O T Begging charity adverts on TV

No, but since the state won't, somebody has to.

Yup. Which is why the annual performance at the Cenotaph makes me so uneasy. Goverment dignitaries remembering those 'who gave their lives for us' while doing their best to ignore those who were merely maimed, but live on.

if you are referring to their 4WD vehicles, you try driving around central Africa in a Ford Focus and see how far you get

tim

Once you deduct the cost of rent, heating, paid manager, insurance, they do n't actually send much to the trading company that operates the shops. Then the trading company sends its taxable profit to the charity. Then the char ity deducts its overheads. Then some money might be used for what you expec t it to be used for.

Owain

They arent ignored, they are entitled to use the NHS, just like everyone else is.

they do

There are costs all along, such is life, but there's still a good amount used for its charitable purpose.

NT

You keep on believing that ... and maybe if you want to open your eyes - take a read of this as an example:

"Charities" are now business run for the benefits of the senior employees who expect those at the bottom, the "volunteers", to work for nothing

That article doesn't say anything about Oxfam at all.

NT

if you give to charity they pass on info to each other you will bombarded with calls and txts

what is the story about them asking for amounts like £19.81 p.......?

But the TV adverts are asking for odd amounts so there may be thousands responding.

Some of small print says if you respond you consent to phone calls to discuss your donation!

QA1857442476

May be trying to make it seem that it is for a specific project, so that the public assume it is. And that they also assume it is going directly to that project instead of the majority going to admin' and boss'salaries

Not as direct as:- "Just £12.42 could buy a mosquito net for a starving African." but obviously effective

With the GDPR it should always be possible to manage the use of your data. Sometimes it can be tricky and often they (wrongly) make it opt out when it should be opt in.

One of the problems in this world is that governments of countries have to decide what to fund. In the end somebody ends up relying on free work or charity. There most certainly is enough value in things to fund it all and stop starvation sick animals habitat destruction homelessness persecution and everything else you see on itv3s beleeding hearts afternoon slots be they rnib or cancer research etc. The problem is why don't commercial entities and ourselves realise this and get on with implementing it. The number of times we have been asked to provide fresh water to small villages to find out later that the community is unsustainable and all that infrastructure is now wasted is ridiculous. Now I'm not suggesting we just do not give to the charities, but if this happened on a world wide scale the governments would either have to fund these things or watch their people starve. Just saying. Brian

Huge amounts have been given to African countries over the decades, but it always seems to to used for arms.

Don't give 'em goats:

"Jane Goodall says such donations can have unintended consequences, especially where water is scarce"

We still don't want any of it rammed down our throats morning noon and night, or ever for that matter. I bought my TV for entertainment, not to be made miserable but I still donate to five charities