Concern

BigBenRoeth · 25-08-2010 02:59AM

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

You're actually right, I did kind of misquote you, in fact you don't even want
them on the street;

that is, unless you are happy with conmen on 'dem streets... :pac:

There is no logic behind that mentality, it's just unfounded suspicion of the wrong people & you're not the only person & this isn't the only thread...

Concern's beggars hassling me has done more to turn me against what i call "big name charities" than anything to be quite honest

knird evol · 25-08-2010 03:00AM

I think the Concern delegates are trying to obfuscate the essential issue of Proportion. The lions share of all donations appears to be spent on administration, expenses, staff and various internal matters to the group itself.
Rather than the cause that the group is supposedly currently supporting.
Did the Donar anticipate this and would they still have been willing to give this group their money if they understood that only a tiny fraction would end up with 'the cause' or the need in question.

sponsoredwalk · 25-08-2010 03:07AM

BigBenRoeth wrote: »

Concern's beggars hassling me has done more to turn me against what i call "big name charities" than anything to be quite honest

That's good, at least there's a logical reason for this, even if it just anger :P

Look, you don't have to give any money to anyone & if it's causing you
psychological discomfort then fine, keep it. If you can't dissociate your
bad feelings about seeing people out on the street trying to engage people
to tell them the reasons why they really need all the support they can
get then that's not their fault. You can just choose to ignore them, say
"no thanks" and keep walking or just keep your headphone's in etc...

You don't need to go off ranting & insulting them and certainly shouldn't
think you're going to appear "logical" to anyone but yourself in the sense
that your conclusions are logical with respect to reality. This only makes
sense thinking about your personal psychology & it's sad you can't see the
bigger picture, can't differentiate between people engaging people looking for money
& engaging people trying to explain to them why they need support from anyone if
they can give it - much less you have to go off calling them "conmen" over it.

BigBenRoeth · 25-08-2010 03:13AM

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Look, you don't have to give any money to anyone & if it's causing you
psychological discomfort then fine, keep it. If you can't dissociate your
bad feelings about seeing people out on the street trying to engage people
to tell them the reasons why they really need all the support they can
get then that's not their fault. You can just choose to ignore them, say
"no thanks" and keep walking or just keep your headphone's in etc...

I wouldn't mind if they left me alone when I said "no thanks" to them,but most of the times these bastards walk beside extolling the virtues of concern to me until i step in to the next shop.

Also,you work for concern,dont you

sponsoredwalk · 25-08-2010 03:15AM

No, I just know how to be firm when I say "no" to someone & don't pine over
it at night, much less go online and get all huffed up at charities because
I can't get someone to listen to me when I say "no"

BigBenRoeth · 25-08-2010 03:29AM

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

No, I just know how to be firm when I say "no" to someone & don't pine over
it at night, much less go online and get all huffed up at charities because
I can't get someone to listen to me when I say "no"

Personal insults,are personal.
People arguing points,are arguing points.

sponsoredwalk · 25-08-2010 03:33AM

BigBenRoeth wrote: »

Personal insults,are personal.
People arguing points,are arguing points.

That's true, so you might want to take back the impersonal "conmen"
argument of yours that you had when describing "those bastards".

What I said is hardly an insult if it's true, I can't help it if you're angry
because you can't tell one of "those bastards" that you're not interested.
Don't fault me for calling your vitriol against "big name" charities out for
being a personal issue you've had with saying no to the "conmen".

BigBenRoeth · 25-08-2010 03:38AM

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

That's true, so you might want to take back the impersonal "conmen"
argument of yours that you had when describing "those bastards".

What I said is hardly an insult if it's true, I can't help it if you're angry
because you can't tell one of "those bastards" that you're not interested.
Don't fault me for calling your vitriol against "big name" charities out for
being a personal issue you've had with saying no to the "conmen".

But i never insulted you.

sponsoredwalk · 25-08-2010 03:41AM

BigBenRoeth wrote: »

But i never insulted you.

I didn't accuse you of insulting me, if you re-read the post you quote you'll
clearly see that.

BigBenRoeth · 25-08-2010 03:42AM

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I didn't accuse you of insulting me, if you re-read the post you quote you'll
clearly see that.

I never said you said i insulted you,but you insulted me.

sponsoredwalk · 25-08-2010 03:43AM

How?

Degag · 25-08-2010 03:54AM

Glenster wrote: »

Be secure in the knowledge that 100% of that €40 will go to real aid on the ground in Pakistan in the form of food and water aid and temporary shelter assistance.

If i believed that then i probably would give money to charity... but i don't.

BigBenRoeth · 25-08-2010 04:09AM

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Look, you don't have to give any money to anyone & if it's causing you
psychological discomfort then fine, keep it. If you can't dissociate your
bad feelings about seeing people out on the street trying to engage people
to tell them the reasons why they really need all the support they can
get then that's not their fault. You can just choose to ignore them, say
"no thanks" and keep walking or just keep your headphone's in etc...

You don't need to go off ranting & insulting them and certainly shouldn't
think you're going to appear "logical" to anyone but yourself in the sense
that your conclusions are logical with respect to reality. This only makes
sense thinking about your personal psychology & it's sad you can't see the
bigger picture, can't differentiate between people engaging people looking for money
& engaging people trying to explain to them why they need support from anyone if
they can give it - much less you have to go off calling them "conmen" over it.

Pretty much that whole post is personally insulting.

cson · 25-08-2010 09:12AM

Glenster wrote: »

That's a snivelly point.

"I dont get to control exactly where each penny goes so I give nothing to charities"

Well here's your bouquet of flowers, you've been elected person of the year.

Concern publishes exhaustive (and exhausting to compile) accounts every year, all the information on what is spent where is delivered in minute detail there, completely and freely available to the public. There's usually loads at the reception desk, just ask for one.

Unless the truth is that you dont care about overhead and you are, in fact, just a cheap **** looking for an excuse.

You're certainly endearing yourself to the giving public with that tirade. :rolleyes:

What part of Concern do you work for?

25-08-2010 09:36AM

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

If only that basic knowledge extended beyond a superficial knowledge of
business and advertising practices :rolleyes:

http://wheel.ie/news/get-tv-exposure-your-charity-christmas

These are kinds of things that get charities on-line/-tv a lot of the time so
just because you feel the need to lash out at charities due to some
personal guilt or whatever doesn't mean your "grievances" are
justified...

Nobody wants your money if you don't feel happy departing with it but
starting a rabble rabble gets us nowhere...

What purpose could it serve? Methinks alleviation of personal issues

What in the name of holy fuk are you going on about? I have personal issues now cause I think Concern is a bad charity?

How about you mosey on back to page 1, quote my paragraph on Madoff and give me an answer to that or don't you have one? And don't say 'invest it to make it worth more'.

dory · 25-08-2010 09:40AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Would never give to Concern.. They don't seem to realise that people have a basic knowledge of business and know that if they can afford the ad campaigns and chuggers, the money isn't going where it should. Sure the executives of those charities make fortunes...

When the Madoff 65billion fraud hit, so many charities were wiped to zero. Why weren't all those billions being used? Why was it sitting in hedge funds?

BS.

It's common practice for a charity to have some (maybe a lot) stored away for a dry patch. I work for an Indian charity and I'm sure if someone looked at the amount they have saved they'd say it's a waste, should be used etc. But the fact is that soon the charity will have enough saved away and will be able to function on just the interest and be able to move onto another project.

Your first point as already been addressed by others.

I don't understand why people feel charities should be run in such a basic fashion. Someone said they'd only support those building charities?? :rolleyes: That's an unsustainable strategy and doesn't help local people help themselves. People who work in this sector every day know that's a bull**** way to get anywhere. It's just a way to get money out of rich white people who want to feel like heroes for a week.

You seem to hate the idea of a charity doing anything effective that would create more money and help more people. Charities can't stay back in the dark ages just so your rosy idea of helping the black babies.

25-08-2010 09:51AM

Run of interest? You don't know what a hedge fund or a mutual fund is. There's investment managers making millions in fees of these billions of dollars worth charity money thats tucked away in funds. I administrate some of them and the funds aren't withdrawn. If it were used, it would make a huge difference.

Bill2673 · 25-08-2010 09:59AM

the mealy mouthedness that pervades this website.....its really ticking me off.

So if all you punters are so fed up with concern, who do you give money to?

I'd see €40 as a very reasonable amount for the average person to give.

For the average Irish person who is in a job, this amount is really very little.

In addition, they presumably have processing costs for online donations, so it may be the case that a €5 donation is costing them money.

cson · 25-08-2010 10:00AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Run of interest? You don't know what a hedge fund or a mutual fund is. There's investment managers making millions in fees of these billions of dollars worth charity money thats tucked away in funds. I administrate some of them and the funds aren't withdrawn. If it were used, it would make a huge difference.

But that's tucked away for the apocalypse don't ya know :cool:

cson · 25-08-2010 10:02AM

Bill2673 wrote: »

In addition, they presumably have processing costs for online donations, so it may be the case that a €5 donation is costing them money.

Damn straight. The cheek of people and their fivers; pah to them I say. I know I won't reel out my 'Have you got a minute' spiel for less than €50.

starbelgrade · 25-08-2010 10:15AM

Glenster wrote: »

WARNING WARNING The quoted post is not based in fact WARNING WARNING

1. Giving out life saving food and shelter to victims of natural disasters does more harm than good.

2. There are ****ing reams of regulation regarding the publication of accounts, it is the bane of my life.

3. Concern are audited/inspected by auditors about 8 times a year, 1 of which is a full audit of everything they've spent money on, line by line. If concern were found to have published anything which went against the spirit of the findings of any of these reviews the fines and scandal would cost the company 10's of millions. AND THE AUDITORS THAT CONCERN PAYS TO AUDIT THEM WOULD BE LEGALLY BOUND TO POINT ANY SUCH INFRACTION OUT.

4. What parts of the charities act would you enforce more stringently? I'll give you a few minutes to google it.

Having called me a "cheap ****" & a "leper who talks about things I don't understand", I suggest you go off & Google the meaning of having a "civil debate".

As it stands, you are coming across as arrogant, insulting & are doing your side of the argument absolutely no favours whatsoever.

And ironically, your insults aren't exactly what could be considered "charitable" by any means.

fakearms123 · 25-08-2010 10:22AM

I have no concern for this thread

conorbyrneirl · 25-08-2010 11:07AM

(disclosure: I am a non profit professional working with charities, but Im not with concern)

I suppose Im not all that surprised to read some of the comments on this thread. To be honest, Im not the biggest fan of on street fundraising, in fact I choose not to donate to on street fundraisers. But there is one simple reason why they are there day after day....it works. People do donate to them and as a result charities like Concern are able to help the people they work with.

The non profit sector is filled with choices and people choose to donate to the charity that they relate to, the one that they think will achieve the goal they want to achieve. Its like when you buy a product from the supermarket, you tend to choose the one that you can relate to. How do you know you relate to it....they advertise to you.

I think to say charities shouldn't advertise is daft! How do you know that Concern are even in Pakistan helping people, if they dont tell you. Why do they choose to advertise during the 6 news....because it works. Charities like Concern don't just have a hit and miss approach to their campaigns, they have strategy, they have plans, in fact when a disaster happens in one of the regions where Concern are working they have a plan in place that means they can start communicating and looking for donations within a matter of hours.

Yes a strategy and a plan. It would be great if people were able to think of charities as professional organisations, just like the for profit sector, the difference being the profit goes to help vulnerable and needy people.

There seems to be a perception that just because of the word Charity or Not for Profit an organisation should operate on a shoestring. Tell me which of these two organisations is more effective:
a) spends 1 million to raise 3 million (net 2 million)
b) spends 4 million to raise 8 million (net 4 million)

In my humble opinion the organisation that has a net of 4 million to spend is the most effective, but if you look at it as a ratio organisation a) is most effective.

You have to spend money to make money, and that principle holds for the not for profit sector. In fact lets lose that terminology....we are the For Impact Sector. Yes we need to be more careful about how we spend that money to make money, but should we test ideas to ensure we get it right, absolutely. Today the CEO of Heineken was asked how he got people to choose his product over the other beer brands and he said "Advertising, Advertising, Advertising". They made 1/2 billion in profits this year, imagine what a charity with 1/2 billion profits every year could do!?

This is a much larger debate, in fact a guy called Dan Pallotta has written a book about it called Uncharitable. I wrote a post on my blog about it (here) and here is a great video where Dan talks about his thinking on the subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcYBCB5dAuc

candy-gal1 · 25-08-2010 12:34PM

Didnt it use to be give what you can?! :mad:

Out of principal I wouldnt give squat now, not that i ever did (unless to an Irish or animal charity).

These ads have been going on for the past 10-15 years at least, What p****es me off is if people gave money when the ads first came about then it should be all sorted by now if the people of these countries stopped having kids without any money!

knird evol · 25-08-2010 01:13PM

There is a real pointlessness to just channeling cash into the third world.

If these countries didn't have corrupt regimes or the potential for imminent corrupt govt or coups then vast capital would flow their direction. They have the cheapest unskilled labour, a man would work a year for you for about twenty euro. All other things being equal these countries should be the fastest growing economies and self sufficient.
I think in the West we should deal with the undemocratic despots and military regimes in these countries and set them up on a reliable foundation for growth and prosperity where they are not dependent on someone else.

Sizzler · 25-08-2010 02:10PM

Glenster wrote: »

Asking for 40 maximizes the amount of money given. Simple.

There's no rule that says you have to give 40, you can give any amount.

Also less than 7% of total money recieved goes to overheads.

And no money given by individuals goes towards overheads.

Overheads are made up by grants from the EU, The Irish State, and various other governments.

Also, grow a ****ing soul you cheap banshees.

OK then, I implore you to telephone/email/write to any of the "big 3" charities and ask them how much their senior execs are paid, or how much was spent on "admin" last year or what % of your euro goes to charity....let me know how that goes and come back to me.......

Kooli · 25-08-2010 02:19PM

Sizzler wrote: »

OK then, I implore you to telephone/email/write to any of the "big 3" charities and ask them how much their senior execs are paid, or how much was spent on "admin" last year or what % of your euro goes to charity....let me know how that goes and come back to me.......

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Are people suggesting that the heads of charities shouldn't be paid much? Or that no money should go on admin?

If so, I'm just baffled...

Bill2673 · 25-08-2010 02:21PM

Sizzler wrote: »

OK then, I implore you to telephone/email/write to any of the "big 3" charities and ask them how much their senior execs are paid, or how much was spent on "admin" last year or what % of your euro goes to charity....let me know how that goes and come back to me.......

Simple question: What charity would you recommend for people who want to donate to third world countries?

fkiely · 25-08-2010 02:21PM

Bill2673 wrote: »

Simple question: What charity would you recommend?

Alan Kerins African Project.

starbelgrade · 25-08-2010 02:31PM

Kooli wrote: »

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Are people suggesting that the heads of charities shouldn't be paid much? Or that no money should go on admin?

If so, I'm just baffled...

There are a lot of questions that could & frankly should be asked about all charities in Ireland. At present, there is no regulatory body for charities in this country which has almost 7,500 registered charities.

A Charities Bill that allows for the creation of a regulator was enacted in February 2009. But more than a year later, the legislation is lying idle.

Few small charity organisations publish annual accounts, as they are not registered companies. Revenue, which is responsible for granting organisations charitable tax status, can carry out audits for taxation purposes, but these are not made public.

This year, at the request of the Department of Foreign Affairs, the ICROSS charity has repaid €97,000 in grants provided by Irish Aid, the Government’s development aid section & there are still investigations undergoing as to the whereabouts of a further "missing" €150,000.

Add to that any type of accountability for how & where donations to charities are actually spent & distributed, you would really have to have an amazingly naive belief in human nature to blindly accept that your charitable donations are always being put to the use for which you intended them.

Concern

Comments