Comic Relief Funds

I thought I was hearing things on Sky news this morning when they said Comic Relief has no control over where the money raised is invested!! WTF? Apparently some of it is invested in tobacco and arms firms!

Sauce   

A BBC Panaorama program that was due to air it's investigation into inappropriate ongoings has been postponed, conveniently! What a disgrace!

I have very little faith in where my donations go any more. I will however keep up my small monthly donations to Cancer Reaserch and PDSA, but no more. Is anything sacred?

Wasn't there a to-do about Live Aid money not getting to 80% of it intended sources a while ago? Complete shambles, and there we were, all strung along thinking our millions donated was to help save those poor bastards that were starving to death.

I really cannot believe anything I hear these days. Be it from large coporate organisations, politician, figures of authority, etc.  A revolution clearly must be very close.

I was reading about this last night, it's nice to know that the money I have donated to Comic Relief has been held back to be invested in arms for third world countries!

What a fekin disgrace!

And Save the Children as well...this country is rotten to the core!

GOB wrote:

I was reading about this last night, it's nice to know that the money I have donated to Comic Relief has been held back to be invested in arms for third world countries!

What a fekin disgrace!

And Save the Children as well...this country is rotten to the core!

The thing is Gob, is that genuine charity's will suffer because of the corrupt few. I say few, but who knows what the hell they are all up to with donations? What a smack in the face for people who take on Herculean tasks to raise money just for that money to be invested in Arms and the like. As you say. What a fekin disgrace.  

I stopped giving to Children in Need once I found out that Wogan was being paid thousands of pounds an hour for presenting it. Where are the morals of these people, why is having so much money so important to them?

Greed. A human trait that never seems to diminish.

It's a disgrace and no mistake, it's a real hard one to give money to charity and not have it shot up some  celebs nose at the after dinner party. All the celebs get on my tits asking us all to dig deep whilst they unselfishly give up their time unless they are being paid for it of course. The two wealthiest people I know give feck all to charity using the excuse that none of it gets to where it should do, personally I think that most wealthy people are tight gits.
I wonder why the money is invested anyway, if you donate to children in need you would assume it is going straight to the poor people shown on the screens via the appeal, not via some stock exchange and a load of yuppies bank accounts, I'm just amazed it's taken this long to come out.

Bill the boffin Gates has got it right, he's spent tens of millions directly on the people that need it rather than through some celebrity infested fuckfest where they're all claiming to be giving their time for nothing when in reality all they want is free publicity to boost their egos and their bank balances, nauseating.

If you shop in or donate to charity shops then, in terms of %age spent on their target deserving cause, one of the best is Oxfam and the best is the Sally Army. Oxfam use 28% and the Sally Army use more. This may be due to the SA being staffed by volunteers whereas Oxfam pays a salary to some people. Those that give a higher %age are local charities. (The above relates to purely to the shops and isn't related to direct donations).

There are too many deserving causes. I support two charities and always give to one whenever I see a collection and have a standing order to the other. I just think that giving something is better than giving nothing.

Wsnt it going to warloards at one point or was that just the band aid lot?

Angry wrote:

Wsnt it going to warloards at one point or was that just the band aid lot?

Ethiopian warlords. Utter disgrace.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I can understand big charities like Comic Relief having a lot of funds in the bank: they often fund projects over long periods, so the money is going to the right place but not all at once.

What grips my stuff, though, is the way those funds are invested in the meantime. There's plenty of ethical ways to invest - ways which would make a bit more for the charity while possibly also doing good in other ways. Why the hell they chose not to go down that route is beyond me (but the argument that ethical investment isn't so profitable is rubbish).

(And perhaps if big organisations like Comic Relief had got involved in the ethical institutions, like the Co-op Bank, then maybe they'd have been better at watching what was going on there and could have played a role in preventing that implosion, which continues to threaten the future of the Co-op as a whole. Just a thought.)