In no way is this a criticism of the Save the Children Fund, who I'm sure do a wonderful job, it's more a moment of reflection on those who run it.
Amongst its goodness knows how many paid employees, the Save the Children Fund has six that are paid over £140,000. Included amongst these is ex-advisor to Tony Blair, Justin Forsyth, who is the fund's Chief Executive (no surprise there!)
Whilst watching a TV ad' recently (asking me to pledge £2 a month), I did a wee calculation.
£2 a month = £24 per annum. Six employees at £140,000 = £840,000 per annum. Therefore it would take THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND contributors at £2 per month to pay just these six people's salaries alone. And we're talking here of just a few of the very highest earners.
So, if you are one of those THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND contributors, do remember that you are paying for several privileged lifestyles before any of those desperately sick children see a single penny of your money.
With so many intelligent and able retirees around, wouldn't you have thought that half a dozen unpaid 'volunteers' could fill their places? An extra £840,000 in the Fund's coffers each year could do a lot of good, and I'm sure The Queen would see that all the volunteers received a decent gong.
I completely agree, Cro. No one should be getting rich working for a relief organization. :(
ReplyDeleteTotally agree with you, Cro.
ReplyDeleteAnd what about the queen wasting incredible amounts of money for useless things, she could make an effort and give an example. If you start as you did in your post we will find a million reasons never to do anything and stay in our little selfish comfort.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I will say for you Mr or Ms Miller, is that you are consistent; unfortunately you are consistently moronic. HM The Queen generates a huge amount of money for the country, and employs a huge amount of people... Could you tell me how YOU compare on both counts?
Deletethat's your point of view , we know how much she spends for her personal comfort. You British are a bit schizophrenic, complaining about many things but cherishing a queen.who is just a representative symbol. For sure the money she spends to maintain her castles and residences is a great benefit for the british nation, I suppose the common folks come over there to have a nice week end or vacation.
DeleteHM The Queen is now 302nd in the UK Rich List... why are you not bitching over the other 301?
DeleteHM costs us nothing. The country receives several hundred million a year from the Crown Estate the Royals get some 50 million to run the lot apart from Charles and his boys. Charles gets his from the Duchy of Cornwall, the worlds oldest trust, on which he pays millions in tax, employs a thousand people and raises huge amounts in VAT.
DeleteIf Ms Miller wishs to recind the agreement then she should bear in mind that then all tax raising powers, law making and control of both the military and police revert to HM. The complexity of the matter is why politicians want to leave it well alone.
The Queen is not a representative symbol she is also a restraint on the powers of politicians and prime minister something Americans seemingly lack with presidents.
Thank you! Maybe she'll believe it from someone else; although I doubt it.
DeleteYou are so right Cro.
ReplyDeleteYes, the reason I refuse to donate to these charities, I wonder how many other people feel the same way?
ReplyDeleteCharities are big businesses and run as such. I don't think it would be possible to run Unicef or Save the Children with a bunch of retired volunteers. These charities are massive organisations. Maybe it would help if they were more open about how donations are broken down, where the money goes.
ReplyDeleteThey are big businesses indeed but i do hope that they also help the children, (and i still wonder how do you get the ideas about what to write on your daily posts:).
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe info is all openly available to everyone.
DeleteAlden, World Vision financial reports are available freely online and I am sure they would encourage you to view them. In the financial year ended 30/6/14 World Vision raised over $325m in income....yes, $325m. It is an amazing organisation that is exceptionally successful in its reach. 25% of that income was expensed in fundraising, accounting and governance requirements. I am very sure that in that mix is a number of key executives and senior staff earning the equivalent of Mr Forsyth's salary. The very fact that you know of World Vision, that you are aware of the work they do, and that you remain engaged and educated in their mission is testament to the brand, the business model and the professionalism of the organisation. I sincerely hope that you do not reconsider your essential donation to this organisation because of the thread of Mr Magnon's post. That, in my opinion, would be a real loss.
DeleteI would hate anyone to curtail their charitable donations, but at the same time would encourage them to check their financial distributions. I certainly have done with the charities to which I subscribe!
DeleteI totally agree with you Cro. I prefer to only give money to much smaller/local organisations where most of it will hit the target. Having said that, I always give a decent amount to " Shelterbox" when they email me after a tragedy such as the Nepal earthquake. They provide a large tent, and everything a family needs to survive….even things for children to play with I believe. I also do a shift at our Oxfam bookshop, but that is mainly for something to do, and I missed meeting the public after retiring from my bank job!! ( Lots of great books to browse too. )
ReplyDeleteI am in total agreement Cro. I give my charitable donation each month to Great Ormond Street Hospital, who are building a new block to house parents of terminally ill children, so that they can stay near their children. I also give to the desperate plight of children in Syria (their plight doesn;t bear thinking about).
ReplyDeleteBut as for the large charities - if you read Patrick Leigh Fermor's books on travelling through poor countries you will find out how often he would like a lift from a to be, when there is no transport. Some poor man with a clapped out vehicle, or a donkey cart, will stop for him, but never the big, white, new land cruisers of the large charities.
We must all have our point of view - Sara has hers - and Rachel is right in that we need someone who knows what they are doing in charge - but there could be a happy medium and it is not so at the moment.
My suggestion of using retirees is only a discussion point. Even so, I very much doubt if the people at the very top are those who do the most work.
DeleteSorry Cro, something went wrong mid post - it should read 'so often he would like a lift from a passing vehicle'.
ReplyDeleteGremlins or slippery fingers on my computer I am afraid.
I knew what you meant!
DeleteI have to say that I wish such waste were confined to the upper reaches but it is not. I have witnessed the 'ground troops' so to speak billeted in the areas finest hotels and pulling four hour days. In six weeks in Sierra Leone one well was sunk despite having state of the art equipment. Meanwhile the Royal Engineers had sunk 13 along with their other duties. Being short of pipe for the well casings the Royal Engineers, very inventive chaps that they are, made some up on site. They also built a school and, with the aid of a contingent of Paras, dealt rather finally with the local gangsters whose presence was as detrimental to the local people as the lack of infrastructure!
ReplyDeleteMost big charities now benefit their 'paid volunteers' more than they do the supposed recipients!
I recently heard an African hotelier saying that you always knew who worked for a 'charity', because they invariably asked for a much higher final bill, so they could then claim it back on expenses
DeleteI can't say I agree on this one Cro. I work in a cancer charity in Australia. We have board members who freely give their time for no remuneration and an army of volunteers who pack and post to our donors. However, we are a very professionally run organisation employing industry professionals to run and manager our organisation so that our message of cancer education, prevention and services pervades the community. The idea of retired volunteers taking the place of paid senior management is unfeasible and unprofessional and shows a two-dimensional understanding of how major charities are operated. To reach the most people, to benefit the greatest number of recipients, is as much a balance of product, brand awareness and of donor experience as in any 'for profit' enterprise. I think your idea is outdated.
ReplyDeleteI was only pointing out how many people are needed to contribute their £2 per month, just to pay for their 6 highest paid employees.
DeleteYes, but it is narrowness of the comment that feeds people like Cumbrian above not to make a donation at all, just in case someone somewhere in the organisation is earning a half decent salary. It is a counterproductive argument. Sorry, it just touches a bit of a raw nerve with me. The amount of people who believe that charities are only worthy if there are no administrative costs, and no competitively paid employees and management, etc. I'll climb off my soapbox now. Back to fighting cancer.
DeleteSumsInTheSun, I do hope your standing with Cro Mag is such that you won't immediately join his corps of "morons" and "idiots" as anyone does who doesn't agree with him will, anyone who may question his take on a subject.
DeleteIf I could give you a thousand recommends for your comment I would. Unfortunately, as you say, a lot of people's take is "two dimensional", not understanding the logistics of aid.. At its most basic I'd like to say to those who want their donation "go direct" to the recipient: Why not take a plane, find yourself a person in whatever need, give them your two pounds, take in the sights and fly back home. It's so naive. And the very same people will not question that a large chunk they pay for, say, their car will go towards conception, implementation, advertising, admin, maybe a worker or two ... and not just the actual value of a pile of metal and a motor they'll drive home in.
When my son graduated from college he took one of the toughest jobs imaginable. Namely, knocking at doors enticing people (with long driveways) to part with some of their money. He doesn't do hardsell. He is an Angel by looks, and by nature. Neither is he a fool. He made various charities thousands and thousands of pounds. He himself got paid £7.00/hr, come sunshine or rain. And then someone had the gall to tell me he shouldn't be paid for doing "charity work". Oh dear. Yes. Whatever. I am sure these same people don't expect their doctors to take them apart and put them together again for nothing.
It's a big big subject, so very misunderstood.. I wish you all the best with your own endeavours.
U
Good to see you joining in, Bitch.
DeleteDon't even get me started on how much money Oxfam waste of top end staff!
ReplyDeleteThere are millions upon millions of charities out there and the ones that get the most attention are the ones run by professionals who are able to get the message out there to the public. It takes money to make money. It is always wise to investigate what percentage of the money is used for administration and how much goes to those being served by the charity.
ReplyDeleteSumsln The Sun seems not to agree with you and your answer is just funny.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who donates to charities should check out what percentage goes to the actual cause. I prefer to donate to animal charities. And, many of us Yankees are anglophiles and dearly love the Queen and the monarchy.
ReplyDeleteHope the queen loves you too. Monarchy should be over.we need another kind of French Revolution.
DeleteWhich families would you allow to stay alive? Those up to a certain social-rank I imagine . Or would your cull be based on wealth?
DeleteI was going to jump on the band wagon but enough has been said, so will go back to writing my charity checks of choice. I dearly love it when you get the fire going so brilliantly old boy, well done.
ReplyDeleteCan you hear me chuckling?
DeleteVous êtes un provocateur , certains vous jugent brilliant, je pense plutôt.que vous vous emmerdez dans votre campagne et cherchez la bagarre via votre blog.
DeleteHave you only just realised that?
DeleteI never donate money to anything. Time yes, money no.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThank you everyone for your comments... another provocative subject.
ReplyDeleteI was very impressed by a kiwi currently volunteering at orphanages in Nepal who is accepting direct donations that he is immediately spending on food and supplies for the kids in his care. You can't get more cost effective than that! When the Chch earthquake happened, we used our contacts there to ensure every bit of aid provided went to someone who needed it. I much prefer to cut out as many middle people as possible, where possible. That said, I do support such a charity to the immense tune of $30 a month, about 15 quid in your money, which disappears out of my account and that's it. I stopped contributing to the NZ Red Cross though because they used an Australian based call centre - given one of their areas is employment it really pissed me off.
ReplyDelete