Cancer Research

pawsies

I always say I already donate, infact I must be a millionaire by now supporting all these charities

However they won't go away otherwise and it really bugs me. I don't even know why or how they target my town- I don't live in a city. Just leave me be!

Dave_C_2

The chugging industry relies on us British people being polite and very reluctant to say no. I am an exception to this rule and the first time I refuse I am polite. Thereafter my responses get more and more aggressive.

If someone ignores my no callers sign, then the first step of being polite is omitted.

Dave

Azari

pawsies wrote: »

I always say I already donate, infact I must be a millionaire by now supporting all these charities

Well, you probably would be if you didn't keep giving all your money to these charities.

Equaliser123

Take_it_like_a_man,_sonny wrote: »

I have one rule for charity. If you can afford an advert on Tv, employ door stoppers, you are in no need of my money. If they employ so called celebs, then it goes with the wisdom of John Lydon. Open your wallet love, it is f...ing big enough.

As for cancer, I take my old mans advice, do not give any money to them. He died of cancer. Next.

Oh dear. Do you not get the fact that charities have to attract donations in the same way that for-profit companies need customers?

They also suffer the same decline in revenue as for-profit organisations during an economic downturn so need to try (and invest) harder.

And as for cancer research, I can't really think of too many more worthy charities.

Take_it_like_a_man,_sonny

ThumbRemote wrote: »

What bizarre logic you have.

Many charities advertise on TV, as part of their remit is publicising their aims (eg British Heart Foundation, NSPCC etc).
Many celebrities give their time free of charge to assist charities, they aren't necessarily paid.

The Oxford Commitee for famine relief advertise on tv. DEC are there every disaster, bar the Japanese tsunami.

We still have famine. All their efforts are in vain because we still have famine. Now, do they make money out of people's misery, famine, or do they stop famine.

As for the celebs, listen to John Lydon and his thoughts. Then ask where some of their tax goes as well.

Take_it_like_a_man,_sonny

Equaliser123 wrote: »

Oh dear. Do you not get the fact that charities have to attract donations in the same way that for-profit companies need customers?

They also suffer the same decline in revenue as for-profit organisations during an economic downturn so need to try (and invest) harder.

And as for cancer research, I can't really think of too many more worthy charities.

I had a friend who's wife died of cancer, as did my mum, my dad. They all wanted to give nothing to any cancer charity, as during the time between my mum dying, my friends wife, and dad, nothing had changed, people still died of cancer. Only research on so called super drugs, tested on terminally ill people occurred. My dad and uncle died like guinea pigs in factory.

As for guide dogs, I knew a colleague wh raised hundreds every year for them, and was invited to attend and give his donation. Prior to the meeting they held discussions about where the major investments should be, not in thousands of pounds, but hundreds of thousands. He gracefully declined to give them the cheque and gave it to his local church boys brigade instead.

No further questions, M'Laud

bluenoseam

Take_it_like_a_man,_sonny wrote: »

I have one rule for charity. If you can afford an advert on Tv, employ door stoppers, you are in no need of my money. If they employ so called celebs, then it goes with the wisdom of John Lydon. Open your wallet love, it is f...ing big enough.

As for cancer, I take my old mans advice, do not give any money to them. He died of cancer. Next.

Firstly, you may or may not be aware of this, but while there's a price on everything, in a lot of cases for charity advertisements the people in them aren't paid & the companies who produce them do so gratis as well.

Second, 15 years ago my treatment would have left me with irreversible consequences as a BEST effect, most likely inclusive of neck dissections which would have made things difficult. In that time the treatment has evolved to a stage where right now unless you are aware of me, the chances are you wouldn't be able to tell I've had cancer. The truth is that there's a fair chance that i would have found myself in a very difficult hole and staring the real prospect of death in the face.

I had to deal with 2 cancer charities at my door attempting to arrange this sort of thing while i was undergoing chemo, one said "no problems" the other shut up real quick when she realised i knew what the money was spent on. As has been pointed out, if you're not interested, say "no" and close the door - but to say something like i just quoted, well, lets just say i hope you never find out what it's like to go through it yourself, cos it aint no picnic.

wary

phill99 wrote: »

Also remember that the guy knocking on your door isn't doing it for the love of it. He's getting paid. And if you agree to pay £5 a month, the charity won't see any money for at least 2 years as that is the sales company's costings.

Very true!

About 10 years ago, I set up a monthly DD for two charities following a knock at the door from some girl who had a brochure of the various charities they raise money for. I didn't really think too much about it at the time; I just naively assumed that my money was going to charity. It was only a few years later that I realised that this company were creaming off a significant portion of my contributions and cancelled the DDs immediately.

From the charity's perspective, using an external agency in this way is possibly cost-effective, since otherwise they'd be spending money on advertising etc to raise money directly. However, this doesn't justify the fact that they did not disclose that much of my money would not actually be going to the chosen charities.

I think they should be compelled to declare where the money will go. They could plug it as a cost-effective way of raising money (etc) and people may still choose to donate on that basis. Whilst it is likely that most people wouldn't, that doesn't justify this kind of deception in order to secure a higher take-up.

Now if I get a knock at the door and it is for a charity that I wish to donate to, I'd just go online instead & donate direct ... and I'll tell the collector so. If their real aim is to raise money for charity then they shouldn't have an issue with this.

dickydonkin

Take_it_like_a_man,_sonny wrote: »

We still have famine. All their efforts are in vain because we still have famine. Now, do they make money out of people's misery, famine, or do they stop famine.

What a ridiculous post.

Of course we still have famime - of course we still have cancer. Always have and always will!

Are you suggesting that charities have been wasting time, effort and money for all of these years? It would be interesting to know how many lives have been saved by our donations - irrespective of how they were harvested.

As for cancer - of course we stil have cancer - and sadly, for some time to come - but nobody can surely dispute the remarkable in roads that the likes of Cancer Research have made into the prevention and treatment of this horrible disease - research assisted by our donations.

The same applies to the British Heart foundation. Of course we will never eradicate heart disease completely, but because of this charity (and others of course) their research has resulted in many people preventing heart disease and are able to have superb treatment if they suffer from it.

I do not like being pestered for money for charities - I choose how and when I donate and will continue to do so.

But please don't stop donating to fantastic causes because of the methods they adopt. There are now many routes to channel your donation(s) and by bypassing cold callers and chuggers is how I choose to donate to.

ThumbRemote

Take_it_like_a_man,_sonny wrote: »

The Oxford Commitee for famine relief advertise on tv. DEC are there every disaster, bar the Japanese tsunami.

We still have famine. All their efforts are in vain because we still have famine. Now, do they make money out of people's misery, famine, or do they stop famine.

As for the celebs, listen to John Lydon and his thoughts. Then ask where some of their tax goes as well.

Why do you keep referencing John Lydon? If he's said something worthwhile, post it here. But I fail to see why he is any more of an expert on charities than anyone else.

Charities advertise to raise more money. Are you saying that you'd prefer them not to advertise, therefore raise less money, and be less effective? Again, your logic makes no sense.

Is all this a long way of you justifying your own selfishness? Because that's what it sounds like.