ChatterBank2 mins ago
Has "big" Chirridee Now Been Hijacked By Self Serving Con People?
10 Answers
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think - for the past five to ten years anyway - most charities have become infested with time-serving, money grabbing "executives" who, whilst they would be largely unemployable elsewhere, do the rounds of the organisations they allege to serve trousering huge sums of dosh. It's a great shame because many charities do sterling work which the State should rightly undertake but which has been crossed of its list in order to make "savings". Personally I now give only to one or two small charities where I have a reasonable idea what my donations are spent on. I used to give the RNLI a few bob but with the debacle over the "pornographic" tea mugs and learning how much their executives are paid I've ceased. Looking at their headquarters in Poole (which I saw for the first time last week and which I mentioned on another thread) I'm afraid they'll have to do without my spare coppers.
It's very difficult these days to decide which charities to support - one can eliminate some when such exposés as this occur (although I find the "almost" in the accusation a bit threatening - I could "almost" murder some people for example), but others may still conceal skeletons in the cupboard.
For example, I crossed Save The Children off my list when they got into bed with a leading chemical multi-national whose hands were far from clean when it comes to worldwide malnutrition etc.
I've also crossed off RNLI, but that's another story.
For example, I crossed Save The Children off my list when they got into bed with a leading chemical multi-national whose hands were far from clean when it comes to worldwide malnutrition etc.
I've also crossed off RNLI, but that's another story.
I give money each month to Cats Protection.
But I also do voluntary work for Oxfam in one of their book and music shops each week. Oxfam has been damaged by the actions of some guys who seemed to be nothing more than scum.
Regardless of what people think about the big charities, they do much more good than harm.
But I also do voluntary work for Oxfam in one of their book and music shops each week. Oxfam has been damaged by the actions of some guys who seemed to be nothing more than scum.
Regardless of what people think about the big charities, they do much more good than harm.
"Unemployable? How did you come up with that, NJ?"
Unemployable is perhaps a little harsh, but unemployable in the pay bands that most of them seem to enjoy. Until a few years ago almost all charities managed to survive quite well without paying huge sums of money (all of which invariably comes from donations) to "executives". They had a few moderately paid staff who managed their business. It is only in recent years that charities have taken the view that they cannot survive and thrive without a Chairman, a CEO and a Board of Directors. This view has been reinforced by the individuals who have been trousering the dosh who believe they must be paid such large sums to run the business and without them it would go under.
There is no realistic evidence to support this and if they had any proper transferable skills they would put them to use in a job which would not seen them creaming off vast sums which are secured mainly because their volunteers perform sterling work.
I used to do regular voluntary work for a large national concern up to about six or seven years ago. It had no difficulty securing its funding but suddenly decided to alter its structure. Out went many of the paid and unpaid staff who used to run it very successfully; in came a Chief Executive (never up to then required) and half a dozen or so of his croney friends as a "management board" (also up to then not required). Out also went most of the volunteers (including me) because the CE and his board did not have the ability to run a bath, let alone a charitable business dependent on volunteers. The charity then largely collapsed and its functions (which should rightly have been provided by the State) had then to be taken over by another organisation. This caused considerable difficulties for the organisations clients, many of whom needed assistance to see them through stressful times.
All credit to the spivs who have managed to pull off this confidence trick. I've no objection to anybody making a few bob in any way they can provided it's legal. But it won't be my few bob that swells their coffers.
Unemployable is perhaps a little harsh, but unemployable in the pay bands that most of them seem to enjoy. Until a few years ago almost all charities managed to survive quite well without paying huge sums of money (all of which invariably comes from donations) to "executives". They had a few moderately paid staff who managed their business. It is only in recent years that charities have taken the view that they cannot survive and thrive without a Chairman, a CEO and a Board of Directors. This view has been reinforced by the individuals who have been trousering the dosh who believe they must be paid such large sums to run the business and without them it would go under.
There is no realistic evidence to support this and if they had any proper transferable skills they would put them to use in a job which would not seen them creaming off vast sums which are secured mainly because their volunteers perform sterling work.
I used to do regular voluntary work for a large national concern up to about six or seven years ago. It had no difficulty securing its funding but suddenly decided to alter its structure. Out went many of the paid and unpaid staff who used to run it very successfully; in came a Chief Executive (never up to then required) and half a dozen or so of his croney friends as a "management board" (also up to then not required). Out also went most of the volunteers (including me) because the CE and his board did not have the ability to run a bath, let alone a charitable business dependent on volunteers. The charity then largely collapsed and its functions (which should rightly have been provided by the State) had then to be taken over by another organisation. This caused considerable difficulties for the organisations clients, many of whom needed assistance to see them through stressful times.
All credit to the spivs who have managed to pull off this confidence trick. I've no objection to anybody making a few bob in any way they can provided it's legal. But it won't be my few bob that swells their coffers.
1 to 10 of 10
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.