RSPCA phone calls

zoom134

hubb wrote: »

I support the RSPCA with a small amount per month. I just had a phone call basicly asking for more money. I politley said that I will increase an amount in my own time but again, the caller although polite was quite pushy and asking for a pound extra a month. Although this wouldn't be a problem for me I on principle didn't give in because I am not happy with being pushed into something via the phone.

When you are good enough to give to a charity I always find they keep at you for more and more. I will probably increase my amount as it is the animals who need help which I am 100% behind but I don't like being put on the spot on the phone. Nor do I like to be send upsetting images of abused animals at Christmas.

You can donate to charities via 'Just Giving' anonomously. I have done this when I do not want to receive Junk mail/phone calls etc.

zaksmum

Angry_Fanboy wrote: »

He probably found his way home eventually and was reunited with his owner.

It didn't necessarily have a sad ending.

I would so love to believe that. Sadly though the reality is probably very different.:(

qetu1357

[quote=[Deleted User];59337683]I'm very well placed to know that the people who own The Dogs Trust are millionaires, living in luxury off YOUR donations while the staff work tirelessly for nothing or next to nothing.

Also, places such as the RSPCA, oxfam, etc, use disturbing images deliberately as emotional blackmail to get you to phone. As soon as you do phone, you are entered onto the (disgustingly named) 'suckers' list - which is then circulated around other organisations. You will then be inundated with phone calls, begging letters, etc. from other organisations.

The next step is the 'scripted phone call'. The gentle but persistent 'an extra £1 per month would make a huge difference - oh really, you can give an extra £1 - that's fantastic. Imagine what difference an extra £2 would make' and so on.

And you won't be surprised to learn that the government takes a share of every donation and the people who run the big name charities are also millionaires.

FACT.[/QUOTE]

I think this is the biggest load of cobblers I have ever read on here.

FACT

moggymutt

I really wish that the RSPCA were of some use. After working unpaid along with a bunch of other volunteers for the last 20 years, we all wouldn't be so knackered if the RSPCA in this area did anything constructive. We constantly need to raise funds for our neutering scheme that does well over a 1000 cats a year in our local area. I've never seen a single thing out here where the RSPCA tries to get either cats or dogs neutered.

Paying less than £95k does not mean that somebody is not capable of doing a hugely responsible job properly- that idea is an insult to the many extremely competent people who work for charity but want as little paid in salaries as possible, in order for as much to go to the cause as possible. (ps in no way is that trying to refer to myself, because I couldn't organise a p*ss up in a brewery, all I do is fundraise and empty litter trays)

Somebody on a lower salary might be more reluctant to spend a charity's money on posh furnishings and posh offices etc.

qetu1357

moggymutt wrote: »

I really wish that the RSPCA were of some use. After working unpaid along with a bunch of other volunteers for the last 20 years, we all wouldn't be so knackered if the RSPCA in this area did anything constructive. We constantly need to raise funds for our neutering scheme that does well over a 1000 cats a year in our local area. I've never seen a single thing out here where the RSPCA tries to get either cats or dogs neutered.

Paying less than £95k does not mean that somebody is not capable of doing a hugely responsible job properly- that idea is an insult to the many extremely competent people who work for charity but want as little paid in salaries as possible, in order for as much to go to the cause as possible. (ps in no way is that trying to refer to myself, because I couldn't organise a p*ss up in a brewery, all I do is fundraise and empty litter trays)

Somebody on a lower salary might be more reluctant to spend a charity's money on posh furnishings and posh offices etc.

Research shows that charity workers get paid 18% less than private sector.

Should they get 50% less?

piglet25

Having contacted the RSPCA previously with serious concerns about a dog who was being kept outdoors on a chain and not fed, whose ribs could be seen and was regularly belted by its owners and being told that there was nothing they could or would do i lost all faith in them. I wouldn't give them a peeny but I happily donate food and blankets to the local dogs home, which removes the cash elemant and ensures that the dogs receive the benefit of my donations.
And as for that poor dog, we paid the local scally £20 to 'borrow' it and we got it rehomed and its still going strong and in good health to this day.

[Deleted User]

The RSPCA is now an animal activist group, and not an animal charity.

Anyone giving money to them should be informed of this by law.

The RSPCA is anti "bloodsport"

But the royal family is pro "bloodsport"

Spot the conflict of interests?

The royals should pull there support.

moggymutt

qetu1357 wrote: »

Research shows that charity workers get paid 18% less than private sector.

Should they get 50% less?

In the case of £95k, yes.


ps, again possibly only in my own area, never seen or known of an RSPCA inspector fundraising in their own time. Also they seem very keen to keep to their 35 hours plus weekend and evening rota.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Charities can only function up to a certain point with volunteer or very low paid staff. If you are doing something at a global level, like Oxfam or Amnesty, or regularly prosecuting, like the RSPCA does (and who else would try and get cruel owners lifetime bans if they didn't?) then you need top drawer lawyers & finance people. And the person at the top has to make big decisions; if you're paying them peanuts then you could only recruit those with a private income who could afford to do it for a hobby.

I volunteer at a Riding for the Disabled Centre. Last night we only had 4 volunteers trying to lead 5 riders and sort out ~15 horses. Amateur/part time volunteer help is not reliable, but if charities recruit paid staff then they get criticised for "wasting" donations. It's a fine balance.

If you object to charities hassling you, then tell them in no uncertain terms.

mr_sharma

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

Charities can only function up to a certain point with volunteer or very low paid staff. If you are doing something at a global level, like Oxfam or Amnesty, or regularly prosecuting, like the RSPCA does (and who else would try and get cruel owners lifetime bans if they didn't?) then you need top drawer lawyers & finance people. And the person at the top has to make big decisions; if you're paying them peanuts then you could only recruit those with a private income who could afford to do it for a hobby.

I volunteer at a Riding for the Disabled Centre. Last night we only had 4 volunteers trying to lead 5 riders and sort out ~15 horses. Amateur/part time volunteer help is not reliable, but if charities recruit paid staff then they get criticised for "wasting" donations. It's a fine balance.

If you object to charities hassling you, then tell them in no uncertain terms.

I just don't see a capitalist looking at the charity sector as a lucrative way to be recompensed. I understand the practicalities of running a large organization but it's equally a fine balance for a donator to consider the way that organization chooses to spend its money and paying its CEO just shy of £100,000 (regardless of their super powers) is not exactly a ringing endorsement.

EDIT - Just to add, very commendable to volunteer.