Colourful Life

[Ant7t]

Just a throw away comment. If, as it seems Gemporia is going downhill 'fast', where does its charity stand? Don't often hear about it now, well, not as much as it used to be talked about.

 

[TheManWithNoName]

I can't imagine they're giving much money away when they've been struggling themselves.

As you say, they don't seem to mention it much these days.

 

[AndyW]

Whatever you might think of the Bennetts, this aspect is still admirable. The Foundation seems to be still in existence. From memory, it was pretty arms-length from TGGC (as you'd expect) and used to include drivers such as Richard Branson. I still have a leather, mainly plastic bead bracelet from donkeys years ago, with which Steve came on air to raise money.

 

[TheManWithNoName]

Whatever you might think of the Bennetts, this aspect is still admirable. The Foundation seems to be still in existence. From memory, it was pretty arms-length from TGGC (as you'd expect) and used to include drivers such as Richard Branson. I still have a leather, mainly plastic bead bracelet from donkeys years ago, with which Steve came on air to raise money.

I agree that its admirable to a degree - but I don't like the way that its dressed up as done solely out of the goodness of their hearts.

A lot of huge companies have charities on the side because they get tax incentives for doing it.

So the end result is nearly always because of the financial advantages of their business - rather than doing it for the goodness of helping those in need.

I'd also be intrigued to know if any salaries are drawn from the Colourful Life foundation. I suspect that SB and RB don't take any salaries - but a lot of other 'charities' have parasites running them that earn ludicrous amounts of money. The British Heart Foundation director for examples earns a reported £99,000 per year.

 

[AndyW]

I agree that its admirable to a degree - but I don't like the way that its dressed up as done solely out of the goodness of their hearts.

A lot of huge companies have charities on the side because they get tax incentives for doing it.

So the end result is nearly always because of the financial advantages of their business - rather than doing it for the goodness of helping those in need.

I'd also be intrigued to know if any salaries are drawn from the Colourful Life foundation. I suspect that SB and RB don't take any salaries - but a lot of other 'charities' have parasites running them that earn ludicrous amounts of money. The British Heart Foundation director for examples earns a reported £99,000 per year.

You're pushing on an open door there. I'm of the generation who was raised with the Edwardian notion of what is a "charity". That truly doesn't exist anymore.

Everyone has their own bogeymen but, in the sense of being nothing close to what their founders started, the RSPCA is one of mine. Most medical charities are just tax-efficient vehicles of billion dollar pharmaceutical companies. As you suggest with the BHF, once you set aside the appeal to your emotions and basic humanity, what is left except a commercial enterprise?

Whichever cause gets you going, you just have to choose carefully and research just a little before instinct takes over in a response to a very carefully crafted appeal (or advert actually).

 

[iamafterhours]

It's the Steve Bennett foundation now I think

 

[Battiola73]

I was told back in the 1960s about monies donated to a very large, well known charity. Only 6d (2.5p) out of every £1 was actually given to their cause. The rest in Admin and salaries. What gets me these days is the massive salaries given to senior staff at national charities against all the goodly souls that fundraiser and work in aforementioned charity shops. I give to two local charities where I know that only a small percentage is used for admin and costs incurred.

 

[Ant7t]

goodly souls that fundraiser and work in aforementioned charity shops

And most of those are volunteers too.

 

[AndyW]

I was told back in the 1960s about monies donated to a very large, well known charity. Only 6d (2.5p) out of every £1 was actually given to their cause. The rest in Admin and salaries.

About twenty years ago, I was told that there was a view (in one of the larger, older charities) that a fundraising campaign that netted £0.01 for every £1.00 donated was worthwhile. Isn't this akin to what the American judicial system calls "Noble Corruption"? I'm not sure in how many other walks of life it would be acceptable to net £10,000 from £1,000,00, with the rest written off as costs.

 

[Ant7t]

£0.01 for every £1.00 donated was worthwhile

If that still be true, it'd be just as easy to drop a penny on the floor and hope a worthy soul picked it up. Just as charitable, if not more so. At least you'd see where it went.

 

[TheManWithNoName]

Charities are a scam.

 

[AndyW]

Charities are a scam.

Totally dispassionately, I think that is correct. The similarities are there, right down to the manipulation of your emotions. Like tolerating a loved one's quirks that you wouldn't put up with in anyone else, you just have to pick your own scams carefully.

 

[TheManWithNoName]

Totally dispassionately, I think that is correct. The similarities are there, right down to the manipulation of your emotions. Like tolerating a loved one's quirks that you wouldn't put up with in anyone else, you just have to pick your own scams carefully.

Charities boil my blood. The people at the bottom, the do the actual hard work are often volunteers, or, at best, if they're really lucky, minimum wage workers.

The people at the top, the CEO's, are rinsing these charities for 6 figure salaries - whilst the actual money paid out to the causes, the very people they were set up to supposedly serve, get a fraction of the 'charities' money.

They want everything for nothing (i'll often see Facebook posts from X charity saying "We need a new fence - but we're a charity - can someone do it for free or 'mates rates' if we give you tea and biscuits and a shout out on our website?") - yet they'll happily pay thousands of pounds for a Z list celebrity to appear on their constantly-playing TV adverts.

Some of the fees celebrities charge 'charities' for appearance fees is eye-watering.

People think they're all doing it for free - but in reality, only the grafters are volunteering for free. Everyone else in the chain, apart from the 'causes', are actually earning some pretty decent money from it all.

Legal robbery. I wonder how many politicians (especially Tories) have charities set up.....................