but why at a cost to another causedo you want some giant oversight committee redistributing charitable donations among all charities? You say 'I think cancer in general gets too much money and too much attention'. You go on to mention 'Heart Attacks or Dementia?' as other more worthwhile causes. My perception is that receive an equal amount of attention. The Altzheimer's society and the british heart foundation are both well funded and high profile charities but of course could use more money, as could all charities. And that is what makes your comment seem wrong to me because surely cancer charities also need as much money as they can get. Why in your eyes does cancer not deserve as much attention. My guess is this... you have simply taken exception to the manner in which breast cancer charities in particular raise money.
(
yanmania... last shagged your mum on,
Wed 15 Oct 2008, 17:19,
archived)
not at all - although I take your pointI have no problem with the way in which breast cancer charities make their money -- and perhaps I have expressed myself poorly and put across my opinion too strongly and with too little tact.
I do think that... what do I think...?
okay - for example - I used to fund raise a bit for Marie Curie and we used to get next to nothing compared with a lot of other cancer charities and my feelings at the time were very much that a big part of this was people found the idea of palliative care unpalatable. I have had close relative die with dementia and the care they received and the help available to them, while good when they got it, was criminally short in supply.
I don't begrudge any one charity any money - and I'm certainly not advocating a centrally planned ministry of charities which gives out money according to committee - BUT I do believe that some charities are easier to fund raise for than others, and that there's a finite amount of charitable giving available and that large popular charities do well at the expense of smaller less popular ones... there we go - that's my point - I'm not sure that the large charities (despite often being able to fund raise in large amounts) always offer the best value for money and that other charities who find it more difficult to fund raise may be able to better deploy even a small fraction of their large budgets.
(I do think that... what do I think...?
okay - for example - I used to fund raise a bit for Marie Curie and we used to get next to nothing compared with a lot of other cancer charities and my feelings at the time were very much that a big part of this was people found the idea of palliative care unpalatable. I have had close relative die with dementia and the care they received and the help available to them, while good when they got it, was criminally short in supply.
I don't begrudge any one charity any money - and I'm certainly not advocating a centrally planned ministry of charities which gives out money according to committee - BUT I do believe that some charities are easier to fund raise for than others, and that there's a finite amount of charitable giving available and that large popular charities do well at the expense of smaller less popular ones... there we go - that's my point - I'm not sure that the large charities (despite often being able to fund raise in large amounts) always offer the best value for money and that other charities who find it more difficult to fund raise may be able to better deploy even a small fraction of their large budgets.
Prof UnderCover evitable,
Wed 15 Oct 2008, 17:33,
archived)
if I'm wrong - brilliantI've over-estimated the amounts large charities waste and under-estimated the amount of good they do.
Still though I know a lot of people who work for charities in other areas and they could use money, even tiny bits of money and I just don't see them ever getting as much as they should when the majority of it goes to breast cancer.
(Still though I know a lot of people who work for charities in other areas and they could use money, even tiny bits of money and I just don't see them ever getting as much as they should when the majority of it goes to breast cancer.
Prof UnderCover evitable,
Wed 15 Oct 2008, 17:43,
archived)