Davina beyond breaking point

slowbike

Grill wrote:

Let me just put it this way- if donating to charity made you feel like crap would you do it? Most people wouldn't. There's nothing wrong with doing it because it gives you that joy-joy feeling in the pit of your stomach, but that also makes it an inherently selfish action because of said payoff (again nothing wrong with that, just saying it how it is).

Crap in what way? Crap in the "I want this £20 note more than I want to give it to you" ? I think that does depend on the beneficiary.

Grill wrote:

I think it's a good thing that there are high-profile individuals that feel the need to give back, some just do it better than others (Bill Gates and Warren Buffett come to mind).

Indeed - but other high-profile individuals are giving in a more public way and showing that those of us who are less famous can still have a positive impact.

Does anyone give to a charity or cause that they know nothing about? I'd guess that it's "not unless prompted" ... and that's exactly what these big comic & sport relief programmes do - they raise general awareness of issues where a little of our money can go a long way.

nunowoolmez

I can kind of see the point Ugo is making, & rather than dissing celebs (or anyone else for that matter) for doing charity challenges outright, his point appears to be about social mentality & political & economical imbalance. I can at least respect his point.

I did donate £10 myself actually, but not out of guilt. I donated because I felt the cause was worthy & in my position in society I can't effect much toward it any other way. My job in the public sector helping people in emergencies & aiding victims & the vulberable means I don't feel social guilt. I think Ugo maybe has ignored that a great deal of people do thsir own charitable work, or service of the needy or vulnerable. I also donate a sum of money to 2 charities a month, ones I have compassion for, not just any old ones. I've also dine aid work in the past in Africa & lots of others do every year, so nit everyone is an 'armchair giver'.

We could all do more. The gargantuan amounts of money we spend on cycling kit every year could be better used giving to charity, but alas, human nature just doesn't follow such idealistic ideals.

I can say though that through all the suffering & subjective poverty I have seen around the world, sometimes those with less than others, like in Africa, are the most pleasant, happiest, most contented people I have come across. Remarkable really.

mfin

Don't worry if you don't want to donate to these things on some kind of political/idealistic principle, it's not like there are people suffering or even dying that could do with a few quid. A few quid that you probably wouldn't even notice being out of pocket for but are too up yourself to give. Or, alternatively, a good reason to gloss over the fact that it might do some good might be to maintain focus on the fact a celebrity you don't personally know found some not inconsiderably strenuous exercise a little bit difficult and had a sniffle when you might have found it easier.

Why not chops on about financial political change you would like to see on a cycling forum instead? How noble.
I calculated for instance that it took me 2 minutes to type this, at least only 4 or five kids died from malaria that was preventable in that time, let alone all those from other diseases, starvation etc. Don't worry, there's plenty of adults to ignore too, not just kids to ignore. F**k them eh? ...and f**k Davina McCall and all charities that are at least making some difference?

I think not.

Grill

Slowbike wrote:

Grill wrote:

Let me just put it this way- if donating to charity made you feel like crap would you do it? Most people wouldn't. There's nothing wrong with doing it because it gives you that joy-joy feeling in the pit of your stomach, but that also makes it an inherently selfish action because of said payoff (again nothing wrong with that, just saying it how it is).

Crap in what way? Crap in the "I want this £20 note more than I want to give it to you" ? I think that does depend on the beneficiary.

If the default emotional response was depression and disgust, then people just wouldn't give. I'm using a 'reduce to ridiculous' example to show that there is a selfishness and selflessness are not mutually exclusive.

Slowbike wrote:

Grill wrote:

I think it's a good thing that there are high-profile individuals that feel the need to give back, some just do it better than others (Bill Gates and Warren Buffett come to mind).

Indeed - but other high-profile individuals are giving in a more public way and showing that those of us who are less famous can still have a positive impact.

Does anyone give to a charity or cause that they know nothing about? I'd guess that it's "not unless prompted" ... and that's exactly what these big comic & sport relief programmes do - they raise general awareness of issues where a little of our money can go a long way.

[/quote]

Sure, but I'm naturally sceptical of any charitable organisation. If I'm giving my money I would not only like a proper percentage (talking 80%+) to actually help the current cause and not go to silly PACs (I'm looking at you PETA). Exposure to the charity is good, not knowing the details for said charities isn't. Be nice if they were easily labelled just like the nutritional advice on food.

ugo.santalucia

mfin wrote:

Why not chops on about financial political change you would like to see on a cycling forum instead? How noble.
I calculated for instance that it took me 2 minutes to type this, at least only 4 or five kids died from malaria that was preventable in that time, let alone all those from other diseases, starvation etc. Don't worry, there's plenty of adults to ignore too, not just kids to ignore. F**k them eh? ...and f**k Davina McCall and all charities that are at least making some difference?

I think not.

I feel very sorry for victims of medieval diseases like leper or 18th century diseases like malaria. Drugs for these are so cheap that even Mozambique could afford them, let alone India... they prefer to spend their money elsewhere and leave Unicef to sort out their lepers... it is disgraceful, but the solution is NOT keep funding these programs. The solution is to impose sanctions to India until they decide to take the matter in their own hands... it is the way to go... why nobody bothers?
If we let our sick people die the entire world would have a go at us... what's special about India? WHy they have the money for high tech but they don't seem to bother with their lepers?
Let's keep patching the situation with generosity, so it will never be solved!

ugo.santalucia

madasahattersley wrote:

Also I'm not sure how much of the 3rd world you've seen but you've obviously not visited India if you hold that ill informed opinion.

India has enough wealth to solve its own poverty, problem is they don't want to. Foreign aid should go ahead, but it should be conditional to a serious program, whereby within 10 years India will take care of its own poverty and related diseases... it seems at the moment it's all unconditional, hence they don't bother to do anything about it...

I can tell you drugs for leper are cheaper than nylon per weight

nunowoolmez

Karl Marx would be loving this discussion...

ugo.santalucia

nunowoolmez wrote:

Karl Marx would be loving this discussion...

Yes and he wouldn't be one for charity, I tell you that...

Paulie W

Ugo is right that charitable giving funds things in the UK that we could reasonably expect to be funded through other means and government aid to other countries could be more contingent on certain things happening - it is to some extent but nowhere near enough.

The principle of not giving to charity because it limits the responsibility of foreign and home governments to make key strutural changes has some merit. In practice, the charitable sector is huge in the UK and the removal of that sector would have dire consequences for millions of people across the globe. The problem with this sector is that it is not always that efficient in redistributing funds brought in. The costs associated with running a charity are pretty high meaning that there is limited bang for each buck you donate. I dont have the figures for Sport Relief at hand but there has been some negative publicity about the % of donations from other telethons that end up 'in the field'. I dont tend to donate to these things which are very scattergun in their approach and instead focus on charities where you know who is going to get the money and overheads are low so that a high % of the donation reaches its target.

As for Davina: the £2m+ her activity brought in has to be seen as a good thing in itself. I'm not so sure that it is a good thing that charitable giving is now driven by famous people doing crazy, amazing, impossible things. That people are more likely to give if they see Davina half drowning in Windermere than doing a 10 lap walk of the local playing field probably says something fundamental about our society.

thegibdog

I am refusing to pay any tax until the government stops giving money to countries that are wealthy enough to sort their own problems out...

rolf_f

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

I do think that perhaps our country relies a little too heavily on charity where it should be centrally funded, but sometimes a charity organisation is the best way to achieve the goal.

What? By spending up to 90% of the revenue in fund rising and self promotion?

Is this a real statistic or just something you made up to help justify your viewpoint?

slowbike

Rolf F wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

I do think that perhaps our country relies a little too heavily on charity where it should be centrally funded, but sometimes a charity organisation is the best way to achieve the goal.

What? By spending up to 90% of the revenue in fund rising and self promotion?

Is this a real statistic or just something you made up to help justify your viewpoint?

I missed his original reply - but I think the key word is UP ... The charities I chose to support do not have such a high administrative cost.
To be fair - it does seen that the UK has a fairly big charity sector - I wonder how many administrative jobs are supported just by donations?

sigorman85

Seems I have started something ..... No need for all the swear words

ugo.santalucia

Up to 90% is what I read somewhere. There are charities whose only scope is to promote themselves... take "the vegetarian society" for instance... it's a charity that promotes a certain lifestyle... I had a friend working there and she told me that virtually any money they rise is spent to keep the organisation going.
Other charities have lower running costs but not that low. Basically you can be fairly confident that if you donate 10 pounds for Africa the majority of it will never go to Africa.
But that's fine, I don't condemn that... if it costs a lot it costs a lot. My rant is about essential services which should be supplied and not begged for.
CHarity should be for extraordinary events, for which a nation cannot budget. Earthquakes, draught in the horn of Africa these kind of things.
The Air Ambulance? Children in need? Help for the Heroes? No thanks... if they are heroes we should help them, if they are children in need and we don't help them as a nation with our tax, there is something seriously wrong

slowbike

Two different arguments there. The first - support a charity where you at least agree with their aims - the veg society - what are its aims? Encouraging veggies?! Nah. Can't see why we need an organisation - charity or not - for that.

Charities must publish their accounts so if you're concerned about getting Big Bang for bucks then check their accounts before donating.

rolf_f

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Up to 90% is what I read somewhere.

But you can't say that for Davinas little stunt without some specific knowledge. Of course, you are right that some charities are very inefficient and you do need to read the small print (Livestrong being a particularly fine example) but in this specific case, I suspect that quite a high proportion of the money goes to the cause (should be easy to find out anyway). I've always though found telthons distasteful. The wealthy Wogan guilting me into making free with my hard earned whilst he stands there being paid for one night probably more than I earn in a year!

Of course, none of this should be necessary. We should be doing the right thing by tax spending but how do you make that happen? People like donating to Sport Relief and hate paying taxes. If a government said that all charities would henceforth be banned but income tax would be raised by 2% to pay for it they'd be immediately looking to pack up the crockery and steal the lightbulbs on their way out.

It's not as though this is the worst problem that short termism in politics causes - the whole environmental issue is far more important than charities (at least there is the alternative approach of funding via charities even if you don't like it - the environment just has to gradually go down the toilet with no hope of a solution).

ugo.santalucia

Rolf F wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Up to 90% is what I read somewhere.

But you can't say that for Davinas little stunt without some specific knowledge. Of course, you are right that some charities are very inefficient and you do need to read the small print (Livestrong being a particularly fine example) but in this specific case, I suspect that quite a high proportion of the money goes to the cause (should be easy to find out anyway). I've always though found telthons distasteful. The wealthy Wogan guilting me into making free with my hard earned whilst he stands there being paid for one night probably more than I earn in a year!

Of course, none of this should be necessary. We should be doing the right thing by tax spending but how do you make that happen? People like donating to Sport Relief and hate paying taxes. If a government said that all charities would henceforth be banned but income tax would be raised by 2% to pay for it they'd be immediately looking to pack up the crockery and steal the lightbulbs on their way out.

It's not as though this is the worst problem that short termism in politics causes - the whole environmental issue is far more important than charities (at least there is the alternative approach of funding via charities even if you don't like it - the environment just has to gradually go down the toilet with no hope of a solution).

What people who feel good about donating should do is imagine themselves at the receiving end... would you rather have Davina collecting loose change on your behalf when you are experiencing hardship or you would prefer to rely on a system which maybe in your own time you have contributed to... or maybe still contribute to? I would prefer the latter... it's less humiliating.
Charity is a temporary fix to an existing emergency... but at some point action should be taken to resolve the issue or it will never go away... It is not sad, it is ourageous that in the 21st century a nation armed with nuclear weapons and sitting comfortably in the G 20 has not got rid of medieval diseases

Moonbiker

I think Ugo is right charities are letting the goverment of the hook even can make things worse in ther long term. :shock:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Trouble-Aid ... 1848130406

Africa is poor. If we send it money it will be less poor. It seems perfectly logical, doesn't it? Millions of people in the rich world, moved by images on television and appalled by the miserable conditions endured by so many in other countries, have joined campaigns to persuade their governments to double aid to Africa and help put an end to such shameful inequality. It seems simple. But it isn't. In this book, Jonathan Glennie argues that, along with its many benefits, government aid to Africa has often meant more poverty, more hungry people, worse basic services and damage to already precarious democratic institutions. Moreover, calls for more aid are drowning out pressure for action that would really make a difference for Africa's poor. Rather than doubling aid to Africa, it is time to reduce aid dependency. Through an honest assessment of both the positive and negative consequences of aid, this book will show you why.

Paulie W

Rolf F wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

I do think that perhaps our country relies a little too heavily on charity where it should be centrally funded, but sometimes a charity organisation is the best way to achieve the goal.

What? By spending up to 90% of the revenue in fund rising and self promotion?

Is this a real statistic or just something you made up to help justify your viewpoint?

No, it isnt. 50% is largely viewed as a very poor return and most organisations fall someway below that.

Paulie W

Moonbiker wrote:

I think Ugo is right charities are letting the goverment of the hook even can make things worse in ther long term. :shock:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Trouble-Aid ... 1848130406

Africa is poor. If we send it money it will be less poor. It seems perfectly logical, doesn't it? Millions of people in the rich world, moved by images on television and appalled by the miserable conditions endured by so many in other countries, have joined campaigns to persuade their governments to double aid to Africa and help put an end to such shameful inequality. It seems simple. But it isn't. In this book, Jonathan Glennie argues that, along with its many benefits, government aid to Africa has often meant more poverty, more hungry people, worse basic services and damage to already precarious democratic institutions. Moreover, calls for more aid are drowning out pressure for action that would really make a difference for Africa's poor. Rather than doubling aid to Africa, it is time to reduce aid dependency. Through an honest assessment of both the positive and negative consequences of aid, this book will show you why.

Aid and charitable giving are not the same thing.

rolf_f

ugo.santalucia wrote:

It is not sad, it is ourageous that in the 21st century a nation armed with nuclear weapons and sitting comfortably in the G 20 has not got rid of medieval diseases

The last thing we need in the West is long life expectancies and improved conditions in the 3rd world. Who will make our electrical goods for ridiculously small amounts of money if everyone is on the same wage? We'd have to stop throwing perfectly good stuff away after 6 months if that happened.

slowbike

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Up to 90% is what I read somewhere.

But you can't say that for Davinas little stunt without some specific knowledge. Of course, you are right that some charities are very inefficient and you do need to read the small print (Livestrong being a particularly fine example) but in this specific case, I suspect that quite a high proportion of the money goes to the cause (should be easy to find out anyway). I've always though found telthons distasteful. The wealthy Wogan guilting me into making free with my hard earned whilst he stands there being paid for one night probably more than I earn in a year!

Of course, none of this should be necessary. We should be doing the right thing by tax spending but how do you make that happen? People like donating to Sport Relief and hate paying taxes. If a government said that all charities would henceforth be banned but income tax would be raised by 2% to pay for it they'd be immediately looking to pack up the crockery and steal the lightbulbs on their way out.

It's not as though this is the worst problem that short termism in politics causes - the whole environmental issue is far more important than charities (at least there is the alternative approach of funding via charities even if you don't like it - the environment just has to gradually go down the toilet with no hope of a solution).

What people who feel good about donating should do is imagine themselves at the receiving end... would you rather have Davina collecting loose change on your behalf when you are experiencing hardship or you would prefer to rely on a system which maybe in your own time you have contributed to... or maybe still contribute to? I would prefer the latter... it's less humiliating.
Charity is a temporary fix to an existing emergency... but at some point action should be taken to resolve the issue or it will never go away... It is not sad, it is ourageous that in the 21st century a nation armed with nuclear weapons and sitting comfortably in the G 20 has not got rid of medieval diseases

Ok - so you're a child living in Africa - your dad is dead and your mother is seriously sick. You have to scratch around for work in order to earn enough money to feed your mother and siblings ... someone gives you a mosquito net - it's happening to others all over the village - are you going to say no? Humiliating for the child? No. It's just a little thing that can be done that the child wouldn't do for themselves because they don't have the opportunity to earn enough to comfortably do so.

I do think that this sort of foreign aid is something that charities should do - if we made it our governments responsibility then that could easily be abused and we (the general public) would get little or no say in who receives our "donations" - at least with us donating directly to the charity it is our choice as to where our money goes.

As for charities targeting aims at home - well, I still feel it should be for the government to provide a basic level of service and charities can then "top up" that support to a level that the public are willing to fund - a bit like the NHS and private hospitals - you'll get seen at the NHS (eventually) and receive treatment you need, but if you're willing to pay for it then you can get seen (usually) faster and receive a higher tier of treatment that goes beyond the basic that is required.

Specifically at H4H - I have a huge amount of admiration for those brave enough to go to the front line - but it was their choice to enter armed services and you cannot expect to enter a fighting force and never have to fight (it would be nice - but don't expect it!) - with fighting comes injuries and sometimes death -as horrible as it is - it's part of the job. Did our government fall short on supporting those injured? Quite likely. Has H4H gone beyond the basics required (that our government should be providing) - Most definitely.

Charities have funded a wheelchair accessible boat provided for injured servicemen to be able to take trips around a harbour and go fishing - very commendable I'm sure - there are already commercial services available for harbour trips and fishing can be done from shore or chartering a fishing boat.
Should the government have provided this wheelchair boat? Not in my opinion - but there is nothing wrong with it being provided by ppl who want to give their own money to provide it.

Mikey23

http://www.pearlofafrica.org.uk/choir-2013/

This is one of the many projects that my church are involved in.The Ugandans themselves provide education and upbringing to orphans and destitute by building and operating schools, colleges, farms, accomodation, food, mosquito nets etc etc. Those orphans and destitute themselves pay for the building and maintenance by sending choirs over here to work in and alongside schools and colleges. We provide the infrastructure and support to enable that to happen. And have these lovely people staying with us in our homes

Then there is our food bank, credit union, street pastors, drop ins etc

Bleat about it or do something that makes a tiny difference...

markhewitt1978

Finally watched the programme last night. She performed admirably, although I would have been nice to see what preparation and training she had done; instead of jumping straight from 3 months before, to the night before.

Overall it was stupidity doing it at this time of year, although I suppose in the summer it wouldn't have been as big a challenge.

Although the main thing was that on soaking wet roads in horrible condition, no mudguards?!

Grill

Mudguards do nothing in those sort of conditions.

amaferanga

Anyone that thinks that throwing money at African countries does anything positive should go ride a bike round Ethiopia for a couple of months and see how little the billions thrown at has improved the lives of people there. It creates dependency and it doesn't motivate people to do things for themselves. "I'm poor, you're rich, give money".

Africa doesn't need aid, but the rich westerners feel the need to give it to make themselves feel less guilty about their gluttony.

Alain Quay

You've expressed your view on what African countries don't need. So do they just get left to fend for themselves? Some of the western initiatives in recent years e.g. to abolish debt, have been good. The trouble is situations in parts of Africa are often desperate e.g. villages with no clean water, or AIDS or malaria victims with no access to drugs. Do we just ignore that? Economic independence is the goal, but in the mean time, worrying about creating a dependency culture is a far lesser issue.

slowbike

amaferanga wrote:

Anyone that thinks that throwing money at African countries does anything positive should go ride a bike round Ethiopia for a couple of months and see how little the billions thrown at has improved the lives of people there. It creates dependency and it doesn't motivate people to do things for themselves. "I'm poor, you're rich, give money".

Africa doesn't need aid, but the rich westerners feel the need to give it to make themselves feel less guilty about their gluttony.

Overall you may be right - there will those who just take, just look at our own (small) culture of welfare dependants - but the kids who have to work all day to help earn money to feed themselves & family don't have much choice but to work - work or starve - and they can't afford education themselves. They have no welfare to fall back on. These are kids who WANT to go to school and learn rather than just break rocks or sort litter all day.

They don't need handouts - they need assistance to help themselves and that is what I think most charities are focusing on - providing some fundamentals so they can change their own lives and have a better life.

Mikey23

As in my post above!

It has surprised me how much the young people who have stayed with us are still in that mindset. You rich, me poor, me have hard luck story, you give me money, everybody happy. And if we are daft enough to buy into that mentality nothing will change. And when they come over and see our consumerist western lifestyle and the way we surround ourselves with all the pointless 'stuff' as something to aspire to then who can blame them...

dabber

Something that has stayed with me....

On a coach, stuck in a traffic jam headed towards Delhi. Walking along near to the coach about 5 schoolgirls, maybe about 11 years old. All smartly dressed in school uniforms. First they started waving at us, then they ran up to the side of the coach and started asking for money. :roll: