Are some charities a scam?

I don't like giving to the people on the streets, they are always so pushy. I also had a girl from Bernardos swear at me because I walked past her and wouldn't hear her speel.

My brother used to work abroad and in Dublin with a charity with one of these places and the stories he would tell were in someways deadly (fancy hotels etc) but awful in other ways (if they are paying for nice hotels in these places where is the money really going?)

All the big wigs lived like millionares, children in boarding schools making massive money out of these places. Now with the advertising they do and this speaks for all the charaties wouldn't they have ended world hunger etc by now?

I don't know whether some charities are a scam. I could see the attraction for disreputable people to (ab)use the charity structure to do scammy things, like...well, not be an actual charity and be, in fact, a scam.

I'm not crazy about most organised charities, in that I don't really believe there are that many bleeding hearts setting up charities for no reason other than to benefit chosen cause. I don't think there would be so many charities if it wasn't in some way a moneymaking business.

I'm not saying all people who get involved in all charities are ultimately self-interested, but neither do I think that all charities work ultimately in the interest of their cause. These charities are, when it comes down to it, a business. And I'm beginning to know enough of people to have the idea where money is, there are people who will follow.

I'm sure there are lots of charities that do alot of good work, and I'm sure most charities are set up with good intentions. I think the real question would be, does charity work? Has it worked in Africa? Is the charity structure intrinsically flawed, or is it down to the fact that charities can be mismanaged and inefficiently run?

Like someone said, I'd prefer to give a homeless person money than donate to charity, because the opacity of where the money goes re: charities makes me somewhat uncomfortable.

All charities are businesses first and foremost.

Some charities do fantastic work, and are actual charities. People giving their time for very little, and sometimes nothing. SVDP, Simon, etc.

Then there are the BIG boys, the businesses as I call them, trekking all over the globe saving the people....Many of these people have done next to nothing in their own communities, yet they are looking for their own people to donate money to a "causes" thousands of miles away...:rolleyes:

Every few weeks you have some Paddy seting up a NEW charity based in Africa.

And, the heads of these businesses are earning a pretty packet. Charity? My backside. Lot of people making a lot of money from destitution and poverty, always painting the bleakest picture to try and fool the people into parting with their cash

Trocaire out on the streets last week looking for peoples bank details...
I mean, this has been going for for decades. Nothing has changed.
We had it for years with the "penny for the black baby." Taking money from Irish children in schools to give to the "poor black baby." Then it was the communion money and confirmation money they were looking for. Organisations that for years were battering and raping
Irish children, and I am meant to believe that these people give a damn about some black baby in Africa? You
couldn't make it up.

These businesses must have dozens of people simply paid to come up with wild ideas and scams to get people to part with their money. How many people fell for the "buy a cow, buy a goat, buy a hive of bees?" This is farcical...But, people fall for it

Then there was the celebs (employed by charities) and the whole, sponsor a child in Africa, El Salvador etc." Wacky and absurd scams to get money...

Canis Lupus wrote: »

So giving money to the poor makes him a good candidate to run the country?

No, that he is someone with convictions and passion who is running one of the most efficient charities, working with the poorest and worst off of people. while maintaining a high profile and not compromising on ethics makes him a good candidate to run the country.


And the amount of bitter people in this thread is ****ing disgusting. You'd swear a charity pissed in your cornflakes. Just because you can't comprehend doing something altruistic with your mangy little lives doesn't mean there aren't thousands of people doing good, ranging from Irish issues like homelessness (Simon) and poverty (SvdP), to looking after people on the sea (RNLI) to international issues like Amnesty International, Oxfam and Goal.

This thread actually makes me sick. What started out as something questioning the morality of scammers turned into the biggest swarm of pettiness I've seen on boards.

Orando Broom wrote: »

Goal is a profitable family business.

Indeed, has been for years.

I remember hearing John on the Late Late I think it was. He was talking about how he started. Dealing with homeless and drug addicted people in Dublin. He didn't ave the time or patience for them is what he said. That to me isn't someone that I would think as a charity worker. He got fed up, so went and set up his own charity for the poor people thousands of miles away. And got massive grants for this too....

Buceph wrote: »

No, that he is someone with convictions and passion who is running one of the most efficient charities, working with the poorest and worst off of people. while maintaining a high profile and not compromising on ethics makes him a good candidate to run the country.


And the amount of bitter people in this thread is ****ing disgusting. You'd swear a charity pissed in your cornflakes. Just because you can't comprehend doing something altruistic with your mangy little lives doesn't mean there aren't thousands of people doing good, ranging from Irish issues like homelessness (Simon) and poverty (SvdP), to looking after people on the sea (RNLI) to international issues like Amnesty International, Oxfam and Goal.

This thread actually makes me sick. What started out as something questioning the morality of scammers turned into the biggest swarm of pettiness I've seen on boards.

We clearly don't all have the same definition of being ethical. I don't find the emotional blackmail, and preying on the weak willled and old as ethical business practice.

This is highly evidenced in you response to those who don't trust charities - you immediately try to belittle the people and attack their integrity. Luckily the people on boards are not as easily pushed over as you usual prey as these tactics are so clearly at play in every enterprise you worm your way into.

I suggest that you rethink your attitude before trying to be a spokesperson for your so beloved "charity" as you are doing more harm than good for them (but managing to prove my point quite nicely).

Buceph wrote: »

No, that he is someone with convictions and passion who is running one of the most efficient charities, working with the poorest and worst off of people. while maintaining a high profile and not compromising on ethics makes him a good candidate to run the country.


And the amount of bitter people in this thread is ****ing disgusting. You'd swear a charity pissed in your cornflakes. Just because you can't comprehend doing something altruistic with your mangy little lives doesn't mean there aren't thousands of people doing good, ranging from Irish issues like homelessness (Simon) and poverty (SvdP), to looking after people on the sea (RNLI) to international issues like Amnesty International, Oxfam and Goal.

This thread actually makes me sick. What started out as something questioning the morality of scammers turned into the biggest swarm of pettiness I've seen on boards.

Please continue

Buceph wrote: »

You are literally making things up at this point. I'm attacking ignorance. That people say "Ah sure it all goes into the employees pockets" is ignorance. When all the respectable charities get audited by well respected business consultancies and publish annual reports detailing their expenditures. It's sheer, blatant, willful ignorance.

Thanks for completely ignoring everything I said. Maybe you would make a good politician instead of the Goal guy after all!

Buceph wrote: »

You seemed to make two points, both completely based on pure ignorance. One, that attacking people's idiotic views is something I should feel bad about. And two, that the respectable charities prey on the weak willed and elderly, where you'll find that any of the respectable charities have strict guidelines on what is and isn't allowed in fundraising.

So yeah. I didn't directly address your points, but that's because they were ridiculous.

But hey! I have now. They're still ridiculous.

Just cause you don't hold them, doesn't make them idiotic. Your method of attacking their views was by personally insulting the people, not their views. Your method is not very charitable.

The charities do prey on the weak willed and elderly. Whether they admit it or not. I see that goal do not do door-to-door fund-raising, not much more info on their ethics however. If they wanted to just accept donations without pressure on people, anonymous acceptance on their website would be enough for most, plus some dedicated drop off points. Perhaps the pensioners could pick-up a direct debit of the charity of their choice at the post-office and donate via that?

Why do they need to recruit volunteer fund-raisers to shake down their friends and family?

Unless you can remove your caustic attitude from your posts, how do you expect anyone to debate with you? Your lucky I bother... but I'm nice like that.

enda1 wrote: »

The charities do prey on the weak willed and elderly. Whether they admit it or not. I see that goal do not do door-to-door fund-raising, not much more info on their ethics however. If they wanted to just accept donations without pressure on people, anonymous acceptance on their website would be enough for most, plus some dedicated drop off points.

You really have that little regard for the elderly that you believe they just open their wallets when a charity representative comes to the door? And who exactly are these weak willed people? All one has to do is say no. I've had plently of people call to my door in the name of charitable causes. A polite "no thanks" sufficed for them to leave. No aggressive pushing of their product, no emotional blackmail. To suggest that charities shouldn't approach people because some people in society lack the most basic of social skills, is ridiculous.

There are many charities out there, and no doubt there are many poorly run ones. However, to come along and dismiss all charities like you and others are doing is totally unfair, and unwarranted. All one has to do is inform oneself before giving some money. It's not that hard, and takes a lot less effort than logging onto internet fora to moan about fraudulent charities. If people are stupid enough to give blindly, that's there fault- not the fault of the charitable sector. I presume you don;t blame all mechanics for the actions of the few dodgy ones- why do the same for charities?

karma_ wrote: »

Fúck you are some begrudger what!

I know tradesmen who go to Africa to build houses, they pay their own flights and sleep rough. They do help train locals when they get the chance but it's more or less non-stop work when they are there and there is no drinking, partying or sight-seeing.

If you don;t want to give to charity then that's fine but stop spending your time trying to convince others it's all a big scam and just fúck off.

Sleep rough? Where? In the houses that are already in the townships? The houses that those people have been living in for so many years and doing just grand....

So, if all this is coming out of their own pockets, why all the hype and collections? Don't ****ing kid yourself....The same tradesmen who charge 80 ****ing euro to fit a washer on a tap....And we are meant to believe that they are going all this way because they so care about some African?:rolleyes:

Again, when was it that the SA people asked for this help? They never did, so why is Paddy over there interfering, because that is what is happening.