October 2021
« Sep    

Charities – can we trust them?

Hopefully a more cheerful blog today.

As Christmas – the time for generosity and giving – approaches, many of us are getting bombarded by ‘gimme gimme gimme’ ads on the TV and begging letters from Britain’s charities.

So, I’ve produced a new, short (3 minutes) snouts-in-the-trough video about what really happens to the tens of billions we give to good causes every year.

I’d be grateful if all readers could view the video and then send the link to as many people as possible.

So, here she is, in all her voluminous glory, the wonderful, the sensuous the one and only Camila Batmanghelidjh!!!!

15 comments to Charities – can we trust them?

  • Fred The Shred

    Just some headlines in before we get down to the great Charity Pied Piper Scandal that is used to Salve the Conscience of Todays Sheeple and their Warped Minds that feel guilty for everything. And will soon be asking for Charity from Third World Countries themselves as the West Collapses and will find that their pleas go wanting and are laughed at.

    First the results are in , yes you guessed it The number one boys name for 2015 in the UKs Birthing Units is Mohamed according to yesterdays mail but somehow I dont doubt that result.Its why John Cleese cant find any Englishmen in Londonistan.

    Secondly the USA debt for the month of November is in finally, after raising the debt limit on their credit card.

    U.S. Total Debt Soars By $674 Billion In November.Yes thats correct two thirds of a Trill. in one month, now thats how to trash your credit card.But when your Fed is the bank then you just issue yourself and print more money, now that is a disaster in the making once confidence is gone watch out , and it will be soon punters.

    You see Wars and Welfare are expensive David Cameron which is why you are ratcheting up our debt too to add to our monumental debt load. When the Anglo American controlled banking system caves it will be one Hell of a party and they will say they never saw it coming.And waht will Mohamed and all the other Mohameds do when they no longer get Camerons generous welfare payments will they kick off, You Betcha.

    55 no go areas in Stockholm,Malmo etc. places like Molenbeek in Brussels you aint seen nothing yet.

  • Tony Potts

    DOUG CASEY on Charities-Says Charities exist mainly to make the donor feel good.

    Editor’s Note: As the holiday season approaches, you may be planning to make a donation to charity. Before you do, read Casey Research founder Doug Casey’s take on why giving away wealth is usually a bad idea…

    Louis James: Doug, our readers are hoping to live well for the rest of their lives. If they are successful, they’ll have some money left over at the end. Some have wondered, given your low opinion of trying to use the state to improve the human condition, if there’s a private charity you think might be a good place to direct funds when they’ll no longer be needing them?

    Doug: No.

    L: That’s it? No?

    Doug: Most charities aren’t worth the cost of the gunpowder it would take to blow them to hell.

    L: And the permitting for the demolition, fuhgeddaboudit. But can you explain why?

    Doug: Sure. Charities are largely counterproductive. Their main beneficiaries are not the intended recipients but the givers. They get some tax benefits, but, mainly, they get the holy high of do-goodism. Frankly, the idea of charity itself is corrupting to both parties in the transaction.

    For instance, take Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. Both are geniuses at their businesses. But they’re the type of geniuses I consider to be idiot savants. If they really wanted to improve the state of the world, they should continue doing what they do best, which is accumulating wealth. Or, actually, creating it, as opposed to dissipating it by giving it away. Giving money away breaks up a capital pool that could have been used productively by those who build it for making new wealth (which increases the amount of wealth that exists in the world).

    Worse, giving money away usually delivers it into the hands of people who don’t deserve it. That sends the wrong moral message. People should have, or get, things because they deserve them. And you deserve things because you earn them. In other words, wealth should be a consequence of doing things that improve the state of the world. Endowing groups, or individuals, because they happen to have had some bad luck, or are perpetual losers, is actually immoral.

    When money is given away, it’s almost as bad as government welfare. It makes it unnecessary for the recipient to produce, and that tends to cement him to his current station in life. The very act of making an urgent situation non-urgent takes away the incentive, the urgency, to improve.

    Morally speaking, charity is not a virtue, it’s a vice.

    L: The giver gets to feel good at the expense of the people whose independent drive they undermine. But what about the programs that are specifically designed to teach an individual to fish, rather than to just hand out fish – those that teach job skills, for example – do you see them the same way?

    Doug: I’m not saying that programs like that can have no positive effect. There are people who genuinely want to improve themselves, but, for whatever reason, just can’t manage it on their own. But charity is not the best way to approach the issue.

    Look, the basic point I’m making is that the best way to reduce the amount of poverty in the world is to create more wealth – as much as possible, as quickly as possible.

    The essence of a charity transaction is to transfer wealth from those who have shown they can create it to those who have not shown they can. I mean, if a man doesn’t know how to “fish,” which isn’t exactly rocket science, after all, you have to wonder why; something we discussed in our chat about education. Money is best left in the hands of the most competent and productive people, and the best way to tell who’s the most competent and productive is generally to look at who’s created the most wealth.

    L: And the more wealth there is in the world, the better off everyone is, even those who end up working for the creators.

    Doug: Right. And those employees are creating and earning their own wealth as well. It sure has a lot more dignity than being a welfare bum. Besides, if they are competent and creative, there’s no reason for them not to rise to the top.

    L: And as we discussed in our conversation on technology, you need large pools of capital to develop new technologies – and new technologies tend, on average, to improve the lot of the little guy proportionally more than the guy at the top of the social pyramid.

    Doug: Yes. Charity exists, mostly, to make the donor feel good. It assuages guilt people accrue over a lifetime, for real or imaginary reasons.

    L: I remember that interview John Stossel did with Ted Turner, in which he asked him to explain why he gave a billion dollars to the UN. Turner looked pole-axed for a minute, then got up and walked out of the interview.

    Doug: [Laughs] That’s a polar opposite to charity. That was giving money to an organization that is itself destructive. Counterproductive in the extreme. The UN, which is just a corrupt club for governments, should be abolished, not subsidized. And here’s this fool actually feeding the beast.

    It’s a perfect example of what most so-called charitable giving is about. It’s an excuse for people to display their fine philanthropist plumage. It’s a never-ending contest of one-upmanship, to see who can be the king of the hill of fools for a day, by giving the most. In most cases, it’s not about what the money is going to, it’s about being a big shot among peers and getting invited to all the most fashionable parties. They get to socialize with celebrities and others who, in our corrupt society, buy fame by giving away money, which in many cases was either easily earned or unearned.

    In most cases, philanthropy doesn’t arise from a love for one’s fellow man, but from a need to assuage guilt, a need to show off, and a lack of imagination.

    L: So, your basic argument is that it’s better (and cheaper) to put a fence at the top of a cliff than to put an ambulance at the bottom. That is, rather than putting Band-Aids on the poverty-stricken, it’s better not to have any poverty-stricken. Therefore, it’s better to allow wealth to continue accumulating and creating more wealth. And that means that any effort to take wealth away from the wealthy, the productive, and give it to the non-productive, is…counterproductive.

    Doug: That’s basically the argument. Yes. And it’s true for both practical and ethical reasons.

  • Tony Potts

    This is a report from 2011, but I doubt anything has changed for the better..

    If you want to combine bargain hunting with altruism, the obvious place to go is a charity shop. Finding one shouldn’t be difficult. It is estimated that, following rapid growth over the past few years, there are now more than 5,000 charity shops in the UK.
    But few shoppers really know how much of the money they spend benefits charities. In fact, while the shops are a very useful source of income for charities, purchases are an inefficient way of donating your money. On average, 73p of every pounds 1 you spend is soaked up in the expenses of running the shops, according to a survey published last year by the magazine NGO Finance.

    Charity shops have become big business. The annual income of the largest five chains of shops alone is now in the order of pounds 150m. At the same time, a number of shops have started selling new, as well as donated, goods and most of the big chains are using paid staff to work alongside the volunteers.

  • Tim rows

    Charities should be stopped from cold calling people and sharing their data unless they have up-to-date consent, the data watchdog has suggested as he investigates how a pensioner was conned out of £35,000 over two decades.
    Former Army Colonel Samuel Rae, who has dementia, was inundated with requests from major charities and targeted by fraudsters after he failed to tick a box preventing the sharing of his details in 1994.
    Over the next 21 years charities sold on his personal information including to some who turned out to be con men and preyed on the vulnerable pensioner.
    Christopher Graham, the Information Commissioner, is investigating the case to see if any of the charities broke the law in passing on the details or bombarding Mr Rae, 87, with more than 730 requests for support.

    UK DATA GUARD DOG the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is worried that charities are not taking enough care of personal data and is looking at doing something about it.
    Everyone should be concerned about how much care is applied to their data. We at The INQUIRER hear about so many leaks that we might as well write about municipal plumbing and drainage.
    The ICO is concentrating on charities here, which is a fine place to look at for locking down.
    Information Commissioner Christopher Graham said in a blog post that the firm is reacting to reports in the newspapers, well The Daily Mail, about charity data leaks, and that if he does not find what he likes he will start handing out fines.
    This was kicked off by the story of one poor chap who found his data on something called a ‘suckers list’, a document shared by bastards who target possibly vulnerable people.


    You see there is an answer to all this, DONT BE A SUCKER. Just because our media shove whiney photos and video clips in our faces’s in the press and on TV everyday does not mean that money will reach those you intend it or that it will do any good.Your going to need your money yourself…

  • HenryGrout

    There is only one way to stop them, dont contribute to huge salaries, the authorities wont stop it..

    Why charities aren’t bagging a fortune from your donations.

    The news that several charity leaders are on huge salaries is the latest in a series of PR challenges that the sector has had to face down. The latest revelations that executives across some of the UK’s largest and most highly regarded charitable organisations are pulling in salaries of up to £184,000 from the precious coffers of the British Red Cross, Save the Children, Christian Aid and others. Once again, the actions of a few are jeopardising the incredible work of many.

  • HenryGrout

    Not only that your details are sold on..

    A crackdown on companies selling personal details to cold callers has been launched by information watchdogs.

    The Information Commissioner’s Office is writing to more than 1,000 ‘list brokers’ this week in a bid to check the personal information they hold is obtained legally.

    Data protection laws ban companies from buying or selling people’s details without their agreement, and breaches can result in fines of up to £500.

    In the letter, ICO chiefs ask list brokers to prove that they have customers’ permission to sell on their data to cold-call and marketing firms.

    They also ask that the millions of names, telephone numbers and even medical records they own have been obtained legally.

    The Internet(and all TV ,media and news outlets) was good till Government(Politics) and Big business(including charities) took it over.

    Give as little info about yourself out there as possible .Volunteer no information in todays world, the old world we had is gone never to come back when we had Universal Christian Charity Values and good deeds David Cameron, Soros, Obama, Merkel and the Cultural Marxists have put paid to that , they have decided to drags us down to the level of the worst societies in the World and are accelerating that process daily. Todays World is not of the Good. Any good deed is treated as a weakness to be exploited taken advantage of, hence todays Charities for one. Be Charitable only to your families and good friends and only to others that have proved themselves to be genuine.

  • richard the lion heart

    With over 300 staff, it is difficult to see what the Charity Commission actually does.

    As of June 2010, the total annual income of registered charities was £52.5 billion. That’s a lot of tax not being paid, by some very big companies with some very highly paid staff at the top of them.Who knows what the figure is now..

  • Help

    Is it going round faster or is just my eyes? Maybe its because of more debt Welfare for Mohamed and the wars against Mohamed, just depends on his geographic location I suppose.

  • Help

    Prosecutors ban Soros Foundation as ‘threat to Russian national security’

    Dont know about Russia, I would say he is a threat to the entire Worlds Security in he and his comrades the leaders in their quest to dominate it may well destroy it.’C’est la vie’, sorry they dont say that in Brussels and Paris now its ‘Inshallah ‘ isnt it.

  • Help

    So Cameron wants to bomb somebody in Syria, last time he wanted to bomb Assad, who, what will it be this time? Make no mistake this will all come home to roost, the West created ISIS .

    ‘I’m sorry’: Historic moment Tony Blair FINALLY apologises for Iraq War and admits in TV interview the conflict caused the rise of ISIS

    Read more:

    So we expect Blairs reincarnation to fix it????

  • MGJ

    I wasn’t familiar with Doug Casey but he is absolutely spot on in his article.

    Today’s news that the founder of Facebook is ‘doing a Gates’ shows how ignorant both men are of basic economics. If you want to give away a few gazillion dollars to make the world better, give it to a ‘nasty’ capitalist with a track record of creating wealth. Sure, he may benefit but so will an awful lot of other people.

  • Help

    Its ok ‘Dont panic’ I have found out why the debt clock is whizzing round faster. Its the impending never ending war of Cameron is busy embroiling us in [Expensive business Ministry of Defence (or is it Offence!)]
    Also Osborne says He Banks on Mass Migration to save the coubtry and the Economy (Front page of Daily Mail today) What he really means he Banks on Mass Immigration to quickly turn us into a basket case like Sweden where Gimmegrants have top priority and dont work bankrupting the economy and destroying Swedish culture as was intended from the start.
    Former Swedish PM: Sweden belongs to the immigrants – not the Swedes.

  • Fred The Shred

    Syrian Migrants except there were hardly any Syrians as usual.Freezing weather but they never go home of course.

    Macedonian police fired tear gas at hundreds of mostly Pakistani migrants who tried to storm into the Balkan country from Greece on Wednesday demanding passage to wealthier northern Europe.

    About 1,500 Pakistanis, Moroccans and Iranians have been stuck in no-man’s land between Greece and Macedonia for weeks after non-EU Balkan states began filtering migrants and granting passage only to refugees fleeing Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Protests have swelled among desperate migrants stranded for days in squalid tent camps on the border near the Greek town of Idomeni in temperatures barely above freezing.

  • Fred The Shred

    Mass Shooting, Bomb Threat In San Bernardino, CA; Up To 12 Reported Dead, Up To 3 Active Gunmen

  • Fred The Shred

    Farooq Saeed has been identified as the possible San Bernardino shooting suspect, who reports indicate walked into a medical facility for people with developmental disabilities and opened fire.

    UK media said it was 3 Whites I think thats racist dont you.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>