Reply to: Tragic story

[RichardCranium]

I would rather give money to Cancer Research knowing that they are very close to cracking a cure,

That's what they were saying when I was at school 30 years ago.

They were making it up then too. But that's how they get the gullible to give them money for nothing.

Cancer is not one disease with one cause.

[RichardCranium]

I didn't slate expensive contractors (in this thread). My point was when it comes to discussing cheap alternatives, most here sneer at them - I thought people here would understand the value of expensive experts in any field.

What does the fact people here are on the bench have to do with it?

Lots. Some of the highest paid people in the world are bankers.

They f***ed the global economy through incompetence and lying.

That has resulted in the state we are in where people cannot find work.

Therefore, rewarding people with huge salaries does NOT result in financial competence.

And even people on the bench can see this and think it is a tulipe setup.

[Ruse]

Well I was trolling slightly, as Diestl went off on one about the iniquity and irrelevance etc of poppy appeals the other day.

Yes I knew which thread you were referring to.

[Ruse]

What does the fact people here are on the bench have to do with it?

That we can't be expensive contractors if our current rate is £0 pd.

[suityou01]

Well I was trolling slightly, as Diestl went off on one about the iniquity and irrelevance etc of poppy appeals the other day.

[OwlHoot]

Exactly. His humanity is staggering.

Well I was trolling slightly, as Diestl went off on one about the iniquity and irrelevance etc of poppy appeals the other day.

[d000hg]

Yes I would agree with this, in fact I could only find one post (gingerjedi) which contradicted this view point. What intrigues me though is what you are doing on here if you just want to slate "expensive contractors". It may surprise you to know that in fact a lot of people are "unemployed contractors" these days.

I didn't slate expensive contractors (in this thread). My point was when it comes to discussing cheap alternatives, most here sneer at them - I thought people here would understand the value of expensive experts in any field.

What does the fact people here are on the bench have to do with it?

[d000hg]

When a charity ceases to function as a charity but instead operates as a business, then I see no reason why it should be given anything.

It's a business who measures success in how much it gives away without going bankrupt... if you want to have a charity like Cancer Research with a multi-million pound turnover, you need professionals to run it. Professional accountants to make sure things are done legally and efficiently, professional marketers/salespeople who are actually good at what they do, professional managers who can keep it focused.

Sure, you'll get people willing to work for little to help a charity. But unless they are excellent at what they do, they are not the right people. And I believe the phrase 'a worker is worth his pay' should apply. Maybe not on a par with those running banks, but it should still be competitive. The guy running a charity doesn't need to be giving his money to the charity, he needs to run it like a business which makes as much money and then gives it away.

[RichardCranium]

Surprised expensive contractors think it's wrong to pay decent money to keep a charity running well. Charities (big ones anyway) should be run on sound business principles, and that means paying the guys at the top a decent salary.

Once upon a time that wasn't necessary. People were paid less in the public sector and even less again in the 'third' sector. It was considered reward enough that one worked in those areas and got respect accordingly.

I stopped giving money to charity organisations years ago; far too great a %age of it doesn't go where you think it is going.

When a charity ceases to function as a charity but instead operates as a business, then I see no reason why it should be given anything.

[Ruse]

Surprised expensive contractors think it's wrong to pay decent money to keep a charity running well. Charities (big ones anyway) should be run on sound business principles, and that means paying the guys at the top a decent salary.

Yes I would agree with this, in fact I could only find one post (gingerjedi) which contradicted this view point. What intrigues me though is what you are doing on here if you just want to slate "expensive contractors". It may surprise you to know that in fact a lot of people are "unemployed contractors" these days.

[d000hg]

Surprised expensive contractors think it's wrong to pay decent money to keep a charity running well. Charities (big ones anyway) should be run on sound business principles, and that means paying the guys at the top a decent salary.

[Ruse]

Consider a charity that doesn't use professional experienced fundraisers, and raises £1M per year. If it then hires a couple of professionals at £50K each per year, and is then able to raise £2M per year, isn't that money well spent?

You might feel that the £1M is more ethical, but for the recipients, it's not the percentage of what's raised that matters - it's the net amount.

While Robyn's story is sad, it not especially tragic, nor uncommon.

If this is not a tragic story then what is exactly ?

[Churchill]

I'm minded of the whole Madelaine McCann saga - sad but not uncommon, just marketed better.

I fail to see the similarity.

Murdering your child and a fatal illness are poles apart imo.

[Ruse]

It's not too late to buy a poppy.

Exactly. His humanity is staggering.

[OwlHoot]

No way, it could be a scam. If I give to charity I will decide.

It's not too late to buy a poppy.