OT Where our foriegn aid goes.

[whisky-dave]

Then that should be made clear rather than being illegal. Surely it's better to have someone collecting 10% of £100 rather than

0% of £100.

[Nightjar]

On 27/05/2015 12:22, whisky-dave wrote: ...

To me, that seems remarkably good value for somebody running an organisation of that size.

[Nightjar]

Perhaps the tabards they wear should be emblazoned 'Warning, very little of the money you pledge will end up with the charity'.

Charities can run their own collection campaigns, in which case they get all the money, less the cost of the campaign. Some have found it more cost effective to hire the companies that employ the chuggers.

[Tim Streater]

What is the wider cause of a country being under-developed, such that its people don't have some of the basics I listed above? A wider cause in, say, Zimbabwe, might be Mugabe and his henchmen deliberately keeping the populace at subsistence level (and close to starvation), so that they can plunder the country with small likelihood of there being any serious organised opposition. While I might agree that Mugabe needs to be run over by a tank, I might also worry about Oxfam getting involved in areas of policy. So perhaps you can enlighten us with more detail than you gave above.

See, too many NGOs seem to be in danger of being taken over by extremists, with the RSPCA being a typical example. When I see that the likes of the National Trust (IIRC) has a "Policy Director" I start to wonder what is going on. Policy Director? WTF is such an organisation doing getting involved in "policy"? It has no business at all in doing so. It should stick to what it was set up to do, and keep its nose out of other things.

[Harry Bloomfield]

No, it should be illegal. People will give, at just the mention of 'charity'. How many of those would still give if they were aware that

90p in the pound they donated, would be going to the chugger?

I would suggest none.

They get nowhere if they knock at our door, except to be told to be off, before I set the dogs on them.

[charles]

Perhaps policies like: Do we allow gas pipelines through our properties; do we allow our land to be lease out as allotments; do we promote the works of William Shakespeare ay our properties. All of which I know to have bee thought about at local NT properties.

[Harry Bloomfield]

How is that for coincidence...

Ten of them coming down the street knocking on doors pretending to be collecting for the Heart charity. Red tops with a white heart shape on the front?

[Tim Streater]

Sounds like the sort of stuff that could be decided at the local level. All too trivial to require a "policy director".

[whisky-dave]

depends how you look at it. The prime Minsiter earns about £20k more for 'running' the whole country. But I'm betting he doesn;t run the whole of oxfam just that office, there are plenty of others employed in Oxfam admin that do run it.

[whisky-dave]

That's the confusing bit isn't it which do you use ? I think it's the red cross tautting for business every week outside stratfo rds westfiled. I wouldn;t know whether it's best to sign up there, do it on line or just throw money in buckets.

[Adrian]

Quite.

If they paid £15k/year for a chief exec, they'd get somebody of the calibre of Whisky-Soaked-Dave, rather than somebody capable of running a £400m/year organisation effectively.

[Nightjar]

The only way to look at it is to ask how much it would cost you to attract a replacement from industry who is equally competent. A common guide to that is the 75th percentile salary for a CEO, which is currently £140k.

However, he also gets power and the prospects of earning as an ex-PM. Tony Blair had an income of around £14 million last year.

That is how any large organisation works, but you still need a good person at the top.

[Nightjar]

The best way is to send the money directly to the organisation of your choice and, if you are a UK tax payer, to gift aid it. That way, the charity not only gets the full amount you send, but the government also pays them a further 25% of what you give.

[Bob Neumann]

On 27/05/2015 16:11, Nightjar Perhaps the tabards they wear should be emblazoned 'Warning, very little

Typically, the cost for those street collections is collected over about

18 months, so they're not looking for people who will cancel after a short period; but over 5 years the charity is likely to get over 70% of the money donated.

[Nightjar]

If the money is sent direct to the charity and gift aided, it will get

125% of the money donated, whether the donor gives once or over a period of years.

[charles]

all 3 were "Head Office" decisions. Not up to local management.

[Adrian]

On Wed, 27 May 2015 18:50:45 +0100, Nightjar If the money is sent direct to the charity and gift aided, it will get

Less, of course, the banking costs involved.

[Tim Streater]

Exactly my point. Why?

[charles]

to give the policy director something to do.

[Bob Neumann]

Naturally, but Face to Face is an effective way of engaging people, and setting up a DD is a more likely outcome with Face to Face than with other methods; they may be effective at getting one off donations, but do not give charities a sustained income they can budget against.

I'm merely pointing out that your initial statement is factually incorrect in many cases. And waiting for people to sign up to regular donations for a charity unprompted is more likely to result in the charity getting 100% of nothing, than the charity getting anything out of it.