Comic Relief money invested in arms and tobacco shares

[!:random!:!]

Honestly, i wouldn't mind as long as the charities are up front with us... I mean don't we have the right to know where our money goes?

[AgnesIO]

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.

I totally agree that we should do small scale projects. If that is what you mean by local, then go for it; but I suspect your idea of local is England and England only. WaterAid, for example, does this brilliantly. WaterAid, by the way, spends 22p of every pound donated on fundraising and governance; if it never did this I think it would be a safe bet to assume it wouldn't be anything like as big as it is now.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I totally agree that we should do small scale projects. If that is what you mean by local, then go for it; but I suspect your idea of local is England and England only. WaterAid, for example, does this brilliantly. WaterAid, by the way, spends 22p of every pound donated on fundraising and governance; if it never did this I think it would be a safe bet to assume it wouldn't be anything like as big as it is now.

Well it makes even more sense to donate here in Britain as the rule still applies - plus personally i'd much rather help my fellow countrymen in need. But if people are doing to donate abroad, then yeah absolutely they should donate to schemes like the one you've outlined there rather than the typical charities like Comic Relief etc.

[AgnesIO]

Honestly, i wouldn't mind as long as the charities are up front with us... I mean don't we have the right to know where our money goes?

Yes. And if you had ever bothered to make a simple search on Google you could easily find this information out.

"Charity Commission guidelines require the trustees of a charity with broad objects like Comic Relief to maximise the amount of money its investments generate at the lowest appropriate risk."

Comic Relief investments made a profit of £4.6m between 2011 and 2012 (according to their financial report)

- - - Updated - - -

Well it makes even more sense to donate here in Britain as the rule still applies - plus personally i'd much rather help my fellow countrymen in need. But if people are doing to donate abroad, then yeah absolutely they should donate to schemes like the one you've outlined there rather than the typical charities like Comic Relief etc.

In which case I totally agree. My main point was simply that money going towards investments and management can be a necessity for a growth in a charity; not been a fan of Comic Relief for a while anyway - I much prefer charities such as WaterAid - just didn't want people in this thread to be outraged at the fact a charity is investing money - be outraged at the fact they invested in an arms firm, sure

[!:random!:!]

Yes. And if you had ever bothered to make a simple search on Google you could easily find this information out.

"Charity Commission guidelines require the trustees of a charity with broad objects like Comic Relief to maximise the amount of money its investments generate at the lowest appropriate risk."

Comic Relief investments made a profit of £4.6m between 2011 and 2012 (according to their financial report)

- - - Updated - - -



In which case I totally agree. My main point was simply that money going towards investments and management can be a necessity for a growth in a charity; not been a fan of Comic Relief for a while anyway - I much prefer charities such as WaterAid - just didn't want people in this thread to be outraged at the fact a charity is investing money - be outraged at the fact they invested in an arms firm, sure

Well thats fair enough but most people wouldn't know this if we are told to donate by text... it would be much better if we was told when the charity event was on... however i do see the point in there investing and aslong as they are using the money they make to fund charities then i am happy but i wish they would make there point across on tv as then many people would know

[AgnesIO]

Well thats fair enough but most people wouldn't know this if we are told to donate by text... it would be much better if we was told when the charity event was on... however i do see the point in there investing and aslong as they are using the money they make to fund charities then i am happy but i wish they would make there point across on tv as then many people would know

Doubt half the people who watch comic relief would understand the need for investments, nor what investing really is. They can hardly explain the entire process on tv, I hate to say it, but the population of Britain is not smart enough to fully understand it; heck I only really get the ins and outs at a basic level after studying this sort of thing for two years and watching hours of various talks..

[-Moniquee.]

Not surprised. So many of these charities would do bad stuff that we don't know about.

[GommeInc]

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.

Interestingly, charities need more volunteers than money these days - chucking money at a problem won't make it go away. It's strange, why these CEOs are allegedly sat behind their desks making money is beyond rational thought when they should be getting out there being busy. It's like having people with no expertise in education, finance or the military taking up high ranking/advisory roles in Government *glares at the Cabinet*

It's why I always ask if it's possible to volunteer for some charities, rather than chuck money at them. The only charities that require money to operate are ones that deal with research.

Honestly, i wouldn't mind as long as the charities are up front with us... I mean don't we have the right to know where our money goes?

It's interesting you say this. Comic Relief doesn't disclose their finances unlike other charities (Charity Commission UK - Government department dealing with charities). I believe Children In Need does disclose information, but they may break their funds into different charities. It is very dodgy, seeing as transparency is always called upon the BBC.

[AgnesIO]

Interestingly, charities need more volunteers than money these days - chucking money at a problem won't make it go away. It's strange, why these CEOs are allegedly sat behind their desks making money is beyond rational thought when they should be getting out there being busy. It's like having people with no expertise in education, finance or the military taking up high ranking/advisory roles in Government *glares at the Cabinet*

It's why I always ask if it's possible to volunteer for some charities, rather than chuck money at them. The only charities that require money to operate are ones that deal with research.


It's interesting you say this. Comic Relief doesn't disclose their finances unlike other charities (Charity Commission UK - Government department dealing with charities). I believe Children In Need does disclose information, but they may break their funds into different charities. It is very dodgy, seeing as transparency is always called upon the BBC.

But you also need someone who knows how to operate these volunteers; sure, have 10,000 volunteers - but you need guidance, not just 10000 people running around like loonies. Why would someone with an MBA from somewhere like Stanford work at a charity for $100,000 per year, when he could earn $300,000 per year, give more than $100,000 of that to the charity he supports and STILL make more money? You simply wouldn't. A charity however needs to be run with order, and people with experience if it is a huge charity - someone who can make big decisions, and lead the charity. I also firmly believe in volunteering, for the record.

Also, Comic Relief does have a financial report which gives some brief guidance on where their money is going, as quoted above.