Children in need


Lantern Swinger
Is it just me who finds the amounts of money currently being bid on Chris Evans show to be able to drive in the Magnificant Dozen, obscene??
I understand that the money goes to charity but I don't like the fact that people are able to bid £100,000 just to drive around in cars etc. ( think it was £103,000 yesterday)
I know they are doing a draw as well to allow us common folk to get a chance to win the opertunity to go on this thing but surely bidding thousands more than people earn in a year, shows that these events are purely designed for the rich to enjoy?
It's collecting for charity and not about who has the biggest bank balance, I feel the whole event should be put to a raffle with say a fiver per entry. Then everyone has just as much chance as anyone else.
What do others think???


War Hero
Book Reviewer
Each year it just reminds me of this...

Just the thoughts of a blonde ex-wren. Don't blame me if it all goes tits up.


War Hero
Question is: Do we think the wealthy should pay more taxes so that we can abolish the need for charities or do we think the way to get the big bucks is to give something in return?

I tend to be a bit cynical with many charities as there is a whole industry of high wage-earners employed to generate more revenue to cover the burgeoning "administrative" cost of the charity. I cancelled a direct debit to one charity because, in my view, they wasted and misappropriated revenue by repeatedly sending me letters to request I increased my monthly contribution rather than spend the donation where I had intended.

Where does the money go? Here's an example, involving none other than Cherie Blair:
Interesting link N_S.

I don't necessarily agree with the whole sentiment and indeed, the comments below the posted article show muddled thinking where the user is objecting to charities wasting tax-payer money (three guesses on their voting preference not necessary as you will get it in one) but I do understand and sympathise when someone sees a report that less than 25% goes to the charitable cause but the question is: what is the charitable cause.

Say the charity state that it is to set up water wells in remote African villages, so they have access to a reliable and more importantly clean fresh water supply. The intention is to cut down diseases caused by fetid water, as well as promote reasonable hydration for individuals. To sink a well requires equipment, purchased in part by your donation. But you need to get the kit there, so there is transport. Which requires trans-national shipment so there are customs arrangements to consider. Someone needs to administrate this. Then when they actually get this kit it is not plug-and-go so they need assistance in getting it set up correctly so it will last for some time to come, plus advice on how to maintain it. That needs someone competent to be there to over-see the installation. They may have someone arrange the transport and accomodation. But how did you know that the charity existed to even give them the money? Probably by advertising, or via a mail drop. While the charity may wish to be free, the newspapers or mail service definitely is not. So that costs money. And someone needs to manage that aspect as well as having people to administer it. And give creative input towards the actual fund-raising campaign materials, timings, spread . . . . and so it goes on. Is it really feasible to think that someone can work what is effectively a full or even part-time job, for absolutely nowt? No, so we now need to pay someone to do the backroom work. That needs accountants who do pay-roll as well as company submissions, and that in turn brings it into the legal framework for employment which then needs HR services, either in-house or bought in.

The kit cost £150. To administer was shared amongst £1650 costs. Total £1800. In 10 years time, there are no recorded cases of dysentery in that village. health care services and costs are relieved and the local economy is budding with promise, so less need for further aid.

So which bit is it we are objecting to again?


I know plenty of small charities that would welcome the rich with their sky high bids with open arms. Those bids would keep them running for a year.

Children in need can swivel though.


War Hero
If the internet is to be believed, The Donkey Sanctuary had approximately £38,000,000 banked in the year 2006. Now that's an awful lot of dosh for donkeys...not forgetting the interest it's making.
Interestingly I was at a legacy fundraising meeting yesterday and the Donkey Sanctuary was mentioned - the reason they have so much money? People hate their families & don't want them to inherit. Apparently.

That said, what you or I may think are worthy charities will inevitably differ. For example, If the dogs are dead, why are people sending money?
That said, what you or I may think are worthy charities will inevitably differ. For example, If the dogs are dead, why are people sending money?
I think that is the crux of the matter - people will donate to any cause for whatever reason they use to justify it. What is important is that there needs to be confidence in the regulatory body they should be registered with and if they are actively attempting to defraud then they are caught, prosecuted and adequately punished.

At the end of the day, you are not obliged to donate to any cause but if you choose to do so, it is up to you to make as much effort as you think you need to form your decision yet still be assured that there are systems in place that should prevent you from being a victim of deliberate criminal behaviour. If you find that the cause may not necessarily be what you thought it was, don't donate again. Easy, really.