Bogus Claims by Charities

The Corinthian

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0517/aid.html

A small Irish aid agency has claimed that hunger, poverty and disease in Africa could be virtually eliminated by investing a quarter of the money women in the West spend each year on cosmetics.

Is this kind of simplistic and unrealistic claim not either immoral (if they know it to be untrue) or incompetent (if they believe it to be true). Either way it would not encourage me to trust them to handle a donation responsibly.

MalefarmerAnn

The Corinthian wrote:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0517/aid.html

Is this kind of simplistic and unrealistic claim not either immoral (if they know it to be untrue) or incompetent (if they believe it to be true). Either way it would not encourage me to trust them to handle a donation responsibly.

I agree, although you cant argue(I hope) that that would be a hell-of-a-lot of money and could surely make a huge difference!

The Corinthian

MalefarmerAnn wrote:

I agree, although you cant argue(I hope) that that would be a hell-of-a-lot of money and could surely make a huge difference!

In the right hands sure - but I wouldn’t trust any charity that either:

1. Felt it needed to lie to raise its profile and get in some lolly.
2. Was naive enough to believe such a claim as it would indicate that they wouldn’t know how best to spend it.

simu

Yeah, guilt-trip the women. :rolleyes:* I can see the point they're trying to make - that we in the West spend a lot of money on total shíte - but this isn't the way to go about it. Why single out cosmetics like that? Do they want to turn us into a nation of smelley troglodytes or what? Do they not realise that many of those who spend money on cosmetics may be extremely well-disposed towards efforts to alleviate third-world problems as well? Indeed, could this be a spoof because I find it hard to believe a professional charitable organisation would shoot itself in the foot like this!


*This is one of the rare occasions where the dreaded roll eyes is genuinely warranted

simu

Or maybe they're trying to create a scandal on the basis that any publicity is good publicity.

The Corinthian

simu wrote:

Or maybe they're trying to create a scandal on the basis that any publicity is good publicity.

I can see that. Such logic is acceptable for profit-motivated businesses, not for charities.

simu

The Corinthian wrote:

I can see that. Such logic is acceptable for profit-motivated businesses, not for charities.

I agree but it seems that charities have started to act more aggressively in recent times - see chuggers and all that. Anyone know if there's a specific code of behaviour for charities in Ireland, out of curiosity and whether it covers issues such as the one being mentioned in this thread? If there's not, they can do whatever they want to attract publicity as long as it doesn't fall under false advertising.

Shabadu

I think if any business should agressively seek profit, it should be charities. Within reason. Still, this sort of propaganda really gets my goat. This sort of vague half threat/half head in the clouds statement pisses me off greatly.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0517/aid.html

Is this kind of simplistic and unrealistic claim not either immoral (if they know it to be untrue) or incompetent (if they believe it to be true). Either way it would not encourage me to trust them to handle a donation responsibly.

Its the whole "if we just give them money everything will be fine" attutide of things like this (and things like LiveAid it must be said) that ignore the realities of the unstable and volitial nature of places like central Africa. You would eliminate hunger until the next famine ... and the next ... and the next ...

It could also be said of pretty much any large industry sector ... if we gave half of all music sales or cinema sales or drink sales etc etc we could feed all the staving children in Africa for a week ...

it is just publicity grabbing nonsense.

Karl Hungus

If I was in charge of the country, there would indeed be some code of conduct for charities layed down.

Besides, unless you're a total plank, you already know well that any money is going straight into the pockets of whatever African dictator or monarch who wants to sieze it.

pickarooney

simu wrote:

Yeah, guilt-trip the women. :rolleyes:* I can see the point they're trying to make - that we in the West spend a lot of money on total shíte - but this isn't the way to go about it. Why single out cosmetics like that? Do they want to turn us into a nation of smelley troglodytes or what?

Ah now I hope you wouldn't be inferring that any nation that doesn't spend a gajillion a year on cosmetics is peopled solely by smelly troglodytes. It's (the quote in the first post) a bit of a moot claim, not very well thought-out, but possibly appealing to people who generally don't think things out and whose instant reflex when they hear 'Maybelline' is to throw cash at whoever said it.

dearg_doom

But that claim is probably true!

Do you know what the biggest, most profitable industry in the world is??

Bigger than the food industry?...Bigger than the arms industry FFS:)

Yep.







The cosmetics industry!

RainyDay

Wicknight wrote:

Its the whole "if we just give them money everything will be fine" attutide of things like this (and things like LiveAid it must be said) that ignore the realities of the unstable and volitial nature of places like central Africa. You would eliminate hunger until the next famine ... and the next ... and the next ...
.

It also ignores the realities of the protective trade/subsidy policies of the first world which prevent 3rd world countries from trading their way out of debit.

neuro-praxis

All this b|tching sounds like a bunch of pitiful excuses to avoid giving, and all in a brutal attempt to feel ok about it...because of some sh|tty propaganda.

Why aren't you complaining about the highly maniuplative nature of advertising in general? Because you get something back when you spend money on products?



/me throws a bottle of lighter fluid onto the barbeque

Sleepy

neuro-praxis wrote:

All this b|tching sounds like a bunch of pitiful excuses to avoid giving, and all in a brutal attempt to feel ok about it...because of some sh|tty propaganda.

Why aren't you complaining about the highly maniuplative nature of advertising in general? Because you get something back when you spend money on products?



/me throws a bottle of lighter fluid onto the barbeque

So you'd rather people gave money to anyone claiming to be a charity? :rolleyes:

TBH, I doubt the figure is far off what it would take to eliminate the third world debt. What is it that the average western woman spends on cosmetics a year? A couple of thousand or something obscene like that?

Though to be fair, I'm sure the exact same could be said of smoker's spending on cigarettes, men's wasting money on slave labour made football jerseys etc.

neuro-praxis

On the topic of bogus charities, a woman called to my door yesterday asking me for two euros. She was allegedly making a collection for a young girl who had developed a severe skin disorder, that caused her to grow enormous amounts of facial hair. Her treatment was costing €248 a session.

She showed me the letter from the girl's doctor. It was a photocopied fake - from the Dublin dermatology clinic apparently, but not on headed paper or with a doctor's stamp.

I gave her €5. Why?

Because if any woman is going door to door to ask people for money with an absurd made up story, she must need money pretty bad.

And if she doesn't need the money, then she is certainly to be pitied.

If you don't want to give to charities, then don't. You're all free agents. If you have a problem with their advertising, perhaps the best way to help them to improve would be to write them letters explaining why you feel their advertising is ineffective, and how they could better show you where your money is going.

Or you could complain here. Whatever.

The Corinthian

neuro-praxis wrote:

Because if any woman is going door to door to ask people for money with an absurd made up story, she must need money pretty bad.

And if she doesn't need the money, then she is certainly to be pitied.

Yes, smugness is a great motivator to do charitable works.

If you don't want to give to charities, then don't.

It’s all very well suggesting that you gave regardless of the real nature of the individual in question, but that’s only because she failed on that occasion to fool you and you chose to give it to her in that knowledge.

And it’s very noble of you to have allowed her to continue in her quest to dupe people to give her money under false pretences, by not calling the Gardai.

Maybe next time you’re mugged you should be happy in the knowledge that they could do with the money.

simu

neuro-praxis wrote:

All this b|tching sounds like a bunch of pitiful excuses to avoid giving, and all in a brutal attempt to feel ok about it...because of some sh|tty propaganda.

You don't know how much or how little anybody here gives to charity. The point of the thread is what lengths charities are justified in going to in order to collect money for worthy causes. Tbh I find it petty of you to assume the only reason people criticise charities and question how they work is to avoid guilt.

TBH, I doubt the figure is far off what it would take to eliminate the third world debt. What is it that the average western woman spends on cosmetics a year? A couple of thousand or something obscene like that?

I doubt most women spend thousands a year on cosmetics - hundreds maybe. Anyways, boycotting cosmetics won't suddenly solve all of the world's economic problems.

Nevyn

With charities employing people to do street collections and to pester people
With clip boards to get thier bank details out of them it was only a matter of
Time before they started working with spin soc and profession pr and campaigns people. But considering that they are Charities they are either hiring crap companies or getting bad advice from companies using the time as a tax write off. Lousy tatics which will do them more harm then good.

Amazotheamazing

Actually that claim is true, the amounts of money needed to solve extreme poverty are comparitively small. Mind you he could have claimed the amount men spend on drink if he wanted a male specific quote.

The Corinthian

Amazotheamazing wrote:

Actually that claim is true, the amounts of money needed to solve extreme poverty are comparitively small. Mind you he could have claimed the amount men spend on drink if he wanted a male specific quote.

In which particular fantasy World are those claims true?

Seriously, the idea that simply throwing money at a social problem to solve it would work has long since been discredited as it invariably temporarily solves the symptoms temporarily but fails to tackle the root problem. Even if you were to argue that you have a ‘plan’ as how this money could be used to achieve this end, nobody’s going to simply take your word on it given the number of well-meaning ‘plans’ that have failed miserably over the years.

DadaKopf

I think Corinthian's set everyone off on a wild goose chase with his selective unreasoning. Regardless of who RTE attributed the comment to (ICROSS website here), it's a perfectly fair comparison, but one-quarter may not be accurate.

First of all, it was agreed as early as 1970 to increase aid to 0.7% of GNP. This commitment was reconfirmed in 2002 at a UN conference in Monterrey, a sum sufficient to meet the Millennium Development Goals agreed shortly afterwards. If every donor made good on their commitment, this would generate around $120 billion of aid (Ireland's aid budget would reach €1 billion). According to Oxfam - an internationally respected development research agency - consumers already spend $33 billion on cosmetics and perfumes, but it'll cost only $20-25 billion to meet the MDGs in Africa.

Put another way, though, if Ireland reached its 0.7% commitment, it would only cost us between €1.50 - €2.00 each per year. Back to the Oxfam report, full debt cancellation in 32 of the world's poorest countries would cost us $2.00 a year for 10 years.

So ICROSS isn't pulling this out of thin air. I would like to know the exact source of the comment, but it's not far off anyway. It's often very hard for people to make sense of numbers if it's not boiled down to everyday examples. Obviously, and uncynically, the cosmetics example is well chosen to illustrate how skewed the rich countries'/consumers' priorities are. Oxfam, ICROSS and other NGOs aren't proposing a cosmetics boycott - what would that achieve? So don't get in a hoop, Corinthian. You're wasting your energy. But maybe support efforts to get your country to reach the 0.7% target, and maybe give some money anually to a reputable charity in the business of relieving poverty.

DadaKopf

The Corinthian wrote:

Seriously, the idea that simply throwing money at a social problem to solve it would work has long since been discredited as it invariably temporarily solves the symptoms temporarily but fails to tackle the root problem. Even if you were to argue that you have a ‘plan’ as how this money could be used to achieve this end, nobody’s going to simply take your word on it given the number of well-meaning ‘plans’ that have failed miserably over the years.

Would you care to be more specific?

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

I think Corinthian's set everyone off on a wild goose chase with his selective unreasoning. Regardless of who RTE attributed the comment to (ICROSS website here), it's a perfectly fair comparison, but one-quarter may not be accurate.

Don’t confuse anyone disagreeing with idealistic fantasy as selective unreasoning. It was an outlandish claim that you can’t even back up and apparently you’ve judged the outlandish value to be, somehow, only worth one quarter of the total claim.

First of all, it was agreed as early as 1970 to increase aid to 0.7% of GNP. This commitment was reconfirmed in 2002 at a UN conference in Monterrey, a sum sufficient to meet the Millennium Development Goals agreed shortly afterwards. If every donor made good on their commitment, this would generate around $120 billion of aid (Ireland's aid budget would reach €1 billion). According to Oxfam - an internationally respected development research agency - consumers already spend $33 billion on cosmetics and perfumes, but it'll cost only $20-25 billion to meet the MDGs in Africa.

Put another way, though, if Ireland reached its 0.7% commitment, it would only cost us between €1.50 - €2.00 each per year. Back to the Oxfam report, full debt cancellation in 32 of the world's poorest countries would cost us $2.00 a year for 10 years.

Even if this calculation were correct, how would this eliminate hunger, poverty and disease in Africa? Rather than through a few statistics at the debate, why don’t you back up the reported claim?

So ICROSS isn't pulling this out of thin air.

Yes it is. Nothing you’ve posted defends the claim that this would simply solve the problems of hunger, poverty and disease in Africa.

Would you care to be more specific?

Are you suggesting that simply throwing money at a problem has ever or will solve it?

If not, are you suggesting that given that poster did not qualify their statement that we should accept their word that they would have a ‘plan’ to solve said problem(s)?

DadaKopf

I wasn't trying to open up a debate about how the aid should be spent, you brought that up and failed to justify your assertions. So, please do if you want to properly debate it.

Yes, I haven't found the exact source of this claim, but I have introduced some statistics, which you didn't, to support the point that expanding official aid programmes worldwide to eliminate extreme poverty involves individuals spending miniscule amounts of money.

I don't think this is as much a scandal as the lie by some governments that Africa can't absorb any more aid. Or that aid is bad for growth.

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

I wasn't trying to open up a debate about how the aid should be spent, you brought that up and failed to justify your assertions. So, please do if you want to properly debate it.

That is ultimately what the debate is about. No one denies that resources would be needed to solve these issues, but what is being objected to is the almost cavalier claim that this is all there is to it.

This thread is about simplistic and irresponsible claims and as such if a charity makes such a claim, the onus is upon them to justify their assertions - unless you want to claim that any random expenditure of aid is a good thing?

Yes, I haven't found the exact source of this claim, but I have introduced some statistics, which you didn't, to support the point that expanding official aid programmes worldwide to eliminate extreme poverty involves individuals spending miniscule amounts of money.

Those statistics do not support the point that spending money alone will eliminate hunger, poverty and disease in Africa - which is the claim that we’re discussing. They support the point that they could eliminate Africa’s debts or even alleviate some of the symptoms of hunger, poverty and disease in Africa, but to imagine that they go so far as to indicate that it all comes down to a simple case of throwing money at a problem is self-deflationary to say the least.

I don't think this is as much a scandal as the lie by some governments that Africa can't absorb any more aid. Or that aid is bad for growth.

Badly invested aid is bad. I use the term invested rather than distributed because this is the reason why unplanned aid can be bad in many cases. You get a drought in a region, aid is sent, people migrate to the region where the aid is being distributed, refugee camps spring up and become permanently dependant on the aid so that even when the drought ends people are no longer in a position to be self sufficient. Leaving them in a worse position in the long term because short term symptoms of the problems were addressed without forward planning.

I can’t comment on your claim of African governments lying about the absorption of aid, but if it’s as well thought out as your belief that saying that aid cannot be bad, then I wouldn’t take too much stock in it.

neuro-praxis

simu wrote:

You don't know how much or how little anybody here gives to charity. The point of the thread is what lengths charities are justified in going to in order to collect money for worthy causes. Tbh I find it petty of you to assume the only reason people criticise charities and question how they work is to avoid guilt.

Simu, that post I made was a troll. I even highlighted that when I made the joke about lighter fluid. I think it's imperative to question charities, hell, question everything.

And for the Corinthian: I gave to that woman at the door because I felt that she needed it. If I had felt that she was part of a larger scam I would have given her nothing and called the registered charities authority. If you want to pretend that feeling sorry for somebody is smugness then that's fine - but it is both a misappropriation of the very words themselves, and of me.

Pity
Smugness

Sheesh, the aggression and absolute lack of humour around humanities recently is absolutely astounding.

Zombrex

neuro-praxis wrote:

And for the Corinthian: I gave to that woman at the door because I felt that she needed it.

Who are you!? Ned Flanders!? ("I need your boat" - "Ok here are the keys, just try and have a good time with it")

That woman was attempting to con you out of your money. It is no different than a crooked card game or a confidence artist in Nigeria trying to take everything from your bank account. The fact that the person may or may not need the money (I very seriously doubt she did .. maybe for drugs) doesn't change the fact that she was attempting to commit fraud to get it.

Personally I never give to beggers or people calling to the door (except maybe the traveller kids because they smash up the car if you don't ... more protection money than charity). I have no idea what they do with the money (most of the homeless in dublin have drug or drink problems) or that they even need the money in the first place. I do give to charities such as Focus and SVP because I know that the money is going to be used responsibly.

neuro-praxis

I hear you Wicknight, but I guess I looked at it like this.

Even though I am aware that fraud is a despicable crime (it preys on the weak, and increases cyncism for giving to those who really do need it), there was always a small chance that this woman's story was true, and the process of calling the Dublin Diathermy clinic etc. (if it even exists!) would have been the only way to confirm it. Of course, I could have simply said no and just not thought about it again but I considered the following:

1) It might be true, and if it was, I would like to be able to contribute to the girl's treatment
2) In the likelihood of it not being true (high, but not beyond reasonable doubt), this woman must have a desperate need for money and I could help with that
3) In the case of her being a complete scammer with a Merc and two Fabergé eggs at home, I have only lost €5, and I gave it in the full knowledge that I could not trust what would be done with it.

I recognise that when dealing with organisations you're doing nobody any favours with the above approach. But in that one-on-one situation, I just made my decision based on the fact that whatever happened, I had listened to my conscience.

In the same way, if I give to homeless people, then I have to let go of whatever I give them, in the full knowledge that it will probably go to support the heroin industry. While this is not a direct comparison because they are slaves to an addiction, it just demonstrates how I feel about it. However, if I felt that money I gave to an organisation might go towards the support of something unseemly or fraudulent, I would *not* give.

I am not a trusting person by nature. I choose to trust in these situations because I rarely get disappointed with the behaviour of people...I have no illusions that people are inherently good. Hell, I know I'm not.

PS: I quite like Ned Flanders. Shame those boys grew up so fruity.

The Corinthian

neuro-praxis wrote:

I just made my decision based on the fact that whatever happened, I had listened to my conscience.

I prefer my brain in such situations.

simu

neuro-praxis wrote:

Simu, that post I made was a troll. I even highlighted that when I made the joke about lighter fluid. I think it's imperative to question charities, hell, question everything.

Oh. I see. But why make jokes when it's an interesting topic to discuss?

neuro-praxis

I used a rational thought process and made a decision in mind of the risk factor. But as we know, all brain and no heart make Jack a right b@stard.

But why make jokes when it's an interesting topic to discuss?

I enjoy humour.

The Corinthian

neuro-praxis wrote:

I used a rational thought process and made a decision in mind of the risk factor.

You used a rational thought process based upon irrational criteria.

But as we know, all brain and no heart make Jack a right b@stard.

All heart and no brain makes Jill an idiot.

neuro-praxis

You are actually incapable of arguing without flames. I bow out. Good luck.

amp

neuro-praxis and TC banned for a week for personal abuse. Back on-topic.