|
Post by Aloysius on Dec 3, 2022 15:50:19 GMT
Why do you think she hates them? Maybe her expression of hatred has enabled her to change her identity from that with which she grew up to an identity that has heightened her profile and enabled her to benefit from the contributions to her charity from well meaning citizens and charitable donors such as National Lottery. There are many similarities to Camilla Batmanthingy who was eventually found out with her Kid's Company from which she garnered a very substantial lifestyle. Whilst an 83 year olds comments were gauche, they have been surpassed by the 'abuse' described by someone who has fostered her heritage status for her own ends. I expect that whilst the press is still free, someone somewhere will dig the skeletons out of her cupboard. Do you find it in any way troubling that your reply in no way answers my question or supports your original statement in any way?
|
|
|
Post by on Dec 3, 2022 16:34:56 GMT
Some yars ago I went to a training course about setting up a charity. Throughout the course it was made very clear that one must not do this with a view to enriching oneself.
I had a chat with some people there and they were genuinely shocked that i had no interest in getting money out of it. The main aim is in fact to redirect money. Charity is simply a cover story for greed.
Not in all cases obviously but in a lot of cases this is fact.
I suspect a few people would be surprised how much of their charitably given money goes to those with more than enough already.
|
|
|
Post by fi on Dec 3, 2022 16:41:49 GMT
Some yars ago I went to a training course about setting up a charity. Throughout the course it was made very clear that one must not do this with a view to enriching oneself. I had a chat with some people there and they were genuinely shocked that i had no interest in getting money out of it. The main aim is in fact to redirect money. Charity is simply a cover story for greed. Not in all cases obviously but in a lot of cases this is fact. I suspect a few people would be surprised how much of their charitably given money goes to those with more than enough already. That is either a good thing or a bad thing. As to the rest of your post, well.....
|
|
|
Post by on Dec 3, 2022 16:46:18 GMT
I originally wrote "the main aim is to earn money" but then there is no earning as people are donating.
Redirection of funds is, I suppose, a grey area.
|
|
|
Post by fi on Dec 3, 2022 16:49:36 GMT
I originally wrote "the main aim is to earn money" but then there is no earning as people are donating. Redirection of funds is, I suppose, a grey area. Do you not think the fact you have never had to earn money, skews your views significantly.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Dec 3, 2022 16:49:41 GMT
This is undoubtedly true although in how many cases I would hesitate to venture an opinion.
I once met an individual who, on the face of it was dedicated to the cause, but one day told me, with some satisfaction and a clear intent to shock, that the real purpose was to gain some level of salaried position within the organisation.
However, any large charity organisation (Oxfam for example), wouldn't be able to accomplish much without paid staff and associated expenses that reduce the amount of food put into starving mouths. Nevertheless the starving mouths exist.
|
|
|
Post by on Dec 3, 2022 16:50:57 GMT
I originally wrote "the main aim is to earn money" but then there is no earning as people are donating. Redirection of funds is, I suppose, a grey area. Do you not think the fact you have never had to earn money, skews your views significantly. Perish the thought !
|
|
|
Post by on Dec 3, 2022 16:53:10 GMT
This is undoubtedly true although in how many cases I would hesitate to venture an opinion. I once met an individual who, on the face of it was dedicated to the cause, but one day told me, with some satisfaction and a clear intent to shock, that the real purpose was to gain some level of salaried position within the organisation. However, any large charity organisation (Oxfam for example), wouldn't be able to accomplish much without paid staff and associated expenses that reduce the amount of food put into starving mouths. Nevertheless the starving mouths exist. Indeed. Oxfam is a good example. A quick google of Oxfam yearly wage bill might be interesting. Of course it would be naive to think highly qualified and capable people would work for nothing.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Dec 3, 2022 16:55:02 GMT
I think you will find 8% is the amount of money that has to be spent on a charities charitable aims. That leaves a lot to be spent on none charitable aims.
|
|
|
Post by on Dec 3, 2022 16:55:43 GMT
Nspcc CEO £160k
Oxfam CEO £120k
Not too shabby.
|
|
|
Post by on Dec 3, 2022 16:56:39 GMT
I think you will find 8% is the amount of money that has to be spent on a charities charitable aims. That leaves a lot to be spent on none charitable aims. Do they tell the people giving them money about this ?
|
|
|
Post by kris on Dec 3, 2022 16:58:13 GMT
I think you will find 8% is the amount of money that has to be spent on a charities charitable aims. That leaves a lot to be spent on none charitable aims. Do they tell the people giving them money about this ? It’s in the small print. Charity is an industry.
|
|
|
Post by on Dec 3, 2022 17:02:10 GMT
Its a wonderful world (not).
|
|
|
Post by fi on Dec 3, 2022 17:06:22 GMT
Nspcc CEO £160k Oxfam CEO £120k Not too shabby. That makes them look very cheap - Parry earns a lot more - and the cost of CEO v 'charity' turnover makes Parry look like a money grabber - big time.
|
|
|
Post by on Dec 3, 2022 17:07:21 GMT
Is the CRT a charity? I think people know that Parry is a money grubber but fair point ! Do other charities get DEFRA funding?
|
|