Charity

[Adrian]

Umm, the question was "if they could"...

[Adrian]

There ought to be a law against fraud and theft!

[tabbypurr]

Its the contract that usually requires more. When it doesn't, the charity t akes 10% of the drive because they believe its the best they can get. I don 't object to that in principle, but I do believe that percentage should be stated upfront to donors.

NT

[tabbypurr]

Its not a question of ease, but of whether they're in a position to do it or not. Lots aren't.

NT

[tabbypurr]

They're legally bound to pay either way. Charities have a legal duty to pursue what they're owed.

I'm surprised to hear lots only being offered 10%, but then again a lot of 3rd sector organisations are short on expertise in some areas.

Lol no.

NT

[tabbypurr]

You're free to reread what I wrote.

NT

[John Chance]

Plenty of them are still funded out of taxation like the RSPCA.

[Tim Streater]

Only in the sense that they can be sued for breach of contract. But that is a civil, not criminal, matter. And if they then don't pay up, the charity has to get an enforcement order. AIUI, but IANAL, if they still fail to pay up then the court can order the bailiffs in.

[Jonno]

Adrian scribbled

There used to be a couple of charity collection bins in the car park of our supermarket. The Pikeys were down them at least once a week. One bloke got a job with Oxfam, copied all the keys and made it appear he was the official collector. When he was caught, he got off with a slapped wrist.

[Jonno]

Brian-Gaff scribbled

Doesn't help when this happens

This isn't the first charity to robbed blind.

[charles]

according to their website, the RSPCA receives no government funding.

[John Chance]

That question was clearly about if they could easily raise more money, not whether they have ready access to volunteers. Plenty of the less well organised charities don?t. Plenty like the Salvation Army and Red Cross do. So do plenty of hospitals and hospices.

[Adrian]

If they don't have the volunteers, they can't use them to fundraise... Which kinda fails the "if they could..." test.

[Tim Watts]

No idea.

Sometimes I just offer them the price and decline the rag (which is of no interest to me - and I have read a few) - but most of them don't like that.

I know it has a good intention - (do some "work" in return for an income) but it's a crap read and I'd rather they just held a tin collecting for a homeless charity (for which they would be employed, the one and only case of chugging I would be happy with)

At least 100% of my dosh would be helping the homeless in that case...

[John Chance]

And when they do, they can.

No it does not with the ones that do have the volunteers.

[Adrian]

Exactly my point.

So they can use the volunteers. But the ones without...?

Unless, of course, you're thinking EVERY charity should use exactly the same methods for fundraising?

[John Chance]

I clearly said that they don?t all do it like that because they don?t all have the volunteers.

No, just that some have volunteers they can use and some don?t.

[Chris French]

In message , Adrian writes

I think they are mostly legit. Going from the small print on the bag last time I read one the charity gets about £100/tonne of clothes collected from the collection/processing company (the clothes are sold abroad - eastern Europe and Africa mostly AIUI).

Of these collections, the Sally army ones are probably best in terms of benefiting the charity, as the SA set up or bought one of the companies that does these collections. So all the profits from the clothes reselling end up benefiting the SA.

However, if you want you clothes to go to a UK charity shop you are best off taking into a local shop. (though they end up with more than they can seel, so eventually some of that ends up being sold on)

[Jonno]

Chris French scribbled

There are enough dodgy collectors for the charities to create this site

[John Rumm]

No reason, if they have the skills, contacts, and experience etc.

One hopes the more ethical will exceed the legal minimum.