Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Too difficult to choose. A good one, though...
begins at home....
I really only support British charities, because I think it's important to make sure everyone in our country is ok before I start worrying about the whole world. And Shelter are great because they remind people that it's not just homelessness that's a problem, but crap housing. I also like Mind and Cruse.
but isn't it a bit racist or xenophobic or something?
surely they need help more...
I was joking.
you had a point though
there's millions of charities, you can't support them all. I'd rather support a charity who might one day directly help me or my family and friends. It's selfish, I guess, but how else do you choose?
it's charity, that's kind of the point of it.
'the most' though? The lowest profile charities?
it's not to do with the lowest profile charities, i think it's better that my money goes where it makes the most difference or where people have the most need, i.e. third world charities mainly.
I think the 'most need' is subjective.
has nothing to do with geography, vikram was right that people dying of hunger and preventable diseases is more important than housing issues in this country, don't you agree?
It's all personal choice, and it's all relative.
Whatever. All I know is, I'd much rather house someone living on my doorstep first, before I sorted anything else out. It's my personal choice. Yes, people may be dying abroad, but until anything (and I couldn't care less who's caused it, or how it's come about, or whether it's all Tony Blair's fault because he once sneezed on a pensioner on a Wednesday) is sorted out here, I can't prioritise my feelings to put 'them' (how patronising does that sound?!) first.
Not that I can sort anything else out. I ain't no superman.
I have no desire to go, or live, or anything, anywhere else. Same reason I'd look after my family and friends first before I sorted anything else out.
so this country is your extended family then. It's hard to argue logically about charity, cos it ain't that logical.
it's true that a lot of charity giving is based on sentimentality or even worse how "cool" a charity is rather than any rational assessment, but this is inevitable. Some diseases are always going to be more appealing than others despite others causing higher mortality rates.
I suppose because they get a lot of backing by the entertainment industry and the media
Also lung cancer gets relatively shunned despite being the biggest killer of women ("it's their fault"?) as do the rarer cancers.
we used to do an STA show christmas shelter benefit show, didn't do one last year though - dunno why. i think we're going to do one this year tho :)
and because there are people living below the poverty line, or suicidal and alone, and they need help too. It's commendable when people go abroad and dig wells for Oxfam etc, but I feel that the same people might not go and help in homeless shelters in Britain. International charities have added glamour.
although, peoples opinions differ from where they live perhaps. i.e in inner citys where you see homeless people a lot, compared to people who live further out.
i'd much rather see my money go to a project that i could see develop the lives of people in countries other than our own. sometimes it's the simplest things like a boat/fishing net, which can save someones life, or money for malaria tablets, as opposed to shacking up a british homeless person.
there is no such thing as poverty in this country to be quite honest.
there are many people living below the poverty line in Britain. Not comparable to third world nations, sure, but isn't it shocking that in a rich country like Britain, some of our own people are so desperately poor? It's the same as how shockingly poor New Orleans is, which became apparent during the hurricane.
who can afford to sort it out, is surely more shocking than in poor countries where they can't?
they all have equal claim to an acceptable standard of living no matter what country they live in. Which is idealistic, but i think that's the point of charity, making the world more like you think it should be.
but i do completely disagree with sarahhs comment that there is no such thing as poverty here.
have you never seen a homeless person?
i saw a homeless man pick up a discarded burger box once and eat the scraps then lick all over the inside of it. thats not poverty?
LOTS of homeless people aren't their through any fault of their own.
we went and bought him some hot cross buns and when we went back to give them to him he seemed really normal.
alcoholics are pretty easy to distinguish
i have seen worse, but i don't really want to flaunt it about and completely disney-fie it.
im saying that is poverty.
to say there is no real poverty in britain is ridiculous!
it depends what your definition of poverty is.
what i regard as poverty may be completely different to you, so things i'm saying may be a bit extreme.
the two extremes of wealth and poverty have always been evident in New Orleans, so you can't really compare that to britain i don't think. the us completely refuses to acknowledge the poverty in new orleans, with extreme social and racial issues rife within the government.
i agree with what you mean about not being able to compare to third world nations, as they are literally worlds apart. however, a person is a person no matter where they live, so i would be in favour of supporting a charity that supports the mental welfare of the 'poverty' ridden british, but if i had to choose one or the other it would definitely be for countries apart from our own.
also (sorry to go on), some charities are pretty dodgey, and exploitive. how do you know where your money goes? an example of this is the tsunami, with thousands of pounds going straight to the sri lanken government for arms/guns, and completely dodging the people who need it most.
Poverty here is a number invented. Whilst I'm not saying that people under the poverty line [in british standards] should be ignored by charity - I think it's the governments responsibility, and isn't something that charity should have to exist for. In poorer countries, it does. [I'm not trying to undervalue the work that many british charities do]
but i doubt that people in this country live on literally piles of shit, with a river of disease flowing past them, with only a number for their name, amongst the millions they share the same life with.
there is no doubt that every one is human no matter where they come from/where they live/what they have done in life, and that we all deserve to be treated with dignity.
also, we may find poverty in 3rd world countries extremely distressing, as we compare it to our own lifestyle, whereas it is a way of life for those who suffer it. but this does not mean that they should be overlooked.
also, i prefer to regard myself as european, and do not want to get stuck in the whole 'look after your own country first' thing.
i don't want to appear to be completely insensitive/ignorant to the poverty in our country, but this is my opinion, and i am happy to listen to others opinions.
...perspective. What grinds my gears is people who moralise about what charities people support. "Why do you only support British charities?", "Why do you give to that donkey sanctuary", "Why have you got a Standing Order with the Royal Society for the Conker and Conker Related Injury Bereaved (RSCCRIB)?" People can give to who they want and for whatever reason - it's all personal and no-one should be lectured on it.
Shelter is a wonderful charity... for the main reason that what they work towards is actually solvable, if you think about it. They want everyone in Britain to have a home and they work towards improving the lives of people trapped in shit housing. And it WORKS. It's the opposite of something like Cancer Research where you can't measure the outcomes as much and, also, there's no guarantee that you can find a cure for cancer anyway... (not that I'm saying it's not a worthwhile cause, it clearly is, I just like my money to actually DO something rather than have the promise of "if you give us this then one day we might be able to do this" if you know what I mean...)
Fair play for mentioning Mind as well - mental health charities are sadly neglected... I work in fundraising for one of them and you'll be amazed at how many funders won't touch us with a shitty stick. As A. Partridge once said "don't wanna be tarred with the mad brush..."
countries like Britain have a system and a government where they could do a hell of a lot more to help all the people that British charities are targetting [homeless, mentally ill and so on]. But having so many charities gives them the excuse not to have a better support/relief system.
In a lot of poorer countries they don't have an infrastructure that allows a government to have a welfare or relief programme. Britain could do a lot more. Many poorer countries can't do anything - the government can't just give a shakeup and allocate more money to tackling poverty or whatever.
But basically, I don't like the way charities are replacing things that should be the focus of the government. And the government then has a reason not to act on the issues. And dear god I still can not phrase this right. I give up.
that as long as these charities exist - the government can have an excuse for not acting.
Just, I didn't want to sound hprrible and for people to attack me. So I toned it down, kinda.
but I give money to Great Ormond Street hospital because they saved my life when I was a baby.
My uncle went into one of their hospices the staff were lovely to all my family they work so hard they also recive very little goverment funding.
because animals are better than people
It's the definitive, innit?
they helped my gran when she had cancer when i was six.
they're the first charity i think about whenever it's mentioned.
They don't pester you in the street. They don't have cringeworthy advertising campaigns. They don't employ horrible hippie students to force stickers onto you.
is one of the worst run charities.
or did you work there?
he quit as he couldn't believe the amount of money spent on the social fund, company cars, expenses etc etc. He said is was beyond excessive.
...massive charities like have income of like £200,000,000 a year, meaning they have the same problems as large businesses in waste, excess, bureaucracy etc. etc. They essentially are large businesses really...
And plus RSPCA gets a lot of money from legacies and the like specifying where the money's to be spent, say... re-housing dogs. Well, there's only so many dogs you can re-house a year so you get the problem of having all this money that you cannot legally spend on anything else because it's in someone's will saying it's to be spent on that... Leading in some cases to stupid expenditure on stupid things...
Guide Dogs for the Blind often have a funding surplus because they simply can't train enough dogs in a year! Therefore they have to spend the money kitting out kennels and all that bollocks... That's law and finance for you though, not a fault of the charity really...
He's got no help at all this year.
I want my winnalot back.
...that'll keep him gnawing away for a week.
Give a dog the means to farm his own bones and he'll be gnawing for the rest of his life.
All we ask is for...
albumn 'pictures of starving children sells records'
dunno why exactly.
Why do we have charity?
To assuage the majorities unease about apalling situations. This might help prevent the call for a major upsetting of the status quo to change existing systems.
Obviously the idea of enabling people who want to care for others is good.....but, why do our existing social mechanisms not prevent the worst cases.
to be swept under the carpet I nominate 'medicines sans frontier'
people volunteering, risking life and limb, brave, yet could earn a buck or two in their own countries domestic situation otherwise, and also kind of attracting some western attention to things that should bne in their attention because it migfht be that political pressure might in some cases help properly fix some of these situations
By a long shot.
Where most charities have about 50 cents on the dollar (Red Cross, United Way etc) going "somewhere" good... Sally gives over 90 cents on the dollar. They're basically the only charity worth a damn.
well worth the cash
nspcc waste such a ridiculous proportion of money on advertising which really isnt remotely affective. and theyre known to pick and choose cases that will gain more media attention. *rage*
adverts are incredibly effective! In the 1980's the NSPCC/NCH/Save the Children all had round about the same level of support... The NSPCC's ad campaigns have blown them away from the other charities because they offer something rather simple - your money will go towards ending child cruelty. Full stop. Pretty good value for money don't you think? And the work of the NSPCC DOES actually improve the lives of many children... it's a good charity I think.
Their advertising isn't waste - it's more a necessary evil I'm afraid...
Cancer Research UK
Terrence Higgins Trust
I really wish those charity people would stop harrassing me in the street though. I'm tired of trying to explain to them that i already give to charities. How much do they pay these people anyway??
sometimes like £12 an hour. it drives me up the wall, its incredibly impolite and some even get agressive, surely there are better, more affective ways to fundraise?
...it's an incredibly effective way of fundraising. It's expensive but it gets you a shitload of new donors giving regular contributions. Most importantly it helps charities recruit young donors, which is notoriously difficult. Like it or loath it, it actually works I'm afraid... (although not for much longer because it's already reached saturation point).
I hate street fundraising personally.
I kind of indiscriminately put 1p pieces I get as change into the tin at the counter.
I like the idea of sponsoring a child, though.
I think the twinning of towns would be a good way to sort out charity abroad. Rather than a quaint hamlet in Austria why not twin your town with a third world village where people are starving and they have no clean water, and make it your towns responsibility to provide for them? People would actually donate more abroad if they saw a tangible benefit from it. Thats why people are far more willing to sponsor a child than give to big faceless charities.
That's probably the best, and only, good idea Jeremy Clarksons ever had.