Charity

[-:Undertaker:-]

Felt this for a while.

I'm all for people giving to charity - especially charities that operate in this country - and the more charity can do rather than the government the better.

But one thing I really can't stand that seems to have grown with social media is shouting from the rooftops that you've given to charity or silly "look at me" gimmicks. To me if you are going to give to charity, you ought to be humble about it as the act of giving isn't about you it is about the people you are giving money to..... so there's no need to advertise it all over your Facebook. There's a great section in the Bible about it.


So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full.

And call me boring or whatever but I honestly can't stand people doing all the runs, pouring buckets of water all over their heads and posting a zillion photographs of them running for charity. Why all the self-aggrandisement for the simple act of giving? I just find it all in really really bad taste.

I often wonder how many of the people doing all the above would still donate to charity if they were barred from telling a soul about it. Mmmmph.

Thoughts? Do you agree or completely disagree with me?

[Alkaz]

I support local charities, we used to have about 9 collection pots on the bar at work but I got rid of them because they were for Cancer Research, Macmillan etc. I kept the local childrens, local hospice and the Kent air ambulance pots on the bar. They're local and very worth while charities where I know the money we donate will make an actual difference to them, rather than paying the fat cats salaries.

Me and my sister are doing the shoebox thing this year, like you used to do at school. No ones made us do it but it's such a nice thing to do and costs nothing really. I know you're only impacting on a couple of peoples lives but its better than sitting there and bringing no one a tiny bit of joy at Christmas. It's the most selfless thing we could do at such an expensive, extravagant, excessive time of the year.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Alkaz; absolutely right about the smaller charities, I never give to any big charities like Children In Need as most of then are spending the money on huge salaries or are using the money to lobby political issues with political parties and governments. Sadly people seem to think big name charity = trustworthy which just isn't true.

[Alkaz]

@-:Undertaker:- (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=24233); I know, it's so sad. I mean just the amount some these charities spend on advertising alone would totally eclipse the funding other charities get in the entire year. At work we're always getting people ask us to donate to their charity fund raiser by donating vouchers for golf for them to raffle. Ones in aid of large charities I never respond to, other smaller ones where they're supporting charities that help with rare conditions or conditions that people have never heard of, then I am more than willing to offer the companies support to them and have even offered to host events for them free of charge.

I don't disagree with people donating to these large charities, the work they do is obviously also important. I just feel that my £5 would do a greater good else where.

[dbgtz]

Alkaz; absolutely right about the smaller charities, I never give to any big charities like Children In Need as most of then are spending the money on huge salaries or are using the money to lobby political issues with political parties and governments. Sadly people seem to think big name charity = trustworthy which just isn't true.

While I agree with the sentiment, Children in Need supposedly have a high percentage of charitable spending. (http://www.aliveandgiving.com/CharityDetails.aspx?id=171316&charityno=802052&name=THE%20BBC%20CHILDREN%20IN%20NEED%20APPEAL) Even so, I still only donate to local charities if I donate at all.

I very much do not like people who blow their own trumpet with charity. Whilst many people would argue those challenge things promote the cause, but from what I recall they weren't exactly unknown charities and most people just bought in the hype.

[FlyingJesus]

The point of big spectacles is to increase awareness and advertise the charity/cause, as well as getting more people involved because no-one is a saint who gives their all for nothing and we all like to feel good about what we do, and these events make people feel like they're really part of it. There's nothing wrong with anonymous donations of course, but there's similarly nothing wrong with public ones either. Where I do wobble on that is when charities set up sponsored events that require a minimum sponsorship because it pays for the event to take place - about a quarter of the money I raised abseiling off a cliff this year ended up going to the abseil activity company, which I didn't know beforehand and was not pleased about.

[AgnesIO]

@Alkaz (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=53791); absolutely right about the smaller charities, I never give to any big charities like Children In Need as most of then are spending the money on huge salaries or are using the money to lobby political issues with political parties and governments. Sadly people seem to think big name charity = trustworthy which just isn't true.

Why should an MBA graduate work for a pittance for a charity, when they can earn $300,000 in Silicon Valley? Charities need to be run like businesses if they are to continue to grow, and to do that you need the best staff. Having said that, charities too often become too big for their own good.

---

Also, you do realise that people do these runs to gain sponsorship, not for their own egos? If you think that when I have done runs in the past and advertised it that it's because I want people to say well done, you are so, so wrong. I can spend £100 on race entry and gear, and then get £1000 in sponsorship. I could maybe have only given £200 of my own money - therefore it was five times more lucrative to do the run.

Acts like the 'Ice Bucket Challenge' were a joke though, particularly as so many people seemingly forgot to do the 'giving' bit.

[FlyingJesus]

Problem with the ice bucket challenge was that it started as "donate to the charity OR you have to dunk yourself with ice water as a forfeit" so it really was an either/or situation. They still managed to do brilliantly out of it though, just perhaps not as well as they could have :P

[-:Undertaker:-]

conservative; but why do I have to sponsor you in order to give to charity? And why must it be plastered all over social media.

As for big charities, I get what you are saying but that just proves how small charities are the best really. It's much better to donate to the local old folks club than Age UK as the money will be spent more wisely and closer to the cause rather than on salaries for graduates. Or much worse, lobbying governments for political causes.

[AgnesIO]

@conservative (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=36885); but why do I have to sponsor you in order to give to charity? And why must it be plastered all over social media.

As for big charities, I get what you are saying but that just proves how small charities are the best really. It's much better to donate to the local old folks club than Age UK as the money will be spent more wisely and closer to the cause rather than on salaries for graduates. Or much worse, lobbying governments for political causes.

Because Social Media is undoubtedly the best way to gain coverage in the modern world. Don't worry, I hate that fact - but unfortunately it is true. By sponsoring me you are giving money to the cause I believe in - in fact, when I've approached businesses in the past, often their first question is 'what event are you doing in return? A run?' - when I once said I am just looking for support for the charity they were no longer interested.

Large charities have their place, as do small charities. As someone who is involved in smaller non-profits, I definitely believe they have the greatest impact directly for beneficiaries. However, finding the cure for dementia? Well, we wouldn't stand a chance.

[Kyle]

Social media is for spreading the word, not ego-boosting. The more people that know about the event (and thus the charity), the larger to pool of potential donators becomes.