Guide dogs for the blind

[jackal]

yep, next time you pick a charity to give to

leave this one well out the schedule folks

now I know dogs are nice and cuddly, man's best friend and all that spiel

but with well over 150 million in assets, other groups might just be a bit more needy

HTH

[jackal]

ianash said:

How many dogs could they train for that 150 million. I don't suppose there are enough blind people needing guide dogs.

about 4285

[jackal]

parakitaMol. said:

moleamol said:

jackal said:

yep, next time you pick a charity to give to

leave this one well out the schedule folks

now I know dogs are nice and cuddly, man's best friend and all that spiel

but with well over 150 million in assets, other groups might just be a bit more needy

HTH

Are you slowly losing your mind? Everything you post seems to be the ramblings of a genuine bona fide mentalist.

A simpleton's understanding of how having 'those assets' provides a viable base to an organisation and the work it does. Zero knowledge of of what that organisation does in addition to simply 'training guide dogs' including eye research and campaigning.

Perhaps they should spend all their cash, sell all their assets and stop making such a fantastic contribution to eye health, equal rights and access for partially sighted people and of course the dogs.

Idiot.

all fine and dandy

but there are some charities where the primary function is not financially supported enough... let alone any secondary benefits/activities. Its a question of balance.

[jackal]

parakitaMol. said:

jackal said:

parakitaMol. said:

moleamol said:

jackal said:

yep, next time you pick a charity to give to

leave this one well out the schedule folks

now I know dogs are nice and cuddly, man's best friend and all that spiel

but with well over 150 million in assets, other groups might just be a bit more needy

HTH

Are you slowly losing your mind? Everything you post seems to be the ramblings of a genuine bona fide mentalist.

A simpleton's understanding of how having 'those assets' provides a viable base to an organisation and the work it does. Zero knowledge of of what that organisation does in addition to simply 'training guide dogs' including eye research and campaigning.

Perhaps they should spend all their cash, sell all their assets and stop making such a fantastic contribution to eye health, equal rights and access for partially sighted people and of course the dogs.

Idiot.

all fine and dandy

but there are some charities where the primary function is not financially supported enough... let alone any secondary benefits/activities. Its a question of balance.

Idiotic non-point. You weren't talking vaguely about 'some' charity . You were being specific about Guide Dogs for the Blind. And demonstrating your complete lack of understanding about anything at all, including the organisation. Spend half an hour reading about them and how funding works before you come out with statements like that.

Perhaps they should run their organisation down to the bone and be completely incapable of surviving a downturn of donations and interest rates like now?

To most people that would be ridiculously incompetent.

you have a point to make and i'm willing to listen to find out more and parhaps gain a more educated view of the situation

but hey, you're coming across so aggressive... simmer down a bit will you. Stop throwing insults around, it only devalues your contribution.

No one is suggesting that they should have these assets eroded or the benefits of those assets in some way removed. The point was that if you're giving to charity there are probably other organisations that need the money a bit more just to fund their primary purpose. Do you disagree with that ?

[jackal]

dave_s13 said:

NSPCC though, they never seem to physically do anything that I ever see, other than post very annoying junk mail/begging letters (which I've ranted on here about before).

ditto

[jackal]

parakitaMol. said:

worthiness is subjective....

and in my subjective opinion I will be giving my next donation to a small niche life-saving charity who don't have any financial reserves, who can't afford big adverts and because of the recession, are under serious threat of dissappearing forever.

[jackal]

Semi hemi said:

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

good thanks


the thread clearly demonstrates that cuddly dogs are as emotive as ever and regardless of any clever and politically correct 'theorizing', the reality of smaller, less-secure charities facing extremely difficult times continues to escape people's concern

[jackal]

Mobile Chicane said:

jackal said:

the thread clearly demonstrates that cuddly dogs are as emotive as ever and regardless of any clever and politically correct 'theorizing', the reality of smaller, less-secure charities facing extremely difficult times continues to escape people's concern

I appreciate your sentiments, although I think it is a bit more complex than that. 'Big brand' charities (CRUK / NSPCC / Oxfam etc) dominate hearts and minds because they have the marketing budgets to spend on fundraising, effectively squeezing out the smaller concerns.

indeed

[jackal]

Stedman said:

Gretchen said:

Stedman said:

Did a guide dog piss up your leg today?

Whilst in a shopping centre??

Im sure its happened.

Jackal im still waiting for a valid reason why you seem to have singled out G.D.F.T.B as opposed to ALL the other charities that are luckily in a much more secure financial set-up.

It just seems like your pissed off at them for no reason?

no personal reason at all

my FIL is president of a large blind home so I have as much empathy for blind people as others who benefit from charity

but GDFTB seems to be a much cherished, almost default first selection charity for many, especially the elderley

[jackal]

parakitaMol. said:

Again you are completely wrong Jackal.

in your opinion, you forgot 'IMO'

please reread the thread... this isn't a recounting of the 'raising of lazarus' we are discussing, its not mathamatics or the laws of organic chemistry, its opinions

parakitaMol. said:

I have no 'emotive' connection with Guide Dogs for Blind.

I never said you personally did.

parakitaMol. said:

I simply understand a little of how charities operate. Neither am I 'politically correct.

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.

parakitaMol. said:

The simple fact remains that they are a solid, well run organisation which does a great deal more than training cute puppies.

hooray..... no one is debating that or taking anything away from them

there are also many other charities out there that are well run and also do a great deal more than the headline

parakitaMol. said:

As I did explain earlier - there is NO measure of worthiness when it comes do donating. Certainly not size. It is a personal, complex motivation.

what do you mean 'as i did explain earlier'. Its like youve read it off a tablet straight out the ark of the covenant. You're not an oracle you know.

What would you rather be, dead or blind ? answer me that ? See.. I just did measure it.. and so did you.

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.

parakitaMol. said:

In fact, in my experience and personal opinion of charities, I would prefer (and do) donate to larger charities with greater lobbying and campaigning power, more influential Trustees and comprise a professional senior management team who can actually manage because they've got experience gained in the commercial sectors.

good for you

if everyone thought like you though we'd be fked because the big charities don't exactly cover every aspect of life on planet earth that needs, requires and deserves charity

parakitaMol. said:

As for advertising, pr, marketing spend... it's the most ludicrous argument because if they don't invest effectively in those media communications how on earth do they raise awareness or generate donations???

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

parakitaMol. said:

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[jackal]

i dont dispute any of that