'Pick this site’s charities for the next year.' Poll results/discussion

MSE_Martin

Dear the kid,

As you note, you know very little about this site or its actions, and your suggestions do show that... let me answer them... (in caps to show mine and your commetns not to shout)

_________________________


Perhaps in light of so much backbiting and negativity as a result of this.. I wonder if you still think its worth £20,000?

ACTUALLY ITS £20,000 EACH, WE'VE HAD 36,000 VOTES, MANY 10,000S PEOPLE HAVE CLICKED THROUGH TO CHARITIES THEY'VE NEVER HEARD OF AND MAY START TO HELP THOSE CHARITIES AND I AM DELIGGHTED THE SITE WILL BE SUPPORTING THESE CHARITIES FOR THE NEXT YEAR.


I was forwarded this link in an e-mail and there are now at least 4 people who are shaking their heads with dismay.

THATS VERY SAD, I DO HOPE THEY THINK AGAIN.

Instead of dishing out money which you know you will be able to do, why not cut your costs and instead ask people to make a contribution to the charity of their choosing?

GOOD CALL AND ITS DONE HERE ON A VERY REGULAR BASIS BUT I DONT SEE IT AS AN INSTEAD I SEE IT AS AN ASWELL

Instead, why not offer £100k's worth of investment advice time to small charities?

WE DONT COVER INVESTMENT ADVICE THATS WHY.

Why not set up a service that has allowed you to coral investment help which offers preferential and decent terms for charity?

SEE ABOVE

Why not dare to think differently?

I'VE MADE A CAREER OF IT.

Why not fund 2 people at your office who are there to just coordinate financial advice for ALL charity which can then benefit all, or those who subscribe to it?

WE DONT DO FINANCIAL ADVICE. WE DONT COVER CHARITY MONEY. ITS NOT OUR EXPERTISE WE ARE A CONSUMER GROUP

HOWEVER BOTH THE SITE AND I CONTRIBUTE TO A NUMBER OF CHARITIES IN TIME AND IN EXPERTISE ON A VERY REGULAR BASIS. IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE SUGGESTING, I AGREE AND YOU'LL BE PLEASED TO HEAR ITS DONE.

This is what the British Legion does. It knows that dishing out money is of limited and short term use.

WE ARE GIVING MONEY TO CHARITIES NOT INDIVIDUALS

I imagine, because when it comes down to it, philanthropy will always play second fiddle to prosperity.

THE MAJORITY OF THE CHARITY FUNDS GO TO THE MSE CHARITY. THAT GIVES GRANTS BASED BY APPLICATIONS TO WORTHY PROJECTS THAT WOULDNT HAPPEN OTHERWISED IN OUR FIELD OF EXPERTISE.

THIS IS A MONEY SAVING SITE THAT BY BEING HEAR FILLED A SOCIAL GAP AND HELPS MANY PEOPLE. PERHAPS I COULD SUGGEST YOU DO A LITTLE READING ABOUT THE SITE BEFORE MAKING SOME OF THESE STATEMENTS.

But why dictate in such a manner, why feel the need to have control of something? Why be so devisive, why not just completely seperate the act of giving with your commercial entity?

IT IS COMPLETELY SEPERATE.

Whichever charities are granted approval, the whole process has been undermined. Thats not a subjective analysis, its a fact. You have although you probably haven't meant it to happen, turned charity against charity emotionally, undermining the whole point of giving, and have cast much good work which has been previously done quietly and without fuss, in an unintentional but harsh and unflattering light.

MANYPEOPLE HAVE CAMPAIGNED AND CANVASSED AND RAISED THEIR CHARITIES PROFILE. THIS IS A COMMUNITY SITE AND ALL THE WAY THROUGH PEOPLE HAVE BEEN INVOLVED. MOST PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THEIR ARE LIMITED RESOURCES AND NEED TO BE DISTRIBUTED. I'M VERY PROUD OF THE CHARITY GIVING AND ACTIONS THE SITE DOES.


Sorry Martin, but I have been around global meeja brands for far too long to trust much in the way of denials of personal or commercial self interest. Nothing personal, I just know how it works.

WE'RE NOT A GLOBAL MEDIA BRAND. THIS IS MY SITE PERSONALLY, ITS UK ONLY AND IM REPLYING TO YOU PERSONALLY. THE SAME SYSTEM APPLIED WHEN THERE WERE LESS THAN 10,000 USERS AND SMALL CASH. THE FACT ITS BIGGER NOW HAS CHANGED NOTHING.

I HOPE THIS CLEARS IT UP FOR YOU

CHEERS

MSE_Martin

This poll is now closed and a new thread will be started with the results in.

JimmyTheWig

MSE_Martin wrote: »

This poll is now closed and a new thread will be started with the results in.

Where's that, then?

gomann

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Where's that, then?

Ditto ... adding characters ....

Soldierdon

As to your personal insults in that post: I will just remark that I was serving in uniform in 1963. Were you?

For insulting purposes 'gomann' I could have done much better than that. However in answer to your sarcasm. I served from 1950 - 1965 but then I am not really trying to score points - just saying as it was. And in answer to your (possible) next question I was a WO2.

But your friend was right. Out means end of message - as now!

Sd

gomann

Soldierdon wrote: »

For insulting purposes 'gomann' I could have done much better than that. However in answer to your sarcasm. I served from 1950 - 1965 but then I am not really trying to score points - just saying as it was. And in answer to your (possible) next question I was a WO2.

But your friend was right. Out means end of message - as now!

Sd

:rotfl:

Not asking, but cheers anyway.
Not even sure how or why that all started, to be honest.
Anyway, you're a bit older than me so I'll be polite ... and I don't think we're achieving anything when I have no real idea why we're having a ruck.
It all seems so long ago ...

[edit ... having read back, it started because I thought you might have come from ARRSE. The guys there have been known to flood websites, and I was trying to pre-empt any disruption, firmly. There we go, sorry again, wrong target ... Blue on Blue, that sort of thing.]

fatbelly

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Where's that, then?

Here

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1048459