding areas with 'paid fund raisers'. As I said before, there is working for charity, and working in charity. And my problem is those people who work in charity, and profess somekind of almost special status like they're doing anything other than just a job. But generally when I talk about Charities, I'm talking about the 'Big Business Charities' who's aim generally seems to be earning as much revenue as possible, cornering the 'donations' market. Which tend to also be the ones spending lots of money on executives, advertising, professional fund raising executives, event planners and co-ordinators. If only 30p in every pound is going to the actual cause, you'd be better off giving that quid to the afflicted directly.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Pawson Palace Croydon 18 Mar 15 11.44am |
|
|---|---|
|
I always loved the Sean Lock comment. We all know the charity collecters who accost you with a clipboard to get money as Charity Muggers- or chuggers. He suggests chunts is a much better term hahaha
Pride of South London |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 18 Mar 15 11.44am |
|
|---|---|
|
And Lenny Henry is still NOT Funny.
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.