Guide dogs for the blind

[Stedman]

Stedman said:

Jackal i find it strange that you have posted something negative like this about a legitimate charity that does a lot of good work for a variety of people. Did a guide dog piss up your leg today?

Do you know how much it costs to just run G.D.F.T.B a year?

EDIT:

parakitaMol. said:

jackal said:

you have a point to make and i'm willing to listen to find out more and parhaps gain a more educated view of the situation

but hey, you're coming across so aggressive... simmer down a bit will you. Stop throwing insults around, it only devalues your contribution.

No one is suggesting that they should have these assets eroded or the benefits of those assets in some way removed. The point was that if you're giving to charity there are probably other organisations that need the money a bit more just to fund their primary purpose. Do you disagree with that ?

OK but it was responding to your very blunt and ill informed OP and the way you dismiss the entire organisation based on absolutely nothing.

+1

[rlw]

i gues the OP has read the accounts and knows how this 150 million is made up. If it's their properties which they the enjoy rent free it is an entirely sensible way to run a charity. If its a few Mclaren F1s and Enzos and Bugattis, it is probably not so sensible. Give us the facts please.

[G'kar]

35K for a guide dog?

At that money I'd expect them to be directors of at least two limited companies.

[moleamol]

G'kar said:

35K for a guide dog?

At that money I'd expect them to be directors of at least two limited companies.

Well they would be but they would strike pure FEAR into their owners and anybody who tried to train them. They're not whusses though.

[Mobile Chicane]

35k for a guide dog?

I'll take the job.

[dave_s13]

parakitaMol. said:

jackal said:

you have a point to make and i'm willing to listen to find out more and parhaps gain a more educated view of the situation

but hey, you're coming across so aggressive... simmer down a bit will you. Stop throwing insults around, it only devalues your contribution.

No one is suggesting that they should have these assets eroded or the benefits of those assets in some way removed. The point was that if you're giving to charity there are probably other organisations that need the money a bit more just to fund their primary purpose. Do you disagree with that ?

OK but it was responding to your very blunt and ill informed OP and the way you dismiss the entire organisation based on absolutely nothing.

Your second point - is also completely invalid. I could not disagree more.

There is no measure of who needs it more and there never will be, worthiness is subjective.... almost like brand preference - do Honda need sales more than Porsche? no, it's down to complex personal motivations.... if your mother was blind and housebound and nobody in your family had cancer then you'd deem it a very worthy cause and more worthy than Cancer Research UK.

Too right! Jackal, you lost this one and made yourself look like an ignorant to$$er. I bet you don't even hold one directorship....uberwuss.




NSPCC though, they never seem to physically do anything that I ever see, other than post very annoying junk mail/begging letters (which I've ranted on here about before).

[jackal]

dave_s13 said:

NSPCC though, they never seem to physically do anything that I ever see, other than post very annoying junk mail/begging letters (which I've ranted on here about before).

ditto

[Nolar Dog]

Mobile Chicane said:

35k for a guide dog?

I'll take the job.

Great job. You get to go to the pub with your mate too.

Seriously, I can't believe someone would say GDFTB don't need it. If I was giving to any charity, they would be the one.

I was touched beyond belief when I watched Secret Millionaire and the guy befriended that blind Scottish man who had "Oscar".
The dogs and the charity are amazing.

[Jasandjules]

You would be amazed at what these dogs can do, and what a difference they can make to a blind person. For that reason alone, this is a worthwhile cause.

[jackal]

parakitaMol. said:

worthiness is subjective....

and in my subjective opinion I will be giving my next donation to a small niche life-saving charity who don't have any financial reserves, who can't afford big adverts and because of the recession, are under serious threat of dissappearing forever.

[moleamol]

jackal said:

parakitaMol. said:

worthiness is subjective....

and in my subjective opinion I will be giving my next donation to a small niche life-saving charity who don't have any financial reserves, who can't afford big adverts and because of the recession, are under serious threat of dissappearing forever.

Like a charity for bad AIDS? I think it's the good AIDS charities that get most of the money.

[ianash]

G'kar said:

35K for a guide dog?

At that money I'd expect them to be directors of at least two limited companies.

Speak to W4nted about this, but be careful what you say. I believe he's now joined he Brownies.

[becksW]

Very good charity in many ways, seen many wonderful dogs over the years, however they have been difficult when it comes to paying out for tx on the dogs over the years. That said they were very good about a recent case and ok'd reasonably costly tx very quickly. I am aware they need to be cautious with money but they also do very well re: free boosters, free worming schemes and free health checks for the dogs.

[Semi hemi]

Hi Jackel, how'd yer theory on the GDFTB go?Oh, you know, so so!

[Gretchen]

Stedman said:

Did a guide dog piss up your leg today?

Whilst in a shopping centre??

[pokethepope]

If the banks were run like GDFTB is, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now.










Maybe.

[jackal]

Semi hemi said:

Hi Jackel, how'd yer theory on the GDFTB go?Oh, you know, so so!

good thanks


the thread clearly demonstrates that cuddly dogs are as emotive as ever and regardless of any clever and politically correct 'theorizing', the reality of smaller, less-secure charities facing extremely difficult times continues to escape people's concern

[Mobile Chicane]

jackal said:

the thread clearly demonstrates that cuddly dogs are as emotive as ever and regardless of any clever and politically correct 'theorizing', the reality of smaller, less-secure charities facing extremely difficult times continues to escape people's concern

I appreciate your sentiments, although I think it is a bit more complex than that. 'Big brand' charities (CRUK / NSPCC / Oxfam etc) dominate hearts and minds because they have the marketing budgets to spend on fundraising, effectively squeezing out the smaller concerns.

[jackal]

Mobile Chicane said:

jackal said:

the thread clearly demonstrates that cuddly dogs are as emotive as ever and regardless of any clever and politically correct 'theorizing', the reality of smaller, less-secure charities facing extremely difficult times continues to escape people's concern

I appreciate your sentiments, although I think it is a bit more complex than that. 'Big brand' charities (CRUK / NSPCC / Oxfam etc) dominate hearts and minds because they have the marketing budgets to spend on fundraising, effectively squeezing out the smaller concerns.

indeed

[Semi hemi]

jackal said:

Semi hemi said:

Hi Jackel, how'd yer theory on the GDFTB go?Oh, you know, so so!

good thanks


the thread clearly demonstrates that cuddly dogs are as emotive as ever and regardless of any clever and politically correct 'theorizing', the reality of smaller, less-secure charities facing extremely difficult times continues to escape people's concern

Do you have a particular charity in mind?.

The charities that annoy me are the ones that use more money paying so called "fund raisers" and administrators so that out of every pound raised your lucky if tuppence gets to where its needed.