Christmas Charity Fundraiser 2013: YOUR suggestions

[Jurv]

drop4drop - www.drop4drop.org.uk

THERE'S NO REASON NOT TO

Show Hide

[AgnesIO]

So people in Britain should not get charity because others need it 'more'?

Well, if I had £10 and knew that I could a) give £10 to a charity who would be able to buy 10 bottles of water with it, or b) give £10 to a charity, where £3 may be siphoned off leaving £7 which would buy 70 bottles of water for people who need it far more urgently, I personally know where my money would go.

I am not saying British people should not get charity, as someone who has given fairly sizeable sums of money to British charities I don't want you to imply otherwise; however I would argue the people in the Philippines need help far more urgently than the vast majority of those in the UK right now.

[Kardan]

So people in Britain should not get charity because others need it 'more'?

How you took 'People in Britain should not get charity' from that quote, I don't know. He's simply suggesting that there are more people in need of money outside the UK, than inside the UK.

[Aiden]

Well, if I had £10 and knew that I could a) give £10 to a charity who would be able to buy 10 bottles of water with it, or b) give £10 to a charity, where £3 may be siphoned off leaving £7 which would buy 70 bottles of water for people who need it far more urgently, I personally know where my money would go.

I am not saying British people should not get charity, as someone who has given fairly sizeable sums of money to British charities I don't want you to imply otherwise; however I would argue the people in the Philippines need help far more urgently than the vast majority of those in the UK right now.

I see what you mean but I don't think it matters if they need it more. If they need it at all then they should get it.

How you took 'People in Britain should not get charity' from that quote, I don't know. He's simply suggesting that there are more people in need of money outside the UK, than inside the UK.

It makes sense to me.

[Kardan]

I see what you mean but I don't think it matters if they need it more. If they need it at all then they should get it.



It makes sense to me.

Ahh, so saying there are more straight people in the UK than gay people means there are no gay people at all then? :S

[Aiden]

Ahh, so saying there are more straight people in the UK than gay people means there are no gay people at all then? :S

I don't understand what you're getting at?

[Kardan]

I don't understand what you're getting at?

Payasam's logic was that there are more people outside the UK that need money than inside the UK. He didn't say that British charities should not get money. But you seem to think he did.

[Aiden]

Payasam's logic was that there are more people outside the UK that need money than inside the UK. He didn't say that British charities should not get money. But you seem to think he did.

I don't think that, I think he thinks thats non-UK charities should get more donations because they are more of them. I personally think British charities should get equal, if not more donations because how can we expect to help others if we cant help ourselves.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I think it could also be argued (and my personal argument is) the majority of the time, the people in certain other countries are far more desperate than the majority of the people in the UK.

Indeed, but it depends entirely on whether the money you are donating is getting the value. Often with overseas projects, the money is spent on executive pay/transport/fuel etc meaning the entire sum of what Habbox donates to an overseas charity could just go towards the salary of the top executive in the charity.

The best charities, as proven time and time again, are small locally driven projects - whether it's a local bus taking old age pensioners who are lonely on day trips, a sum of £200 odd would help fill their budget. Sure it doesn't sound glam and might not give you the same "im saving the world" feeling but it's the most practical especially with smaller sums.

The same can even be said with overseas - if we are to give overseas, then don't pick a disaster relief fund or a nation-wide vague charity. Instead, pick something that will locally benefit a small village such as a fund towards providing a water pump to a village in Ghana or providing shelter to children in Somalia. Again, I still think projects at home are better and you get more value for money but if people on here do want to help a foreign cause then pick something small scale and make a difference rather than throw it on a big and often wasteful cause where you won't see much benefit and it certainly won't be long term (ie, disaster relief).

[AgnesIO]

I see what you mean but I don't think it matters if they need it more. If they need it at all then they should get it.



It makes sense to me.

Hugely confused at what you are saying here.

Surely if someone needs something more than someone else, it is not unreasonable to suggest that they should maybe get it?

- - - Updated - - -

Indeed, but it depends entirely on whether the money you are donating is getting the value. Often with overseas projects, the money is spent on executive pay/transport/fuel etc meaning the entire sum of what Habbox donates to an overseas charity could just go towards the salary of the top executive in the charity.

The best charities, as proven time and time again, are small locally driven projects - whether it's a local bus taking old age pensioners who are lonely on day trips, a sum of £200 odd would help fill their budget. Sure it doesn't sound glam and might not give you the same "im saving the world" feeling but it's the most practical especially with smaller sums.

There are many small locally driven projects in other countries (ie. that avoid the MNC-esque management hierarchy), which are perfectly good to give money too. Also, massive charities need incredibly smart businessmen to make the most of their money.

I saw an interesting TED talk not so long ago. It basically looked at how people cannot see value in a charity that doesn't give money straight to the cause. For example, many people look at it and think "oh they have an advert, they are not spending their money wisely". But what if that advert in the long term, brings in far more money than the donations they spent on it? If a charity wants to grow and have a wider scope, sometimes it may have to had administration fees etc.