Your Perception of Oxfam and Charities in general

peejay1986

I was advised by Moderator 'Franny Cradock' to post this thread in this section as I will get the most relevant answers.

I'm doing some research on Oxfam and charity donating in general for my Unversity project. I am keen to find out what reasons people have for donating/not donating to charities such as Oxfam.

If any is willing to, could you please fill out this SHORT 9 QUESTION survey relating to Oxfam.

I'm very interested in getting some answers from Ireland as it will help to diversify my results of the survey.

Link to Questionairre

Feel free to discuss elements of the survey in the thread. I think some points raised by people in the survey are very interesting and its amazing to see such contrasting opinions of everyday issues.

If you do not wish to fill out the survey that is fine but please do not abuse it with inappropriate comments/answers - Thanks!

metrovelvet

I wouldnt give to charities because most of the money goes to admin.

Secondly, there are too many problems to fix at home before going elsewhere.

Thirdly, charities let governments off the hook by doing the work they should be doing.

Fourthly, because charities dont employ the the constituents they are trying to help, and this I find is the greatest hypocracy.

towel401

Facebook?! i not clicking on that!

peejay1986

towel401 wrote: »

Facebook?! i not clicking on that!

What about Facebook?

EDIT: Sorry, I copied the link from my Facebook profile. I've edited now to show the original link.

Macha

metrovelvet wrote: »

I wouldnt give to charities because most of the money goes to admin.

Proof?

metrovelvet wrote: »

Secondly, there are too many problems to fix at home before going elsewhere.

What sort of unattainable level of wealth and comfort do you want Ireland to achieve before we start caring about people who live in the most abject and desperate conditions, who have the misfortune of living outside our artificial construction called a nation?

metrovelvet wrote: »

Thirdly, charities let governments off the hook by doing the work they should be doing.

True. But is there any proof that a lack of charities improves government actions?

metrovelvet wrote: »

Fourthly, because charities dont employ the the constituents they are trying to help, and this I find is the greatest hypocracy.

Proof? Is this for some or all? That's a pretty large brush your're tarring with.

metrovelvet

taconnol wrote: »

Proof?

What sort of unattainable level of wealth and comfort do you want Ireland to achieve before we start caring about people who live in the most abject and desperate conditions, who have the misfortune of living outside our artificial construction called a nation?

First of all, charities do not only give to those living in abject conditions outside the nation. So lets knock that assumption right off its wobbly head.

Then lets knock the second assumption on the head. Throwing money does not mean you are caring about someone. There are tax reliefs involved to begin with, and secondly sometimes you are enabling the most corrupt of governments, and sickest of cultures by continuing to fund them.

Clean water across the nation would be a good start. Functioning hospitals across the nation. Decent roads. Good buildings for schools across the nation. Roads. A decent infrastructure. Good clean hospitals across the nation. Not unattainable. Run of the mill first world standards, not there yet.

taconnol wrote: »

True. But is there any proof that a lack of charities improves government actions?

Not that I am aware of.

taconnol wrote: »

Proof? Is this for some or all? That's a pretty large brush your're tarring with.

I have never come across a charity who has an employee with the same condition they are trying to alleviate.

Does Focus hire homeless people? Does Enable Ireland hire the disabled? You could go on and on... Does Schizophrenia Ireland hire schizophrenics? Do any of the charities for special needs hire people with special needs?

Rev Hellfire

metrovelvet wrote: »

I have never come across a charity who has an employee with the same condition they are trying to alleviate.

Does Focus hire homeless people? Does Enable Ireland hire the disabled? You could go on and on... Does Schizophrenia Ireland hire schizophrenics? Do any of the charities for special needs hire people with special needs?

That's a none issue, its more important that these charities hire the most competent people to assist them in doing their job thus hopefully allowing them to maximise their effectiveness. If they where guilty of discrimination against those they support that would be a different matter.

That said I do agree with you charities operating outside of the country help perpetuate poverty and corruption in some cases. Creating hospitals and schools is of little real assistance if the staff and supplies to allow these to function are not available. I prefer systems like kiva etc which assist people helping themselves whist avoiding the culture of dependency which aid seems to create.

Macha

You have yet to provide any proof of your first assertion, that most of the money to charities goes on admin.

metrovelvet wrote: »

First of all, charities do not only give to those living in abject conditions outside the nation. So lets knock that assumption right off its wobbly head.

Sorry? Explain please. You're not really one to talk about "wobbly" assumptions, given that you have yet to prove any of yours.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Then lets knock the second assumption on the head. Throwing money does not mean you are caring about someone. There are tax reliefs involved to begin with, and secondly sometimes you are enabling the most corrupt of governments, and sickest of cultures by continuing to fund them.

Sorry but your logic is flawed. You're lumping all charities in together. I never said all charities are good and aren't guilty of the above. But I have the ability to critically consider each charity individually, instead of viewing them collectively.

Also, many charity donors also give their tax relief to the charity in question.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Clean water across the nation would be a good start. Functioning hospitals across the nation. Decent roads. Good buildings for schools across the nation. Roads. A decent infrastructure. Good clean hospitals across the nation. Not unattainable. Run of the mill first world standards, not there yet.

So...according to you, the only countries that should be donating to charity are..well, nobody! Every country has problems. I really think this really is the most nasty, selfish argument I've ever heard against donating to charities.
It boils down to "Well, I would like to help you with your starving millions and your refugee situation really is reaching crisis point, 30% of your population is infected with the AIDS virus but I'm not satisfied with our roads yet so you won't be getting a penny". It also smacks of nationalism.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Not that I am aware of.

So your argument falls flat

metrovelvet wrote: »

I have never come across a charity who has an employee with the same condition they are trying to alleviate.

Does Focus hire homeless people? Does Enable Ireland hire the disabled? You could go on and on... Does Schizophrenia Ireland hire schizophrenics? Do any of the charities for special needs hire people with special needs?

As Rev Hellfire pointed out: a non-issue. I initially thought you meant that charities working in Sudan, don't employ Sudanese, etc.

djpbarry

metrovelvet wrote: »

I wouldnt give to charities because most of the money goes to admin.

Nonsense. I suggest you take a look at the offices of the likes of Amnesty International and Oxfam in this country - expenses are kept to the bare minimum. Things like postage are often paid for by the staff themselves out of their own pockets.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Throwing money does not mean you are caring about someone. There are tax reliefs involved to begin with, and secondly sometimes you are enabling the most corrupt of governments, and sickest of cultures by continuing to fund them.

Funding corrupt governments? I suggest you familiarise yourself with what charities such as Oxfam actually do.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Clean water across the nation would be a good start. Functioning hospitals across the nation. Decent roads. Good buildings for schools across the nation. Roads. A decent infrastructure. Good clean hospitals across the nation. Not unattainable.

If you think the likes of Oxfam have the resources to deal with these sorts of problems you are beyond delusional. Besides, funds will stretch a lot further in developing countries than it will here. You can help a lot more people with €1,000 in Malawi than you can in Ireland.

metrovelvet wrote: »

I have never come across a charity who has an employee with the same condition they are trying to alleviate.

That has to be the most ridiculous reason for opposing a charity that I have heard to date. You think Barnardos should avail of child labour?

ChocolateSauce

djpbarry wrote: »

That has to be the most ridiculous reason for opposing a charity that I have heard to date. You think Barnardos should avail of child labour?

It would keep costs down and keep them away from drugs!

metrovelvet

taconnol wrote: »

Sorry but your logic is flawed. You're lumping all charities in together. I never said all charities are good and aren't guilty of the above. But I have the ability to critically consider each charity individually, instead of viewing them collectively.

.

The OP asked for a perception of charities. That is my perception of charities. The question itself lumps all charities together.

I'm not asking Oxfam to deal with water contamination in Ireland, I'm asking Ireland to deal with water contamination in Ireland before it starts asking people for money to build wells in Africa.

Certainly there are abject conditions in your own nation that you can help solve through donating time, not money. I have for example, donated my time to Habitat for Humanity, cans of food in thanksgivign food drives, but I wont give any money to charities ever.

That is my perception, which is what was asked for, if you dont agree or like it, that;s fine, but dont try to shove your sanctimony down my throat. It makes me gag.

djpbarry

metrovelvet wrote: »

I'm not asking Oxfam to deal with water contamination in Ireland, I'm asking Ireland to deal with water contamination in Ireland before it starts asking people for money to build wells in Africa.

No reason why we can't do both. There are always going to be problems at home that need to be addressed. But, at a time when 5,000 people can afford to pay €75 each to watch 3 tossers natter on about cars, I don't see why the odd euro or two cannot be spared for the likes of Oxfam.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Certainly there are abject conditions in your own nation that you can help solve through donating time, not money. I have for example, donated my time to Habitat for Humanity, cans of food in thanksgivign food drives, but I wont give any money to charities ever.

Well that's fine - time is often more valuable than money, despite the popular equation that states otherwise.

So your perception of charities is perhaps not as bad as you had led us believe?

Macha

metrovelvet wrote: »

The OP asked for a perception of charities. That is my perception of charities. The question itself lumps all charities together.

So you have an inability to make that distinction in your response?

metrovelvet wrote: »

I'm not asking Oxfam to deal with water contamination in Ireland, I'm asking Ireland to deal with water contamination in Ireland before it starts asking people for money to build wells in Africa.

And I'm saying that I don't agree. We will never reach the state of perfection in this country, whereby every single little need is satisfied. Therefore, your conditions for donating to other countries will never be met.

Please tell me which countries you consider suitable wealthy and advanced enough to be donating to poorer countries.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Certainly there are abject conditions in your own nation that you can help solve through donating time, not money. I have for example, donated my time to Habitat for Humanity, cans of food in thanksgivign food drives, but I wont give any money to charities ever.

That's great. I volunteer as well. I also donate to charity. It isn't really the either/or scenario you're making it out to be.

metrovelvet wrote: »

That is my perception, which is what was asked for, if you dont agree or like it, that;s fine, but dont try to shove your sanctimony down my throat. It makes me gag.

I'm not shoving anything down your throat: I'm disagreeing with you. If that makes you gag, you need to learn how to accept someone disagreeing with you in a debate without resorting to silly comments like that.