Br4tPr1nc3 wrote: » Saint Vincent de Paul
NuckingFacker wrote: » Sponsor me and I'll try not to look like I'm enjoying it much, or anything. I will give a whole 10% of the money raised to a good cause. Pretty much like every other charity as it happens.
the groutch wrote: » the "charity" that buys cigarettes for prison inmates?
Catkins407 wrote: » Think local . Are there groups in your area making a real difference to people's lives? Respite care for dementia carers or maybe repairs to houses for the elderly or special schools or learning disabled adult services. They are all really cash starved. Forget places with swanky offices and loads of paid staff for paper pushing. Give money where it will have a direct effect. There will be lots in your area . Any money you raise ring fence it so it can't be used to pay wages or admin . Find a specific project that is not open ended but maybe has a fixed end so you don't have to feel guilty about not giving again and again. My thing would probably be something for adults with learning disabilities. They are the least sexy charity out there and they are in desperate need of funding so that people get to go to a day centre and have a life outside their homes and elderly parents. That's just me but years ago I volunteered and some of the places were just in a bad state . It's got to be much worse now with funding slashed.
Catkins407 wrote: » Ah I see a nice sexy charity. It's a good one no doubt but I am wondering why you asked when you had your mind already made up?
errlloyd wrote: » I promise you I am doing something I won't enjoy. I'm not jumping out of a plane, or going on a holiday - that wrecks my head. I probably won't go Irish, Médecins Sans Frontières is probably one of the charities I most idolise, but I am sure there are people on here who can give me a dozen reasons why not.
errlloyd wrote: » I probably won't go Irish, Médecins Sans Frontières is probably one of the charities I most idolise, but I am sure there are people on here who can give me a dozen reasons why not.
Gmol wrote: » Temple street
NuckingFacker wrote: » That's the States responsibility and it is a disgrace and a farce that they need to fund-raise. If all charitable donations were cut off(and I've donated more than most btw before the whingers attack me) the state would be forced(well, should be forced) to meet its obligations instead of hiving it out as a charity case. A childrens hospital is the states business to fund properly. The fact they don't shows what a bunch of self-serving cnuts they are.
reach for the stars wrote: » Why dont you just do what challenge you intend to do and leave other people out of it ,cant go anywhere in this country at the moment without getting chugged and most people are too polite/embarrised to refuse even if they cant afford it.