Comic Relief - What happened....

System

olias wrote: »

No, I will not, as the whole point of internet forums is a degree of anonimity as a lot of what I discuss, particularly with relation to finance etc, I want to remain private, therefore I do not want to disclose things that would identify me.

What I will do, however is give a few examples:

A large national charity who have a £30 million headquarters with waterfalls in the foyer, works of art and £1000 'executive' chairs in the offices, while the staff work in portacabins in carparks, and the management waste £100ks in pr stunts, while failing some of their core aims.

A regional charity pleading poverty and chasing pensioners for 50p a month donations, when the management are variously driving - an Audi TT, a Mercedes Convertible, a Jaguar, among others (all billed to the charity).

A small local charity, where the founder is jetting off to London, USA, South America, South Africa, Far East on 'fact finding' and PR jaunts that are more like glorified Jollies (at the charitys expense of course)

These are just three that I have been involved with.......

Olias

I'm not disagreeing with you but can you clear up why if they have a £30 million headquarters are the staff sitting in portacabins in the car park? Seems a bit strange!

shop-to-drop

I've made a complaint to comic relief and told them I will be recommending to my kids schools not to take part next time.

ThumbRemote

olias wrote: »

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaawn, tollolloll. Goodnight......zzzzzzzzzzz

Olias

I think that proves the point nicely.

olias

goater78 wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with you but can you clear up why if they have a £30 million headquarters are the staff sitting in portacabins in the car park? Seems a bit strange!

Because believe it or not, some management are self serving, and care more about themselves than their workers - hard to imagine I know, but it does happen....

Olias

System

olias wrote: »

Because believe it or not, some management care more about themselves than their workers - hard to imagine I know, but it does happen....

Olias

So what are you against? The waste of money in the building or the fact they didn't waste more money in making a bigger building so you didn't have to sit in a portacabin?

You seem to be upset over the budget working accommodation, surely that's what a charity should do.........

MothballsWallet

goater78 wrote: »

So what are you against? The waste of money in the building or the fact they didn't waste more money in making a bigger building so you didn't have to sit in a portacabin?

You seem to be upset over the budget working accommodation, surely that's what a charity should do.........

If what olias says is true, then shouldn't all of the charity's staff be working in budget accommodation to keep their overheads down and not have an expensive HQ building for the senior folks to work in?

But that's just what I think.

Errata

What Olias says isn't true until they provide a link. Until then it's merely a figment of their overheated imagination.

System

MothballsWallet wrote: »

If what olias says is true, then shouldn't all of the charity's staff be working in budget accommodation to keep their overheads down and not have an expensive HQ building for the senior folks to work in?

But that's just what I think.

Yes I agree, it's just they seemed more annoyed about the fact they had to work in a portacabin than the waste of money in the building!

ThumbRemote

The thing is, if a charity employs staff they need somewhere to work. Obviously no-one can comment on the specific case mentioned by olias, but in general providing a decent working environment for their staff is something a charity should be doing.

It's a false economy making people work in terrible conditions to save money. All that happens is they spend their time trying to fix things rather than actually working, or end up demoralised and leave.

Added to which, many long established charities have held their property for a long time - often bought or donated to them many decades ago. It's much more sensible for them to hold onto it and refurbish periodically rather than lease a building and have continual outgoings.

dontone

paulofessex wrote: »

...to being able to donate as little or as much as you wish to.

Tonight and recent RD programmes seem to be constantly asking you to text a number to donate £5 or £10. The promoting of the usual number where you can give £2 for example is barely mentioned.

While l'm on a rant, Comic Relief has been going now for 25 years, if only the same amount of pressure had been put on those countries governments surely they wouldn't be asking for money for the same things year after year.

On a similar sort of note, Mr Dontone wanted to donate a tenner, so we went on the website, and straightaway in the donation box, the suggested donation amount was £30 :eek::eek:.
Luckily, it let you change it to what you wanted, but it annoyed me that they sort of assume that you are guilt ridden enough to put in a £30 minimum.
It sounds a bit rotten, but I'm sick of all these charities that ask and assume you will send a minimum amount. Helping is one thing, but actually putting THEIR suggested donation is taking the wee-wee. IYSWIM.