- This topic has 9 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I’m watching Comedy Aid – yet another appeal for money for the countries stricken by the tsunami.
I donated to the tsunami appeal weeks ago, and am getting rather fed up with still being constantly asked to dip my hand in my pocket for it. They have raised millions, a great achievement, but isn’t it now overshadowing many other worthy charities who may well be suffering in the wake of the tsunami appeal.
This might be controversial, but am I really the only one who thinks that it’s time to wind down the appeal a little bit?
Hi Elaine
You know I always have time for your comments. However, don’t you feel that those ‘excess funds’ would be better placed in the development of the deprived third world rather than returning to the pockets of the self serving philanthropists?
Hi Ian
Apathy is a b*****d
. Justifications don’t help either.An air ambulance nearby has been stood down for 4 months due to a lack of money. It relies entirely on charitable donations. Apparently donations have gone down since appeals began for local flooding and the tsunami. <br>It seems to be forgotten that there are other charities needing donations but the tsunami appeal seems to be the recipient of most donations at the moment.
Call me cynical but let’s face it, the vast majority of funds raised for the tsumani have been raised simply because people feel they "should", just because "everyone else is". They don’t actually give a stuff, but don’t want to look like a b*****d<br>. They don’t care if they are a b*****d<br>.
It’s one thing shoving a spare fiver in a bucket after a natural disaster, but how many of the people who did that would really notice or care if they hadn’t seen the little old lady who lives two doors down for a few days who may have had a fall or died or what have you, and who would step in if they saw a man raise a fist to his partner in the street? It’s hypocrisy to give away money when it suits and then completely ignore people close to home. I’m as guilty of it as the next person but even still I can see it’s not really the ‘right’ way to be.
Don’t even get me started on the politics of it, how much of the money ends up where etc. I found it disgusting that when the Independent went through what would be sent out on the aid planes to the East after the Tsunami, an off road vehicle was included but was left at Stanstead because the politicians of the country whose people it would have been used to save slapped a 200% import tax on it. DISGUSTING!
(Edited by Zoz at 7:45 pm on Feb. 27, 2005)
Simon, I agree that there is a lot of money being spent on "charitable causes" that raise eyebrows. I seem to remember the Lottery getting lots of stick for funding the Royal Ballet, which isn’t really important in the grand scheme of things. I’m not suggesting that such causes are more important than giving assistance to developing countries. But, as Jane says, there are lots of genuinely good causes in this country that rely on public money, that are now suffering because of the almost complete concentration on the aftermath of the tsunami.
Ian – the trouble with adding money to income tax would be that it removes the element of choice. I myself support a small number of charities that I have chosen for personal reasons and don’t like the idea of contributing to some central "charity fund" and not knowing where the money ends up or how it is used.
Spot on again, Ian.
Trouble is, putting up income tax isn’t much of a vote-winner, as the Lib-Dems are finding out.
Colin
But wouldn’t a central "charity pot" raise moral questions for some individuals? For example, the Marie Curie cancer charity – as do many others, I am sure – test on animals. Some people may be morally against this, and would be resistant to donating money from their wage packets to causes they do not agree with, or actively rebel against.
Maybe there should be an obligation to donate, but more choice over where that money goes.
But then, charities which are not as high profile as, say, the NSPCC or Cancer Research may suffer more.
Who decides which cause is most worthy? There’s no right answer.
Oh, incidentally, one of the charities I support is the National Endometriosis Society. This is purely through personal experience, and before I was diagnosed I hadn’t really heard of the charity. It’s certainly a worthy cause though, it just doesn’t get any publicity (the charity can’t afford it, for a start). It’s only through personal experience that I became aware of this charity and the necessity for research into this currently incurable and debilitating illness. People choosing to support charities dealing with illnesses and conditions they have experienced on a personal level is normal, as awareness of the issue is raised through their experiences. This is particularly the case for low profile charities such as the NES.
I am not sure that makes much sense, but I am a bit knackered at the moment!
I think the point is Rob that if we were paying higher taxes there would be money there for disasters and famines, you as an individual could still donate to any charity you like.
BTW, unfortunately, I am aware the Endemetriosis Society, my elder daughter is a sufferer of that disease.
Colin
I am not sure that makes much sense, but I am a bit knackered at the moment!
Makes plenty sense to me.
And I’d agree with you.
I think charity should be a personal thing.
There are certain charities I would be unwilling to give any money to (AIDS research, for example) and I like having this choice.
Also, once governments get involved, it goes from being charity to becoming "aid".
And, history shows, that governments are happy to use aid to control little countries. Either by offering aid (or threatening it’s withdrawal) conditional to votes at the UN or on the condition that the countries sell of their assets to multi-nationals for knockdown prices.
The great thing about charity is that it’s an unconditional gift.
So, let’s keep it out the hands of the thiefs and liars…
Steve
Quote: from seabird on 7:44 am on Feb. 28, 2005[br]Spot on again, Ian.
Trouble is, putting up income tax isn’t much of a vote-winner, as the Lib-Dems are finding out.
Colin<br>
<br>Indeed we are, but I suppose it gives us something to be recognised by in a political field graced by three increasingly indistinguishable major parties. Vote Kennedy. Ta.
Elaine’s point regarding giving the individual more say over what charities his or her donation (by whatever means, taxation or otherwise) gets to benefit is a valid one; although I somehow doubt that everyone who buys a Lottery ticket would stop doing so if they found out that some of the benefactors were charities to whose ideals they were diametrically opposed. Principles or the chance of a £12m rollover prize, hmm? I’d love to be proved wrong, but I suspect the latter prevails nine times out of ten.
Jeremy<br>(graysonscolumn)<br>
(Edited by graysonscolumn at 10:17 pm on Mar. 9, 2005)
Adoptive father of two. The patron saint of lower-grade fare. A gently critical friend of point-to-pointing. Kindness is a political act.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.