The great British public.

Bournemouth Addick

There's a lot wrong with our country and our fellow Brits deserving of criticism but I have just read that Children In Need raised over £31m on Friday. This is on top of £30m donated to those poor people in the Philippines in the same week and at the end of the British Legion Poppy Appeal which itself raises around £40m.

I think it's amazing that, at a time when most of us are seeing our household incomes significantly reduced, we are still prepared to think of others and dig deep to do what we can to help. I've no idea whether the figures would substantiate this but my feeling is that per capita we must be up there as the most generous in the world.

Well done everyone!

se9addick

8th in the world (report's a couple of years old though)

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/sep/08/charitable-giving-country#

Off_it

Actually, according to that link we were the third most giving nation in terms of the percentage of people who give to charity - behind Malta and The Netherlands.

Would be interested to know how much per person it breaks down as though.

AFKABartram

Well said Bmouth. I read this just five mins after we gave to a Bexley Mencap collector out standing in the cold.

The charitable sector is by no means perfect, as is a lot of selfishness in this country / world, but there is still a huge percentage who are appreciative that there are others in worse situations / less fortunate than themselves, and prepared to support.

Hastingsaddick

Don't forget it's Movember as well.

Yorkshireaddick

There are those in other countries of course who would be aghast that the funding of things as important as mental health and autism support is reliant on street collections on a cold November day. They would expect the state to be funding this out of taxes. I'm not commenting on which is the better way but that attitude may reflect in why charitable donations are low in many countries in comparison.

Riviera

No doubting people's generosity, whether by donating or collecting but there must be room for some amalgamation between some of the big charities. Some of the large well known charities employ a lot of staff including some highly paid senior executives but seem to be collecting for the same cause. I don't want to overdo the cynicism because the good certainly out ways the bad but it seems to me that too much money collected is earmarked for keeping these huge charities going in their huge offices with their highly paid CEO's. Indeed I am far more likely to donate to a local collector representing a small charity than to one of the very well known ones.

Off_it

You're right Riviera.

I did some work with a charity once and they were spending millions on a new HQ building because their reserves were so high and the Charity Commission were giving them grief about it. To put it bluntly, they just didn't know what else to do with it.

Shocking really.

ShootersHillGuru

Picking up on Yorkshireaddicks post I agree that taxation should provide the mainstream revenue for many of the organisations that rely on their existence from charity alone. There are many many examples but the two most glaring in my opinion are the RNLI and the Air Ambulance services. It's astonishing that the main revenue streams for both of those 100% necessary organisations is by charitable means.

maybe_baby

I remember in the eighties Hamster rescue were dug out for having a few million in reserve. But then again, if you love hamsters that much, and it's your money...

Off_it

maybe_baby said:

I remember in the eighties Hamster rescue were dug out for having a few million in reserve. But then again, if you love hamsters that much, and it's your money...

Possibly, but if people knew these charities were sitting on millions then maybe they'd chose to give their hard earned to someone who needs it more.

A million pound will buy you a shed load of hamster wheels.

Off_it

I mean, have a look at this place .....

http://www.cats.org.uk/find-us/the-national-cat-centre/

Off_it

The Sally Army used to have a massive brand new HQ just the north side of the Millenium Bridge. I mean, why?

Whagt with that and their pointless uniforms, just think how much money was being spunked.

randy andy

Generally speaking the bigger the charity the smaller the percentage of your donation gets to who you thought you were donating to.

So giving to smaller charities, like demelza for example, is a better use of your charity donation.

PeanutsMolloy

Riviera said:

No doubting people's generosity, whether by donating or collecting but there must be room for some amalgamation between some of the big charities. Some of the large well known charities employ a lot of staff including some highly paid senior executives but seem to be collecting for the same cause. I don't want to overdo the cynicism because the good certainly out ways the bad but it seems to me that too much money collected is earmarked for keeping these huge charities going in their huge offices with their highly paid CEO's. Indeed I am far more likely to donate to a local collector representing a small charity than to one of the very well known ones.

Spot on Riviera.

Algarveaddick

Yorkshireaddick said:

There are those in other countries of course who would be aghast that the funding of things as important as mental health and autism support is reliant on street collections on a cold November day. They would expect the state to be funding this out of taxes. I'm not commenting on which is the better way but that attitude may reflect in why charitable donations are low in many countries in comparison.

By the same token, there are other countries not a million miles from where I sit at the moment where orphans, the disabled, those with mental problems, the ambulance and fire services are all funded solely by charitable donations.

Noss

Riviera said:

I don't want to overdo the cynicism because the good certainly out ways the bad but it seems to me that too much money collected is earmarked for keeping these huge charities going in their huge offices with their highly paid CEO's.

But surely a big organisation - whether in the public, private or charitable sector - needs good people at the top, and we can't seriously expect such people to take significantly sub-market rate salaries. For example, Cats Protection (I've picked them as someone brought them up earlier) had a turnover of £37m last year, have around 9,000 staff and volunteers, and about 100 premises. Their CEO earns £100-110k. Personally - as someone who donates to them - I think that's good value.

Vincenzo

Bournemouth Addick said:

There's a lot wrong with our country and our fellow Brits deserving of criticism but I have just read that Children In Need raised over £31m on Friday. This is on top of £30m donated to those poor people in the Philippines in the same week and at the end of the British Legion Poppy Appeal which itself raises around £40m.

I think it's amazing that, at a time when most of us are seeing our household incomes significantly reduced, we are still prepared to think of others and dig deep to do what we can to help. I've no idea whether the figures would substantiate this but my feeling is that per capita we must be up there as the most generous in the world.

Well done everyone!

Well said.

Off_it

Noss said:

Riviera said:

I don't want to overdo the cynicism because the good certainly out ways the bad but it seems to me that too much money collected is earmarked for keeping these huge charities going in their huge offices with their highly paid CEO's.

But surely a big organisation - whether in the public, private or charitable sector - needs good people at the top, and we can't seriously expect such people to take significantly sub-market rate salaries. For example, Cats Protection (I've picked them as someone brought them up earlier) had a turnover of £37m last year, have around 9,000 staff and volunteers, and about 100 premises. Their CEO earns £100-110k. Personally - as someone who donates to them - I think that's good value.

And how much did their "new" headquarters cost?

(I say new, but it's probably at least 5 years old now, maybe more.)

Off_it

Just read that Cats Protection lost over £11million in the Icelandic banking crisis and had to make 80 people redundant.

Having just spent millions on a new HQ.

Shocking financial mismanagment.

DaveMehmet

Off_it said:

Just read that Cats Protection lost over £11million in the Icelandic banking crisis and had to make 80 people redundant.

Having just spent millions on a new HQ.

Shocking financial mismanagment.

Obviously didn't take clarrie the cat's investment advice.

Noss

Off_it said:

Noss said:

Riviera said:

I don't want to overdo the cynicism because the good certainly out ways the bad but it seems to me that too much money collected is earmarked for keeping these huge charities going in their huge offices with their highly paid CEO's.

But surely a big organisation - whether in the public, private or charitable sector - needs good people at the top, and we can't seriously expect such people to take significantly sub-market rate salaries. For example, Cats Protection (I've picked them as someone brought them up earlier) had a turnover of £37m last year, have around 9,000 staff and volunteers, and about 100 premises. Their CEO earns £100-110k. Personally - as someone who donates to them - I think that's good value.

And how much did their "new" headquarters cost?

(I say new, but it's probably at least 5 years old now, maybe more.)

But why should a charity operate in a less professional manner than, say, a local authority, or a multi national organisation? Should they all operate out of portakabins on a trading estate in Slough?

Noss

Off_it said:

Just read that Cats Protection lost over £11million in the Icelandic banking crisis and had to make 80 people redundant.

Having just spent millions on a new HQ.

Shocking financial mismanagment.

That's probably because they weren't paying the market rate for their (now ex-)CFO!

Addickted

That's what's wrong with Charity in this Country - we get our priorities wrong.

£37m for Cats and how much for Demelza?

AFKABartram

Never great to look on charities in that way. Some things mean more to different people.

Similarly, not fair to compare a national charity with a local one. There are many 'Demelzas' around the country.

Noss

Addickted said:

That's what's wrong with Charity in this Country - we get our priorities wrong.

£37m for Cats and how much for Demelza?

Could you let us all know what our priories should be please? Would be most helpful. Thanks

Riviera

Noss said:

Riviera said:

I don't want to overdo the cynicism because the good certainly out ways the bad but it seems to me that too much money collected is earmarked for keeping these huge charities going in their huge offices with their highly paid CEO's.

But surely a big organisation - whether in the public, private or charitable sector - needs good people at the top, and we can't seriously expect such people to take significantly sub-market rate salaries. For example, Cats Protection (I've picked them as someone brought them up earlier) had a turnover of £37m last year, have around 9,000 staff and volunteers, and about 100 premises. Their CEO earns £100-110k. Personally - as someone who donates to them - I think that's good value.

But my main point is, and I didn't want to come across as uncaring, there are too many different Cancer Charities. Surely we are spreading the money donated to help find a cure and prevention, and support to all the people affected by this horrendous disease, too thinly?

Kap10

Riviera said:

Noss said:

Riviera said:

I don't want to overdo the cynicism because the good certainly out ways the bad but it seems to me that too much money collected is earmarked for keeping these huge charities going in their huge offices with their highly paid CEO's.

But surely a big organisation - whether in the public, private or charitable sector - needs good people at the top, and we can't seriously expect such people to take significantly sub-market rate salaries. For example, Cats Protection (I've picked them as someone brought them up earlier) had a turnover of £37m last year, have around 9,000 staff and volunteers, and about 100 premises. Their CEO earns £100-110k. Personally - as someone who donates to them - I think that's good value.

But my main point is, and I didn't want to come across as uncaring, there are too many different Cancer Charities. Surely we are spreading the money donated to help find a cure and prevention, and support to all the people affected by this horrendous disease, too thinly?

And not enough charities for dementia!

ShootersHillGuru

I have no problem with cats dogs and hamsters or tortoise charities for that matter. That's what the essence of charity is, people giving to causes they believe in. What I don't get is the human suffering that is allowed to continue because central government won't take responsibility for the welfare of its own citizens. Charities such as RNLI should not need to exist over and above a few cake sale afternoons.

Off_it

Noss said:

Off_it said:

Noss said:

Riviera said:

I don't want to overdo the cynicism because the good certainly out ways the bad but it seems to me that too much money collected is earmarked for keeping these huge charities going in their huge offices with their highly paid CEO's.

But surely a big organisation - whether in the public, private or charitable sector - needs good people at the top, and we can't seriously expect such people to take significantly sub-market rate salaries. For example, Cats Protection (I've picked them as someone brought them up earlier) had a turnover of £37m last year, have around 9,000 staff and volunteers, and about 100 premises. Their CEO earns £100-110k. Personally - as someone who donates to them - I think that's good value.

And how much did their "new" headquarters cost?

(I say new, but it's probably at least 5 years old now, maybe more.)

But why should a charity operate in a less professional manner than, say, a local authority, or a multi national organisation? Should they all operate out of portakabins on a trading estate in Slough?

No, not at all. But I would question the purchase and bespoke development of a 50 acre site at a cost of many millions of pounds.

Not my money though.

Noss

Off_it said:

Noss said:

Off_it said:

Noss said:

Riviera said:

I don't want to overdo the cynicism because the good certainly out ways the bad but it seems to me that too much money collected is earmarked for keeping these huge charities going in their huge offices with their highly paid CEO's.

But surely a big organisation - whether in the public, private or charitable sector - needs good people at the top, and we can't seriously expect such people to take significantly sub-market rate salaries. For example, Cats Protection (I've picked them as someone brought them up earlier) had a turnover of £37m last year, have around 9,000 staff and volunteers, and about 100 premises. Their CEO earns £100-110k. Personally - as someone who donates to them - I think that's good value.

And how much did their "new" headquarters cost?

(I say new, but it's probably at least 5 years old now, maybe more.)

But why should a charity operate in a less professional manner than, say, a local authority, or a multi national organisation? Should they all operate out of portakabins on a trading estate in Slough?

No, not at all. But I would question the purchase and bespoke development of a 50 acre site at a cost of many millions of pounds.

Not my money though.

Agreed, but all organisations in all sectors are prone to questionable business decisions, and charities probably have at least as much governance than the public and private sectors.