Guide dogs for the blind

[M3CHA-MONK3Y]

Semi hemi said:

Hi Jackel, how'd yer theory on the GDFTB go?Oh, you know, so so!

Wow wow wow!! This has gone too far when people start using Pink Floyd album covers as ammunition. Take it down a peg people.

[jackal]

parakitaMol. said:

Nobody donates purely to save a charity from going under

How do you know. have you asked the entire world's population ?

You can't use the exclusive word 'nobody' in any case because I do, so that's at least one person on the planet.

And you're dead right there, nobody has that graph... but perhaps they should. In fact, that's why I posted this up in the first place. If a graph were available then perhaps peoples giving might be a little more balanced. I'm sure a lot of struggling, smaller charities would agree with me there. There is only so much in the pot and giving is ultimately linked (see here for a recent example: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/...

I have understood you well enough I think. You have operated entirely form the position of protecting the charity GDFTB. Everything you have said points back to that biased stance. You have failed to consider humanity and its needs as a balanced whole. Your strapline "Worthiness is subjective" is a cop out and even if it does hold true for a portion of huamnity when they give, then now is probably the time to start making it objective.

[root 666]

parakitaMol. said:

root 666 said:

Unpaid tin-rattlers...erm...rattling tins in close proximity to some puppies and an old/retired dog in jacket and harness.

Which is the most people-intensive, low contribution, low value, annoying (second to junk mail), open to fraud method of fundraising.

Then why do it then?

I think I may have missed something.

You started off contesting strenuously, dare I say pithily (probably not with this lisp), the OP.

Then there was the middle-bit still with words like "idiot" and "simpleton" abounding (though you did blissfully get the word "bone" in)

Then (imo) you hang your coat on a slightly shaky nail apropos your stated preference for bigger, well run charities with their professional and influential Trustees capable of using the media to further their purpose.

The less up-front but often more deserving charities (unless with your stated reluctance to say Charity A has more merit than Charity B means that uncountable dead kids has parity with the canine-aided mobility of a few thousand blind people) invariably suffer the effects of the ever-open maw and constant demands on the Charity Pound by exactly such organisations.

And it bloody nearly is a demand but with added subtlety..."Miles is a quiet child...." "We never put a healthy dog down....""Will YOU allow this to continue...?" Etc. etc. ad infinitum ,ad nauseum.

Then, in the manner of a Super-Trawler they fill their holds with what they're allowed to keep and "dispose" of the "over-catch".
New car anyone?

Oh bks to it.

There's none so blind as those who will not see.

This incoherent rant was sponsored by:

Dummo Welding Masks.
Not One Scintilla Of Light Will Get Through.

Edited by root 666 on Thursday 12th February 18:04

[Engineer1]

parakitaMol. said:

jackal said:

parakitaMol. said:

Nobody donates purely to save a charity from going under

How do you know. have you asked the entire world's population ?

You can't use the exclusive word 'nobody' in any case because I do, so that's at least one person on the planet.

I said 'purely'. Meaning with absolutely no emotional connection to the cause.

So do a poll on here then. Ask the question why people who do donate, give.

a. Because they care about and support the cause and the beneficiaries.

b. because they just want to see a small charity helped without caring what it does.

if people will support B, then i know a small charity that improves the lives of people living in a small community, it' DBF Dave's Beer Fund

[moleamol]

sleep envy said:

sod the guide dogs, I reckon they should have guide cats instead

it would may the daily lives of the blind far more interesting

When you say cat you mean tiger, yeah?

[jackal]

parakitaMol. said:

jackal said:

parakitaMol. said:

Nobody donates purely to save a charity from going under

How do you know. have you asked the entire world's population ?

You can't use the exclusive word 'nobody' in any case because I do, so that's at least one person on the planet.

I said 'purely'. Meaning with absolutely no emotional connection to the cause.

So do a poll on here then. Ask the question why people who do donate, give.

a. Because they care about and support the cause and the beneficiaries.

b. because they just want to see a small charity helped without caring what it does.

ok, step back, refocus, 12mm lens, wide view, long slow shutter and the biggest iris imagineable


you've lost yourself I think

you appear to be now arguing about the theory of 'giving'

which isn't really interesting or relevant because it doesn't solve the imbalance postulated in the OP. All you are doing is just reinforcing the existence of the very problem that I am highlighting.

The thread is about having the intelligence to go beyond the normal selection proceedures. I don't care HOW it is, I am stating how it SHOULD be.

So you see, it doesn't matter what a poll would say because its about how people should give, not how they do give

[968]

jackal said:

yes you are, you are saying 'the right thing', the 'theory', what might sound good in a university lecture hall, all this 'subjective' stuff, worthiness has no measure etc..

In the meantime i'm in the real world. A world where a charity could go under but if they took a pound from GDFTB they might survive and thrive and simulatenously, GDFTB's exclusion from that pound won't amount to anything.

Sorry, you don't have a clue, based on what you've written in this thread. I'm an Ophthalmic surgeon. I've been involved in some major research projects and have many colleagues who are also engaged in some major, world leading research projects which are literally trying to cure blindness caused by a variety of diseases. Guide Dogs Assoc for the Blind have provided huge research grants, funding and support for many such projects. If you'd prefer for such research not to be done, then please go ahead and denigrate such an organization.

jackal said:

In any case, as I explained earlier, i'm not interested if worthiness is subjective or unquantifiable etc.. I am interested in looking at the way in which people deafult to charities often because of ignorance about others. How far do we have to magnify and characterise the problem for you to start to see sense. If GDFTB had 1 trillion in the bank and there was only one other charity left on the face of the earth and you had ONE pound left to give and if you gave that pound to GDFTB then the other charity would instantly ceases to exist .. would you still be writing all the twaddle you are here, banging on about worthiness being nebulous and subjective and not measureable.

Facile argument. It's peoples choice which charity they donate to. You're telling them not to donate to it because of some prejudice against the output of GDFTB. I'm not sure what your problem is with them. They may have assets but they provide huge financial backing that the government doesn't and support to many research projects. They are no different in that respect to many other charities.

jackal said:

they don't need to raise awareness because everyone loves a cuddly dog
and whilst not wishing to take anything away from the good work which they do (see I have to put that in because your repetition really is boring me) they seem to be the default charity selection for many many people

Nonsense, and spoken from a position of utter ignorance. Most donations for GDTB come from people who have family members or friends who have been afflicted by blindness from a variety of causes. Blindness or severely impaired vision, is actually not that uncommon in this country, and most people will know someone who is afflicted and therefore have experience of how devastating it can be. The dogs are actually a fairly minor part of things.

I've read this thread with some amazement. I really don't understand what your problem is. If you had the slightest idea how much money and support they've given to numerous, massively important, practice changing research projects, you'd shut your mouth straight away.

[Stedman]

968 said:

I've read this thread with some amazement. I really don't understand what your problem is. If you had the slightest idea how much money and support they've given to numerous, massively important, practice changing research projects, you'd shut your mouth straight away.

BOSH! +1

[singlecoil]

jackal said:

parakitaMol. said:

jackal said:

parakitaMol. said:

Nobody donates purely to save a charity from going under

How do you know. have you asked the entire world's population ?

You can't use the exclusive word 'nobody' in any case because I do, so that's at least one person on the planet.

I said 'purely'. Meaning with absolutely no emotional connection to the cause.

So do a poll on here then. Ask the question why people who do donate, give.

a. Because they care about and support the cause and the beneficiaries.

b. because they just want to see a small charity helped without caring what it does.

ok, step back, refocus, 12mm lens, wide view, long slow shutter and the biggest iris imagineable


you've lost yourself I think

you appear to be now arguing about the theory of 'giving'

which isn't really interesting or relevant because it doesn't solve the imbalance postulated in the OP. All you are doing is just reinforcing the existence of the very problem that I am highlighting.

The thread is about having the intelligence to go beyond the normal selection proceedures. I don't care HOW it is, I am stating how it SHOULD be.

So you see, it doesn't matter what a poll would say because its about how people should give, not how they do give

I think you have made some very good points in this thread, and it's a shame that some charities are so successful with their fund raising (which has to be to the disadvantage of other worthy causes) that they can build up such enormous assets and reward their employees so handsomly.

[Jasandjules]

sleep envy said:

sod the guide dogs, I reckon they should have guide cats instead

it would may the daily lives of the blind far more interesting

Indeed. I suppose akin to the Eddie Izzard sketch about Pavlov's cats, his less successful experiment......

Unless the blind want to spend 22 hours a day sat in one place whilst the moggy snoozes, it's not going to help much....

[jackal]

968 said:

I've read this thread with some amazement. I really don't understand what your problem is. If you had the slightest idea how much money and support they've given to numerous, massively important, practice changing research projects, you'd shut your mouth straight away.

I don't have a problem, I am just advocating a better balance.

If representatives or impassioned contributers from other less stable charities came on here giving a sales pitch as strong as yours, you might shut your mouth as well.

There is a pot and its only so big.

No, I don't want GDFTB's work to stop.. I doubt anyone does. But then I don't want other charities output to diminish either.

[968]

jackal said:

968 said:

I've read this thread with some amazement. I really don't understand what your problem is. If you had the slightest idea how much money and support they've given to numerous, massively important, practice changing research projects, you'd shut your mouth straight away.

I don't have a problem, I am just advocating a better balance.

If representatives or impassioned contributers from other less stable charities came on here giving a sales pitch as strong as yours, you might shut your mouth as well.

There is a pot and its only so big.

No, I don't want GDFTB's work to stop.. I doubt anyone does. But then I don't want other charities output to diminish either.

I don't have a sales pitch, as I don't work for a charity, but I've got funding from a number of them, in my time and GDFTB have been a supporter of research and a great advocate for their patients. They certainly don't receive an unfair share or advantage compared to other such charities. Balance is achieved by the public deciding where they want to give their money to. You'll probably be aware that animal charities receive far more funding than most medical charities, but I don't start a thread advising people not to fund them, as it's none of my business what people decide to fund, however, I will certainly advocate the benefits of a charity that has funded some of our best research.

[jackal]

968 said:

Balance is achieved by the public deciding where they want to give their money to. You'll probably be aware that animal charities receive far more funding than most medical charities, but I don't start a thread advising people not to fund them, as it's none of my business what people decide to fund, however, I will certainly advocate the benefits of a charity that has funded some of our best research.

1. That's not an objectively good or desirable balance though.

2. Yes, people do emotion towards animals with much greater ease than toward fellow man. Pretty much says it all.

3. I DO start a thread because its interesting, provocative, entertaining and hey, this is the internet. They can't all be "what car for 12k ?"

4. I acknowledge your support for GDFTB and respect that personal experience.

[37Flipper]

parakitaMol. said:

The charity that I worked for had quite large assets. Good practise dicates that they should have at least 6 months operating budget in cash reserves. Additionally a substantial portion of their propety assets were bequeathed - and those bequests dictated that the property remain under the management of the charity to provide stable accomodation for the people it supported.

Sadly for some really good charities the tabloid headline readers don't have the capacity think beyond 'sounds like really big money £££' written on papper.

When I worked for Nestlé Purina we supported Canine Partners - another great organisation - and sponsored this chap

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endal

My partner has a Canine Partner dog. Her name is Yancey. (The dog that is, not my partner )



Don't believe everything in the wikipedia link, Canine Partners has disassociated itself with the man who owned Endal. However, lets not forget what a good job they do for people who need assistance dogs.

[off_again]

I have to say that I am utterly shocked by this particular thread.

I will register my biased nature at the beginning, but my mother is registered blind and my extended family has had significant involvement with GDFTB for many years and I myself has assisted and donated many times.

So the charities total assets stand at 150m? So what? Do you actually know what this means and involves? They have to list all assets, including property and anything else. Of course, this was the accounts ending in 2007, so any property that they own will be at their highest value! As a charity, they need to ensure that they don't make money, or they will get taxed on it. Accumulating assets is fine, as long as they protect the charity from risk etc in the future. For example, most big charities in the UK own their own offices, since this protects them from rent increases and potential exceptional costs - of course this is an asset and needs to be reported in the accounts, and if property values are high then its a lot of money. It would be interesting to see how much these assets are now of course.

So do the GDFTB actually have 150m in a bank account? Get real, of course they don't. Its spread in a number of different things, as I mentioned above. They receive around 60m - 70m a year in donations and spend virtually all of it. So think of this then - do you spank all of your money down to the last penny each and every year? Might look good, but places a massive risk - recessions for example seriously drop any charitable donations and as a result would put at risk almost everything that you have done.

Think of it this way, a guide dog isn't just bought off the shelf. You need to breed them, train them and then, and only when they have been cleared, handed to someone who needs it. The basic training takes a couple of years and the usable life for a guide dog is measured in a years too - so its a massive commitment to embark on this type of thing. So keeping some cash back for the bad times makes bloody good sense. I mean, what would you prefer? GDFTB to run low on cash and call back all of the dogs....

Dont be so daft and simple about this. Its a complex subject and all big charities have massive reserves. Just like the leading personal finance experts say that you should have 6 months money in reserve, it makes essential business sense for a charity to do the same (though assets could be more than just cash).

Think about it. Dont be so stupid!

[jackal]

i dont dispute any of that