Comic Relief money invested in arms and tobacco shares

[-:Undertaker:-]

And that's what I don't donate to foreign causes - as I said (amid much denial) money is best spent locally.

Always has been, always will be.

[FlyingJesus]

Investing in financially safe stocks isn't the same as funding those industries btw

[AgnesIO]

Thats bang out of order! We used to raise money for Comic Relief in Primary School and I hate to say it, but I wish I didn't now!

what the actual... how dare they we raise that money for people that don't have it and need it we trust them to give our money to these people but now they have betrayed our trust and done this how dare they! i hope they will suffer regret for taking money away from those that most need it !!!!!!!!!!!!

And that's what I don't donate to foreign causes - as I said (amid much denial) money is best spent locally.

Always has been, always will be.

You'll be pleased to know that Comic Relief is involved in over 1900 projects in the UK then

--

Anyway, in response to all THREE posts that I have quoted, whilst it is obviously a poor social decision to fund such controversial industries (both of which are likely to damage the lives of many people abroad), people should NOT be surprised or outraged and charities making investments.

The way we look at charity is so wrong, as an excellent TED talk discussed. People hate it when charity CEO's get huge salaries; but do people expect them to work for free? If a charity wants to help as much as possible, investments (made by experts) can definitely be a good thing - money almost always needs to be spent to make more money.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The way we look at charity is so wrong, as an excellent TED talk discussed. People hate it when charity CEO's get huge salaries; but do people expect them to work for free? If a charity wants to help as much as possible, investments (made by experts) can definitely be a good thing - money almost always needs to be spent to make more money.

Which is exactly my point about donating the money as close to the source as possible. For example, in a pub for a friends birthday a few years back a woman came round asking for donations for a local bus that took old people out and about for the day. In doing this, it was an act of charity (most likely free on her behalf) and meant that all the money went directly to the good cause rather than on the salaries of CEOs.

That's the way we ought to start looking at charity. Localism.

[AgnesIO]

Which is exactly my point about donating the money as close to the source as possible. For example, in a pub for a friends birthday a few years back a woman came round asking for donations for a local bus that took old people out and about for the day. In doing this, it was an act of charity (most likely free on her behalf) and meant that all the money went directly to the good cause rather than on the salaries of CEOs.

That's the way we ought to start looking at charity. Localism.

No, paying a CEO makes sense. Sure, you can do small work, just like you can run a small business. However, if you want to extend your reach and help more people (whether it be in your own country or abroad), you need the best business brains. You also need to invest the £10 you earned, to aim to make it £20. Whether you do that via business investments, or by an advert - it makes sense to do it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No, paying a CEO makes sense. Sure, you can do small work, just like you can run a small business. However, if you want to extend your reach and help more people (whether it be in your own country or abroad), you need the best business brains. You also need to invest the £10 you earned, to aim to make it £20. Whether you do that via business investments, or by an advert - it makes sense to do it.

Yes but you are not getting what I am saying. I am saying that it is more efficent for your donation to get to the source if you donate locally rather than internationally or even nationally.

Cut out the middle man and just donate straight to the (local) source, then virtually every penny is being used. The same applies when the money is actually spent too - a local Church will know better how to spend the money and use it more wisely than an international charity will on the other side of the world.

[AgnesIO]

Yes but you are not getting what I am saying. I am saying that it is more efficent for your donation to get to the source if you donate locally rather than internationally or even nationally.

Cut out the middle man and just donate straight to the (local) source, then virtually every penny is being used.

Which is all well and good if you believe the local pensioners minibus is a primary concern in ones life. For me, whilst it is a noble cause, it really isn't up in my list of priorities.

Add the middle man, make an investment, buy 10 minibuses.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Which is all well and good if you believe the local pensioners minibus is a primary concern in ones life. For me, whilst it is a noble cause, it really isn't up in my list of priorities.

It's called an example.

Add the middle man, make an investment, buy 10 minibuses.

Whereas 12 minibuses could have been bought without the middle man. No idea why you're arguing with this, it's a pretty standard economic rule that money spent closer to where it is raised is more efficent - that's why there is increasing debate across the western world concerning tax and spending powers & where they are allocated, ie what level of government should have those powers.

[AgnesIO]

It's called an example.



Whereas 12 minibuses could have been bought without the middle man. No idea why you're arguing with this, it's a pretty standard economic rule that money spent closer to where it is raised is more efficent - that's why there is increasing debate across the western world concerning tax and spending powers & where they are allocated, ie what level of government should have those powers.

Name charities that you have heard of. How many of these operate on a small, local scale without management on big salaries? Sure, you can help 5 people locally, but some people have big ambitions and want to help 5 million people internationally; I know which of the two I'd pick, and if you asked whether people wanted to help 5 locals, or 5 million I reckon the overwhelming majority would pick 5 million.

Of course, you are right about the basic economics; but you can only help so many people if you keep everything local.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Name charities that you have heard of. How many of these operate on a small, local scale without management on big salaries? Sure, you can help 5 people locally, but some people have big ambitions and want to help 5 million people internationally; I know which of the two I'd pick, and if you asked whether people wanted to help 5 locals, or 5 million I reckon the overwhelming majority would pick 5 million.

Of course, you are right about the basic economics; but you can only help so many people if you keep everything local.

There are a lot of charities that operate on a local basis, the local Church will donate funds to certain sectors of the community and so on - just because it doesn't have Angelina Jolie and Bono bleating on the television doesn't mean they're useless or don't exist.

For the rest, it's doesn't work like that. Who said those 5 million people should all be helped in one go? Indeed, I would argue that it is near impossible for a group of individuals in one charity to help 5 million people without there being a lot of waste and the misallocation of funding.

The question you should be asking, again, is whether those 5 million people in need can be helped locally - ie, instead of building a dam in Africa that is estimated to help 5 million people, why not focus on far more local projects such as a water pump for a village or paying for basic tools so that locals in villages can dig their own drainage systems? Or make it even more local and send the tools yourself to a certain village.

It's not elaborate, it doesn't result in feel-good celebrations - but it works best.