comic relief- who pays?
Discussion
i was watching the little britain comic relief dvd last night, and there is this whole section about giving and various famous people visiting africa and preaching about how we all have to give, good, excellent, we all agree charity is a good thing.
my question is this, when the celebd fly out to africa, who pays? do they or is it comic relief, if it's comic relief, do they fly cattle class and stay in a cheap hotel? I may be doing them an injustice, but i suspect comic relief pays, surely if they are so keen on charity, they should pay, or is it only the little people that pay?
my question is this, when the celebd fly out to africa, who pays? do they or is it comic relief, if it's comic relief, do they fly cattle class and stay in a cheap hotel? I may be doing them an injustice, but i suspect comic relief pays, surely if they are so keen on charity, they should pay, or is it only the little people that pay?
I don't know about comic Relief, but I do know charities have a marketing budget to pay the expenses for things like this (not peoples time, thats always given free).
It is worth them doing it as it increases awareness and gets more money in for the charity.
Whats not worth it is when a charity goes to a conference centre to give themselves a pat on the back for doing such good work and then runs up a bar bill paid for by the charity of £15,000.
It is worth them doing it as it increases awareness and gets more money in for the charity.
Whats not worth it is when a charity goes to a conference centre to give themselves a pat on the back for doing such good work and then runs up a bar bill paid for by the charity of £15,000.
The more honourable celebrities pay for the trips themselves. I think the Bob Geldofs of the Biz genuinely care and want to put something back into humanity.
You can't help but feel that a number of celebs want to get in on the act to boost a flagging career, and I am sure that they are sent in a comfortable manner to highlight the charity's efforts as part of the marketing costs.
When you look at how much of a big charity's incomings actually reaches the intended course it is scary - well under 50%, the only beneficiaries seem to be advertising companies and the media.
You can't help but feel that a number of celebs want to get in on the act to boost a flagging career, and I am sure that they are sent in a comfortable manner to highlight the charity's efforts as part of the marketing costs.
When you look at how much of a big charity's incomings actually reaches the intended course it is scary - well under 50%, the only beneficiaries seem to be advertising companies and the media.
Went to a charities office in north London to look at some refurb work a while back and was shocked at the amount of money being thrown away on pointless items in the specification (like £350.00 a throw for the door leaves for the offices, when you can pay £45 for a door leaf).
Total cost for the refurb (to a pointlessly high specification)was over £200k. We could have carried out the works for half of that.
Quite an eye opener.
Total cost for the refurb (to a pointlessly high specification)was over £200k. We could have carried out the works for half of that.
Quite an eye opener.
I think the bottom line is to realise nobody's perfect and when it comes to money everybody has the capacity to be bought out for impure motives or due to unaltruistic propensities.
Does this make it wrong? It could be better, of course, but the fact that charities exist and that human goodwill actually thrives is something to be celebrated, regardless of the ancillaries of how that goodwill may be better practiced.
Does this make it wrong? It could be better, of course, but the fact that charities exist and that human goodwill actually thrives is something to be celebrated, regardless of the ancillaries of how that goodwill may be better practiced.
I understood that some charities do pay Celebs to appear to get others to appear for free and thereafter for punters to stump up for seats and tables.
I had concerns that people earning mega bucks, and lets face it promoting their own careers, might be taking 'expenses' above and beyond what I would hope. For example I wouldn't expect to pay travel costs or for hangers on to be there, limo transport etc on but would expect to pay any reasonable local taxi and hotel costs if they had to stay overnight. Those costs must be tax deductable for celebs anyway?
Love to see some of them 'outted' for their expense claims!
I had concerns that people earning mega bucks, and lets face it promoting their own careers, might be taking 'expenses' above and beyond what I would hope. For example I wouldn't expect to pay travel costs or for hangers on to be there, limo transport etc on but would expect to pay any reasonable local taxi and hotel costs if they had to stay overnight. Those costs must be tax deductable for celebs anyway?
Love to see some of them 'outted' for their expense claims!
whats the law on starting a ltd company and collecting charitable donations to supposedly pass onto real charitys and keeping 80% of money collected through dividends or a high wage? this was on watchdog not long ago. does the law change if you are a registered charity?
whats to stop you getting the office done up and ordering too much raw materials and then flogging it for cash down the market?
I think the concept of charity in the UK is a criminals nervana.
whats to stop you getting the office done up and ordering too much raw materials and then flogging it for cash down the market?
I think the concept of charity in the UK is a criminals nervana.
Through my job, I work with many national & international charities and I can vouch that many of their offices are not lavishly kitted out nor are the staff paid going rates for roles virtually the same in commercial companies. Not For Profit is exactly that.
Charities do invest money to get a bigger return on the original income, in order to spend more on the work they do.
Did anyone see the Orphans of Nkandla film ?(shown months ago on tv, but also last night as part of Comic Relief). As a business, we have been supporting this area for months - fundraising and wiring the money over. Having met the programme makers, they did not stay in nice accommodation, and being directly in touch with the area and where our donations have gone in detail does make a difference. It is saving lives.
All donations to charities do make a difference, even though a percentage is needed for admin, overheads, etc. Working closely with the same charities for over 4 years, I see the good work they do and the progress they have made both in the UK and abroad.
Money spent on public awareness through celebs to generate income may not be seen in a good light, but the return on that investment makes it worthwhile.
Charities do invest money to get a bigger return on the original income, in order to spend more on the work they do.
Did anyone see the Orphans of Nkandla film ?(shown months ago on tv, but also last night as part of Comic Relief). As a business, we have been supporting this area for months - fundraising and wiring the money over. Having met the programme makers, they did not stay in nice accommodation, and being directly in touch with the area and where our donations have gone in detail does make a difference. It is saving lives.
All donations to charities do make a difference, even though a percentage is needed for admin, overheads, etc. Working closely with the same charities for over 4 years, I see the good work they do and the progress they have made both in the UK and abroad.
Money spent on public awareness through celebs to generate income may not be seen in a good light, but the return on that investment makes it worthwhile.
Was that orphan program the one about aids? If so, the only conclusion I could come to other than it being very sad, is that throwing massive amounts of money at aids treatment won't solve the problem, educating them about sex and sorting out the way their culture treats women might...
DanH said:
Was that orphan program the one about aids? If so, the only conclusion I could come to other than it being very sad, is that throwing massive amounts of money at aids treatment won't solve the problem, educating them about sex and sorting out the way their culture treats women might...
Yes it was. The programme makers are out there at the moment making an update, commissioned by the Beeb. Sex education is being tackled with success, ( the film shown was taken 8 months ago) the cultural/tribal issue of how the men treat women is much more difficult to bring into the modern world, though they are making progress, again through education.
Aids treatment is one area that funding has helped, but also its paying for additional staff at the centre to educate and visit/support the families and children, many more children are now going to school and instead of fending for themselves when the parents have died, money is supporting the wider family groups to take them in.
We have sent £5,500 over so far and there are 2 pages of A4 showing what it has been spent on in detail. A little money goes along way over there. We are also following the 3 sets of children that were shown and they have made amazing progress emotionally and educationally.
Edited to add - can anyone spare 58p? That would send a child to school for a term.
>> Edited by Migsy on Sunday 27th February 19:20
Migsy said:
Was that orphan program the one about aids? If so, the only conclusion I could come to other than it being very sad, is that throwing massive amounts of money at aids treatment won't solve the problem, educating them about sex and sorting out the way their culture treats women might...
Yes it was. The programme makers are out there at the moment making an update, commissioned by the Beeb. Sex education is being tackled with success, ( the film shown was taken 8 months ago) the cultural/tribal issue of how the men treat women is much more difficult to bring into the modern world, though they are making progress, again through education.
Aids treatment is one area that funding has helped, but also its paying for additional staff at the centre to educate and visit/support the families and children, many more children are now going to school and instead of fending for themselves when the parents have died, money is supporting the wider family groups to take them in.
We have sent £5,500 over so far and there are 2 pages of A4 showing what it has been spent on in detail. A little money goes along way over there. We are also following the 3 sets of children that were shown and they have made amazing progress emotionally and educationally.
Edited to add - can anyone spare 58p? That would send a child to school for a term.
>> Edited by Migsy on Sunday 27th February 19:20
So go on, how does one contribute?
A relative (by marraige) of mine used to do sex education stuff in Africa I believe. Vaguely recall a story where condoms were demonstrated by unrolling them on the thumb. Despite them being used there was no decrease in pregnancies. It turned out the men had been wearing them on their thumbs during copulation. Dunno how true it was
Have to say I find the whole culture of male laziness in countries like this really difficult to deal with.
Here's the website direct for Orphans of Nklanda which is run by the programe makers for donations www.truevisiontv.com/orphans/orphanstrust.htm
The cultural issue is that if the woman doesn't do what the man says (as the head of the family) and refuses sex without a condom, their cow is taken away and the family is shamed and shunned by the rest of the community.
The cultural issue is that if the woman doesn't do what the man says (as the head of the family) and refuses sex without a condom, their cow is taken away and the family is shamed and shunned by the rest of the community.
Hardcore2000 said:
whats the law on starting a ltd company and collecting charitable donations to supposedly pass onto real charitys and keeping 80% of money collected through dividends or a high wage? this was on watchdog not long ago. does the law change if you are a registered charity?
whats to stop you getting the office done up and ordering too much raw materials and then flogging it for cash down the market?
I think the concept of charity in the UK is a criminals nervana.
Registered Charities are relatively tightly controlled, although if course there are some that slip through the net. Nothing really to stop ordering toom much materials then flogging them, although I suspect that there is a danger that someone studying the accounts may smell a rat after a while.
If a Ltd company is raising money for a charity, the charity involved has to take certain precautions to ensure it is an honest deal.
The Trustees of the charities are personally responsible for the charity and its money, so are likely to be careful!
The regulation of small charities who run village halls etc is a bit of a nightmare. The unlimited liability on Trustess makes it difficult to get trusteess, and although insurance is available the minimum premium is expensive, and often persuading the Charity Commission that it is justified is difficult. In addition paying the Trustees is difficult, irrespective of how many hours they work. You can't give an honorarium etc either. You can buy services or goods from a Trustee but again need to be sure its a good deal!
I think there are easier ways for criminals to make money, although undoubtedly some will prey on charties
An instance that relates to this topic occurred to me yesterday. It goes like this...
The local girl guides were doing a car wash in our local pub car park, the funds raised by this activity were apparently to send some little girl abroad for some treatment that apparently the NHS won't fund. Now I've also seen a poster in the pub and on the village notice board advertising a concert in aid of the same little girl, however, the poster mentions that the sum required is £6K which seems a piddling amount of cash to be any kind of impediment to this girl getting the treatment she may need. It also came up in conversation that the childs father is a teacher and drives a BMW. So my question (and I think I'm justified in asking it) is if he cares about his kid so much than why doesn't he flog his motor, buy a banger and pay for his daughters treament out of the change?
Something doesn't smell right about this, as a parent I'd sell everything I own (including my body, although I doubt I'd get any takers) to make sure that my kids were given the treatment they required, why is this person, who obviously has means, trying to get people to pay for what he should be paying for?
The local girl guides were doing a car wash in our local pub car park, the funds raised by this activity were apparently to send some little girl abroad for some treatment that apparently the NHS won't fund. Now I've also seen a poster in the pub and on the village notice board advertising a concert in aid of the same little girl, however, the poster mentions that the sum required is £6K which seems a piddling amount of cash to be any kind of impediment to this girl getting the treatment she may need. It also came up in conversation that the childs father is a teacher and drives a BMW. So my question (and I think I'm justified in asking it) is if he cares about his kid so much than why doesn't he flog his motor, buy a banger and pay for his daughters treament out of the change?
Something doesn't smell right about this, as a parent I'd sell everything I own (including my body, although I doubt I'd get any takers) to make sure that my kids were given the treatment they required, why is this person, who obviously has means, trying to get people to pay for what he should be paying for?
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff