Children in Need sitting on £87.75m
Discussion
jogon said:
ninja-lewis said:
Someone better alert Children In Need then. No remuneration for trustees, CEO on £110,000 and expenses usually around £500, only 4 other staff over £60k and sharing BBC offices.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/isite_assets/pudsey/aboutu...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/isite_assets/pudsey/aboutu...
Well maybe Children in Need are a bit from frugal than the rest on their remuneration packages. They are still sat on £87m while many children are still in need. http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/isite_assets/pudsey/aboutu...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/isite_assets/pudsey/aboutu...
Immediately spend all funds within a few months, spend donations on wages and admin costs.
Option 2:
Spread funds over a three year period. Wages and admin costs are entirely covered by interest.
Option 2 gets more money to people who need it, and is hugely more flexible in fulfilling that aim.
I happen to know this as a very good friend of mine works for the BBC and did actually work on the CiN team for 5 years.
By the way, he was on quite a frugal salary, nothing like the £60k quoted.
steveT350C said:
I will admit that I am not that hot on understanding how business, or in this case a charity's finance works, hence my starting this thread and asking for help.
Ninja-Lewis has explained things. 'Accrual accounting'. - thanks Ninja-Lewis
Not sure what to suggest for your problem of seeing 'kippers' everywhere.
You are once again, mistaken. I don't see, thankfully, 'kippers' everywhere. They are, in my experience, confined to couple of threads on a forum. Ninja-Lewis has explained things. 'Accrual accounting'. - thanks Ninja-Lewis
Not sure what to suggest for your problem of seeing 'kippers' everywhere.
You've started the thread calling for 'investigation' because charity is run by 'friends at BBC'. Trust me, nobody is surprised by your lack of understanding, on pretty much anything.
Read posts by dandarez and jogon, both very vocal, if not clever, kippers. One bleats about how it stinks that charity is run well, the other one comes with completely made up things about salaries at charity and who they employ. The same moron who thinks that having prime minister who actually went to school is a bad idea.
Like it or not, from what I've seen on these threads, people like three of you are representative. Now, I'll let you get back to your daily routine of finding conspiracies everywhere and posting them here.
Hope that helps.
league67 said:
steveT350C said:
I will admit that I am not that hot on understanding how business, or in this case a charity's finance works, hence my starting this thread and asking for help.
Ninja-Lewis has explained things. 'Accrual accounting'. - thanks Ninja-Lewis
Not sure what to suggest for your problem of seeing 'kippers' everywhere.
You are once again, mistaken. I don't see, thankfully, 'kippers' everywhere. They are, in my experience, confined to couple of threads on a forum. Ninja-Lewis has explained things. 'Accrual accounting'. - thanks Ninja-Lewis
Not sure what to suggest for your problem of seeing 'kippers' everywhere.
You've started the thread calling for 'investigation' because charity is run by 'friends at BBC'. Trust me, nobody is surprised by your lack of understanding, on pretty much anything.
Read posts by dandarez and jogon, both very vocal, if not clever, kippers. One bleats about how it stinks that charity is run well, the other one comes with completely made up things about salaries at charity and who they employ. The same moron who thinks that having prime minister who actually went to school is a bad idea.
Like it or not, from what I've seen on these threads, people like three of you are representative. Now, I'll let you get back to your daily routine of finding conspiracies everywhere and posting them here.
Hope that helps.
JustinP1 said:
Option 1:
Immediately spend all funds within a few months, spend donations on wages and admin costs.
Option 2:
Spread funds over a three year period. Wages and admin costs are entirely covered by interest.
Option 2 gets more money to people who need it, and is hugely more flexible in fulfilling that aim.
I happen to know this as a very good friend of mine works for the BBC and did actually work on the CiN team for 5 years.
By the way, he was on quite a frugal salary, nothing like the £60k quoted.
Except most of the money Children in Need gives is distributed to small local charities, youth groups, etc... What your preferred option 2 does is therefore prevent those smaller (at the coal face) charities from doing what you think is better for charities to do with received funds.Immediately spend all funds within a few months, spend donations on wages and admin costs.
Option 2:
Spread funds over a three year period. Wages and admin costs are entirely covered by interest.
Option 2 gets more money to people who need it, and is hugely more flexible in fulfilling that aim.
I happen to know this as a very good friend of mine works for the BBC and did actually work on the CiN team for 5 years.
By the way, he was on quite a frugal salary, nothing like the £60k quoted.
It keeps all the money and power with a few at the top and spreads funds to those it deems worthy in a controlled way so the money is spent how and when they want it spent. It's a well executed version of socialism where most people don't even realise what's happening.
I would much rather give directly to a small local charity where that charity directly benefits from the ability to invest and re-distribute its own money.
alock said:
It keeps all the money and power with a few at the top and spreads funds to those it deems worthy in a controlled way so the money is spent how and when they want it spent. It's a well executed version of socialism where most people don't even realise what's happening.
.
What a massive pile of drivel..
alock said:
JustinP1 said:
Option 1:
Immediately spend all funds within a few months, spend donations on wages and admin costs.
Option 2:
Spread funds over a three year period. Wages and admin costs are entirely covered by interest.
Option 2 gets more money to people who need it, and is hugely more flexible in fulfilling that aim.
I happen to know this as a very good friend of mine works for the BBC and did actually work on the CiN team for 5 years.
By the way, he was on quite a frugal salary, nothing like the £60k quoted.
Except most of the money Children in Need gives is distributed to small local charities, youth groups, etc... What your preferred option 2 does is therefore prevent those smaller (at the coal face) charities from doing what you think is better for charities to do with received funds.Immediately spend all funds within a few months, spend donations on wages and admin costs.
Option 2:
Spread funds over a three year period. Wages and admin costs are entirely covered by interest.
Option 2 gets more money to people who need it, and is hugely more flexible in fulfilling that aim.
I happen to know this as a very good friend of mine works for the BBC and did actually work on the CiN team for 5 years.
By the way, he was on quite a frugal salary, nothing like the £60k quoted.
It keeps all the money and power with a few at the top and spreads funds to those it deems worthy in a controlled way so the money is spent how and when they want it spent. It's a well executed version of socialism where most people don't even realise what's happening.
I would much rather give directly to a small local charity where that charity directly benefits from the ability to invest and re-distribute its own money.
it;s also funny how it;s often 'small local charities' that find themselves embroiled in funds misuse scandals ...
crazy about cars said:
jogon said:
ninja-lewis said:
Someone better alert Children In Need then. No remuneration for trustees, CEO on £110,000 and expenses usually around £500, only 4 other staff over £60k and sharing BBC offices.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/isite_assets/pudsey/aboutu...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/isite_assets/pudsey/aboutu...
Well maybe Children in Need are a bit from frugal than the rest on their remuneration packages. They are still sat on £87m while many children are still in need. http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/isite_assets/pudsey/aboutu...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/isite_assets/pudsey/aboutu...
It does make me laugh when people take newspaper articles at such face value and assume all the digging has been done for them.
league67 said:
steveT350C said:
I will admit that I am not that hot on understanding how business, or in this case a charity's finance works, hence my starting this thread and asking for help.
Ninja-Lewis has explained things. 'Accrual accounting'. - thanks Ninja-Lewis
Not sure what to suggest for your problem of seeing 'kippers' everywhere.
You are once again, mistaken. I don't see, thankfully, 'kippers' everywhere. They are, in my experience, confined to couple of threads on a forum. Ninja-Lewis has explained things. 'Accrual accounting'. - thanks Ninja-Lewis
Not sure what to suggest for your problem of seeing 'kippers' everywhere.
You've started the thread calling for 'investigation' because charity is run by 'friends at BBC'. Trust me, nobody is surprised by your lack of understanding, on pretty much anything.
Read posts by dandarez and jogon, both very vocal, if not clever, kippers. One bleats about how it stinks that charity is run well, the other one comes with completely made up things about salaries at charity and who they employ. The same moron who thinks that having prime minister who actually went to school is a bad idea.
Like it or not, from what I've seen on these threads, people like three of you are representative. Now, I'll let you get back to your daily routine of finding conspiracies everywhere and posting them here.
Hope that helps.
I prefer 'accrual accounting'.
Thanks for trying though.
P-Jay said:
Every large charity is the same - it's foolish to think they take in a £1 and spend a £1, they invest the money and use the profits to fund their good causes that means that even if they never raised another penny they could continue to do what they do in perpetuity.
I'd rather they did it in Britain.blindswelledrat said:
alock said:
It keeps all the money and power with a few at the top and spreads funds to those it deems worthy in a controlled way so the money is spent how and when they want it spent. It's a well executed version of socialism where most people don't even realise what's happening.
.
What a massive pile of drivel..
They fund raise and collate that money into one big pot. A small number of people who work for the charity decide how to distribute the money.
In socialism lots of people pay taxes. A small number of people who work for the government decide how to distribute the money.
Perhaps I need to clarify. I don't have a problem with Children in Need. It's your choice if you want to voluntarily put money in a big pot and have someone you don't know decide how best to spend your money. I would rather see my money spent on something I want it spent on.
alock said:
In socialism lots of people pay taxes. A small number of people who work for the government decide how to distribute the money.
And in capitalism. In fact, in every political system known to mankind. So really, you're objecting to either (a) taxes or (b) the very existence of govermnent. Or both, obviously.Are you one of those Freemen On The Land types?
league67 said:
Kippers in angry about everything shocker. It's always someone else enjoying gravy train that they themselves are denied access to. Obviously not through sheer lack of intellect or ability. No, it's a conspiracy. But dear Nige will sort that out.
While entertaining, it is quite sad to think that there are people out there who chose to spend their life looking for conspiracies and finding reasons why their lives didn't turn out as well as hoped. Doing something proactive to actually better themselves is obviously too hard.
Phew. At least it's not The Evil Zionists' fault this time.While entertaining, it is quite sad to think that there are people out there who chose to spend their life looking for conspiracies and finding reasons why their lives didn't turn out as well as hoped. Doing something proactive to actually better themselves is obviously too hard.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff