Charity Muggers...do they harm the reputation of charities?

[tbaldwin]

Proud?



I can't really be bothered getting into a discussion with you, but other people have already answered your "points" anyway. You'd be amazed the audited budget processes necessary to get anything done here. A couple of pence not rigourously accounted for can lead to all manner of problems.

But it's fine by me. I think its perfectly allowable to not wish to support a particular charity, or even charities in general on the grounds of how they go about their business...

As long as you then don't expect to have any access to their services at times of need.

With all due respect What a load of wank.....
Charities take loads of public money from a variety of sources..Accountability is a total joke.. Loads of charities are a total farce...They take billions from council taxpayers who get no say in who gets there money...
Eton and Harrow are charities and loads of other shit charities take billions of pounds and people really have no idea how most of the money is spent.

 

[Iam]

*why waste the effort talking to a slab of meat*

 

[spanglechick]

With all due respect What a load of wank.....
Charities take loads of public money from a variety of sources..Accountability is a total joke.. Loads of charities are a total farce...They take billions from council taxpayers who get no say in who gets there money...
Eton and Harrow are charities and loads of other shit charities take billions of pounds and people really have no idea how most of the money is spent.

source?

 

[Xanadu]

I'm off to meet my chugger mate in about half an hour. Any questions you guys want me to ask her?

She works for one of the biggest organisations set-up for chugging in the UK.

 

[Xanadu]

I honestly prefer the dealers around Brixton tube... you say no, they accept it and move on.

so true

 

[tarannau]

Yeah course it is tarannau....You really do love to jump in when you have nothing to say...My replies have been about charities and what a load of wank most of them are and where they invest their money etc...Got people actually discussing where they have shares and yours........Well as usual Infantile shit that could be posted up by a 9 year old...

S'alright Balders. If your usual half-literate faux-controversial witterings were actually properly sourced and referenced then I might be bothered, but as you just came to do a seagull job on the thread I'll treat your posts with the contempt they deserve.

 

[The Pious Pawn]

yes

 

[Paul Russell]

Difinitely a different bloke from your physical description. This guy was just irritating (to me, although that's probably just me being a grumpy old git).

But calling people "mean", even in a light-hearted way, is bit OTT, I think.

I think this must be the same man. Extremely aggressive and gets off on humiliating people. Tall lanky white guy with an attitude problem.

 

[George & Bill]

sixty pounds thats a lot !

next time im gonna try bargaining with them give me £30 and ill sign up.

I'm fairly sure that this claim has no basis in fact. I worked as a chugger for a short time, and know people who worked for various other firms, and generally the system is that you not paid a direct comission, but an hourly wage which is reviewed periodically and altered according to your performance.

 

[chooch]

Eton and Harrow are charities

Yes. Two. Clearly therefore a good basis to make general statements about 167,000+ very different organisations.

My replies have been about charities and what a load of wank most of them are and where they invest their money etc

Your replies have been the usual tedious wanking over a highly polished surface.
If you replace most with some in the above I'm in complete agreement with you, by the way.

source

Relatively easy to source.
NCVO says the voluntary sector has an income of £26.3 billion, of which 38% comes from statutory sources- central, regional and local government, quangos and Lottery funding distributors.

Very little of that is core grant funding. Some is from competitive grant funds, much of it is contractual funding for delivering government services (which government likes doing because charity workers tend to be paid less and much less protected and because research says charities tend to be more trusted than government agencies).

 

[pogofish]

I'm fairly sure that this claim has no basis in fact. I worked as a chugger for a short time, and know people who worked for various other firms, and generally the system is that you not paid a direct comission, but an hourly wage which is reviewed periodically and altered according to your performance.

Yup. this is more or less what our lot report, if they have the knack of getting money out of people or can run a good team, the pay gets a lot better.

The commission element is how the chugging compaines are paid by the charities themselves. Although even those arrangements vary between firms, with some chugging firms handling the cash-gathering then paying the charity & vice versa.

 

[tbaldwin]

S'alright Balders. If your usual half-literate faux-controversial witterings were actually properly sourced and referenced then I might be bothered, but as you just came to do a seagull job on the thread I'll treat your posts with the contempt they deserve.

You stuck up twat if your so interested in the subject try and look it up for yourself as you obviously have next to nothing to say on the subject and as for your contempt....Oh i feel so wounded....

 

[tbaldwin]

Given the facts on how much money goes to Charities from publically funded bodies its sad that there is not much more interest in just how shit most of them are.

People seem remarkably ignorant about how unaccountable they are and just how dodgy a lot of them are.

 

[chooch]

just how shit most of them are. People seem remarkably ignorant about how unaccountable they are and just how dodgy a lot of them are.

Again. Most. You're claiming knowledge about many many thousands of very different organisations, whilst (almost certainly) knowing more than fuck all about just a handful.

The point of charities is to advance their charitable aims. They're accountable to their members (if they're membership bodies), to their funders (if they're not) and to the Charity Commission on all those tedious audit requirement which can lose them charitable status fairly smartish. For public funding they're accountable to the (publicly accountable) funding body; government funding usually comes with many strings attached and is often micromanaged to a cuntish degree. If pencils aren't on the funding proposal, you'll have to make do with blood and a feather.

Doubtless you've written to your MP about the charities bill?

 

[tbaldwin]

Again. Most. You're claiming knowledge about many many thousands of very different organisations, whilst (almost certainly) knowing more than fuck all about just a handful.

The point of charities is to advance their charitable aims. They're accountable to their members (if they're membership bodies), to their funders (if they're not) and to the Charity Commission on all those tedious audit requirement which can lose them charitable status fairly smartish. For public funding they're accountable to the (publicly accountable) funding body; government funding usually comes with many strings attached and is often micromanaged to a cuntish degree. If pencils aren't on the funding proposal, you'll have to make do with blood and a feather.

Doubtless you've written to your MP about the charities bill?

You either dont know what the fuck your talking about or your lying about it....You dont really believe that shit you posted do you? You cant possibly be that stupid and guillible can you?
The bit on public funding showed that you have the ability to write the next big thing in comedy..

Do you really not know anything about management committees or anything about charities really,apart from the classic line....
"The point of charities is to advance their aims"

What a dimwit.....

 

[pk]

Given the facts on how much money goes to Charities from publically funded bodies its sad that there is not much more interest in just how shit most of them are.

People seem remarkably ignorant about how unaccountable they are and just how dodgy a lot of them are.

You're full of shit, Adolf.

 

[chooch]

You either dont know what the fuck your talking about or your lying about it.

Look cuntchops. I've worked for different charities of different sizes and with very different setups. I've bid for and managed grants from central and government funders, lottery funders and also sat on a couple of groups that handed out cash. I've worked for an umbrella organisation that had to deal with all sorts of infighting amongst charities. I've advised charities, written strategies for charities, helped set up a small charity and rewritten the constitution of another.
From this I'm claiming to know that charities are very different from one another and sometimes as infuriating and perverse as other organisations, that charities are audited, that government funding ain't necessarily a bed of roses, and to know vaguely what the Charity Commission does and what NCVO does.

You're claiming that most charities are

a load of wank

that

Charities are shit...

and that people who work for them are

Parasitical scum making money out of poor people

Evidence you give for this is that Water Aid have a fancy building, some charities don't screen investments and that Eton and Harrow are charities.

hence

You really are a tedious cunt.

 

[tbaldwin]

Chooch, So youve made a lot of money out of poor people then.CONGRATULATIONS! But so have loads of people its a huge industry in the UK...Various Charities compete and lie about statistics to keep there part of the industry going...

 

[Iam]

Still sticking with the rather desperate, "My 'experience' is all-encompassing, you know nothing, the proof is out there!" generalisations and no actual substance, I see, baldy...

Shockingly.

 

[BEARBOT]

my aim in starting this thread was not to attack charities and the work that they do....(that is a whole nother thread)
more to question the fundraising methods used

as far as how get young people involved w/o using these collectors?..maybe more charities should get involved in putting on music festivals a la greenpeace and glasto..also maybe more charities should get involved in dole schemes where the unemployed person under 25 volunteers for the charity to get job training..not as a mugger tho

if people have had nothing but positive experiences with charity muggers thats great.i fully recognise that some people doing this job have never been rude to anyone..

some posters seem to have a hard time accepting that yes some of them do behave in a way which does nothing but alienate members of the public, and then reflect badly on the charities that employ them.

my problem is with professional collectors who wont accept polite replies like "no thanks, im in debt" or "im on dole ,sorry" but will make sarky/nasty comments when given polite replies or ignored totally(doesnt seem to matter which i do)
im not the only poster by a long stretch who has been annoyed by being
followed down the road having a clipboard stuck in my face or had my path blocked

charities need too look at the training the collectors are given.im imagining they are given training like door to door salesmen that is a "no thanks, im in debt"
doesnt make them go away..its like a foot in the door to them

i'd love to some insider info on what training people are given...maybe the more aggressive tactics arent being taught by the outside agencies/charities themselves? its possible..

im not claiming that the various charities that use "professional collectors"
don't do a good job helping the homeless,old people etc
tho i do hear again and again from various people(no not tories) that it is amazing how little raised actually goes to the people who need it...but i know its not a proven fact ,just something people are fond of saying.if anyone has some solid evidence of these kind of claims i'd love to see it tho.

 

[pogofish]

also maybe more charities should get involved in dole schemes where the unemployed person under 25 volunteers for the charity to get job training..not as a mugger tho

Many of the charities do just that up here. It is not without problems tho, I know that Shelter & BHF have had problems with some of their established volunteer workers feeling exploited into being unpaid/untrained/unsupported trainers by this.

 

[tbaldwin]

Still sticking with the rather desperate, "My 'experience' is all-encompassing, you know nothing, the proof is out there!" generalisations and no actual substance, I see, baldy...

Shockingly.

Well if people are that keen on proof /evidence stats etc go and look for it..

Why are people so guillible when it comes to charities? Do they really think we need so many competing charities???
Do they really think we need so many with very expensive london hqs and people earning 6 figure salaries???

Do they think that 177,000 charities are all doing really good work?
How many people really know why there are so many charities and what they do?
There was something in the Observer yesterday by Nick Cohen....Even though hes a bit of Liberal twat even he questioned things a bit eg on Cancer research and the National trust....
But a lot of people are totally ignorant about just how bad most charities are...

 

[tarannau]

Well if people are that keen on proof /evidence stats etc go and look for it..

Listen fucknuts, this shouldn't be a tough concept to grasp but if you want to come in ranting all sorts of allegations about charities then it is incumbent on you to back your points up. It's not for others to clean up your gross oversimplifications, allegations and lazy cliched rants. You said it: back it up or shut up.

So let's hear you justify your lazy assertion that 'most charities are incredibly shit' then. What proportion of charities have shares in arms companies, what proportion are in 'expensive central London HQs?' When you say 'most' are 'plain shit' what criteria are you using to assess them? What information do you know, what experience do you have of charities etc etc.

To be honest Balders, I strongly predict you'll respond with another load of evidence-light, loudmouth sub-Littlejohn toss as a diversion - nothing like a gobshite on his favourite 'look at me - I'm soooo controversial' soapbax yet again. But hey - surprise me with an adequately reasoned and well argued post for a chance.

 

[dolly's gal]

Many of the charities do just that up here. It is not without problems tho, I know that Shelter & BHF have had problems with some of their established volunteer workers feeling exploited into being unpaid/untrained/unsupported trainers by this.

really? can't talk for BHF but having worked for Shelter for over 5 years i find this incredibly hard to believe

for a start, we hardly have any volunteers, except in our shops, and they are valued more than staff! (good, long-term, reliable volunteers are hard to come by!)

 

[chooch]

i do hear again and again from various people(no not tories) that it is amazing how little raised actually goes to the people who need it...but i know its not a proven fact ,just something people are fond of saying.if anyone has some solid evidence of these kind of claims i'd love to see it tho.

Charities Direct can give you some rough figures for percentages of income spent by bigger charities on fundraising and admin though this ducks the question of what's admin, what's fundraising and what's core activity; charities are so different from one another- it's very difficult to compare the finances of a cat shelter with a charity that lobbies for more development aid.

also maybe more charities should get involved in dole schemes where the unemployed person under 25 volunteers for the charity to get job training

Yes. Plenty are involved in the Voluntary Sector Option and Environmental Task Force Option on New Deal. As pogofish says though, it's not necessarily the easiest (or cheapest) thing to combine youth work and training with mainstream charity activity, particulalrly because most charities routinely underestimate costs for management, staff support, volunteer support, training and so on, in part because there's such a culture of scrimping knowing that money doesn't come easy.

Chooch, So youve made a lot of money out of poor people then

Yes. I spend most of my time snorting cocaine through other people's giros and melting down the contents of collection tins into figurines of my cock.

Do they really think we need so many competing charities?

Who defines need? Anyone can set up a charity if they see a need that fits within the legal definitions of charitable activity. I disagree with the charitable aims of vast numbers of charities but don't for a moment think they have no right to exist.

Do they really think we need so many with very expensive london hqs and people earning 6 figure salaries

The number of people earning 6 figure salaries and working for charites is shrinkingly small. And lots of big charities have HQs outside of London. One of the main drivers for being in London is that that's where government tends to live, so if your charitable aims require you to influence government, or try to get project cash from government then it's helpful to have somewhere to badger civil servants and politicians. Some charities have an HQ somewhere dirt cheap and a small office in London, which seems sensible. It would all be very different if government wasn't quite so London-centric.

Do they think that 177,000 charities are all doing really good work?

that would depend on what they think constitutes good work.

 

[Iam]

But a lot of people are totally ignorant about just how bad most charities are...

Whereas you magically know better.

Well, that's me convinced.



You really are pointless.

 

[pogofish]

for a start, we hardly have any volunteers, except in our shops, and they are valued more than staff! (good, long-term, reliable volunteers are hard to come by!)

Yup, mainly in shops. The local bru sends folk on new-deal or whatever for retail-training/experience stints & this has been the cause of quite some friction in the last year or two. Apparently the volunteers feel there are just too many people being placed with them & the free training aspect (which is provided commercially in some areas apparently) is stretching their goodwill somewhat.

 

[tbaldwin]

Listen fucknuts, this shouldn't be a tough concept to grasp but if you want to come in ranting all sorts of allegations about charities then it is incumbent on you to back your points up. It's not for others to clean up your gross oversimplifications, allegations and lazy cliched rants. You said it: back it up or shut up.

So let's hear you justify your lazy assertion that 'most charities are incredibly shit' then. What proportion of charities have shares in arms companies, what proportion are in 'expensive central London HQs?' When you say 'most' are 'plain shit' what criteria are you using to assess them? What information do you know, what experience do you have of charities etc etc.

To be honest Balders, I strongly predict you'll respond with another load of evidence-light, loudmouth sub-Littlejohn toss as a diversion - nothing like a gobshite on his favourite 'look at me - I'm soooo controversial' soapbax yet again. But hey - surprise me with an adequately reasoned and well argued post for a chance.

Seen too many charities close up...worked for charities for years,raised money for them and ran a couple.....Been on various committees....Know that loads of them pay a shedload of cash to senior staff....Cant be any more specific than that .....But look up the salaries of chief execs of charities if your interested....

There was a good programme on banks last night (Panorama on the debt crisis) Kinda aamazing how people trust banks....Banks exploit that trust and so do charities...But LiberalLeties seem a lot more guillible about charities...

 

[dolly's gal]

Yup, mainly in shops. The local bru sends folk on new-deal or whatever for retail-training/experience stints & this has been the cause of quite some friction in the last year or two. Apparently the volunteers feel there are just too many people being placed with them & the free training aspect (which is provided commercially in some areas apparently) is stretching their goodwill somewhat.

can i ask how you know this? not being lairy or anything, just interested like

 

[pogofish]

From folk who have been on placement in the shops plus a couple of current & former members of staff.

The commercial training is not of course by Shelter, rather from private providers.