Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

An A& E two tier system would be a very good thing. The clue is in the name Accident and Emergency. The bulk of the visitors are there with trivial complaints and should be sent home.

Doodlebug4

You say,

"doodlebug4 - 12 Nov 2013 21:06 - 32710 of 32758

Okay, since it is so revealing which charities any poster donates to - my own personal choice is - macmillan nurses, RSPCA, MIND ( a mental health charity ) and the donkey sanctuary - each of which I give a small amount by direct debit each month.

When I read that, I just wondered if you have been 'got at' by the so called "Chuggers"?

Teams of chuggers generally operate in the high street or even 'door to door' by recruiting punters to sign up for 'charitable donation giving done by Direct Debit'.

They bring in lots of donations for the charities concerned and the people/businesses who control and recruit the teams are very well remunerated for their services.

What a lot of punters like yourself don't realise, is that the usual commission rate for chuggers is at least "50% of the amount signed up". Sometimes, depending on the charity concerned, it will be an even higher rate.

Now you will know/remember how you got signed up, I'm sure. However, what I want to ask you is, "Why don't you consider stopping those particular Direct Debits and then kicking off some fresh Standing Orders instead?"

That way 100% of what you donate goes directly to the charity concerned.

Even better, if you can connect some of the HMRC 'Gift Aid" to your giving. Merely by doing this as a UK Tax Payer, your donations can be increased by the charities concerned, who can legitimately reclaim back from the government the standard rate tax that you have paid, which amounts to a whopping 25% of what you have donated.

See: https://www.cafonline.org/my-personal-giving/plan-your-giving/individual-giving-account/how-does-it-work/gift-aid.aspx?gclid=CNih5pD24boCFbLJtAodSwsAoQ

ExecLine - thank you for that helpful info. Only the RSPCA that I donate to falls into that category - I was approached by a door to door saleswoman!

Exec it comes down to what I posted yesterday, just how much of every £1 goes to the victims.

I know a lot of charitys where 90% plus goes to management and administration.

NOT very good form.

The Charitable sector in general has been a rich seem of remuneration for years now for "some".

Stan, sadly not the recipients intended by the donor.
I have not had a reply from cynic re posts on page 1635/1636, maybe not that important.
2517

George,

In general I think that if people are working, then it should be "payed" work so I'm not against people working in Charities being payed in fact.

The "some" I was referring to in general, are the one's at the top (as usual) who disproportionally get a lot more.

The "well being" of a "society" depends on all of society being well and therefore it maybe be the responsibility for all in society.

One of the reasons for treating a "tramp" with TB, or and alcoholic with syphilis, is that it attempts to protect the rest of that society from those disorders.

The defence of to all maybe may be help and treat the less capable or more inn-able.

Perhaps, the reason for a Wealth-fare system financed out of general taxation.

Just pondering a little.

Dan Hodges in The Telegraph:

"So now we know: Ed Miliband struck a deal that allowed Unite to rig the Falkirk selection."

Absolutely Stan, it must be around 15 years ago that a director of Guide dogs for the blind was on £69k a year, heaven knows what he is on now. That's an awful lot of donations not reaching the people they were intended for. Of course they have to be paid but they like so many in 'positions' they allow their greed to run riot.
2517

You mean like a sitting MP being bribed with a Knight-hood to stand down for a Boris to step into a safe seat.


That would also make them a hoody.

251,

DON'T FORGET, you are paying for their SKILLS of milking the situation.

Seems that a tory MP was offering to sell similar skills to the Albanians.

Who would have believed it!

red1---as I said, 'like so many in positions'.
2517

Average salary of top-100 charity boss exceeds £166k


Governance | Tania Mason | 31 Aug 2011

http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/governance/news/content/10344/average_salary_of_top-100_charity_boss_exceeds_166k


The average salary of the chief executives of the UK’s top-100 charities is £166,048, exclusive new research by civilsociety.co.uk has shown.

This represents an increase of around 10 per cent on the average salary in 2009, which was £151,563.

The figure is contained in the Leadership Survey 2011 published in the September edition of Charity Finance magazine. The research, which explores the age, gender, background and pay of the chief executives of the UK biggest 100 charities, is carried out every two years.

In this year’s study, 27 of the CEOs profiled were new to the list, and of these newcomers just one in ten came to their job from the private sector. Around half came directly from the public sector and one-third came from a charity post. The remaining 10 per cent joined from the armed forces.

The top five earners in the list were all men, and when their salaries were removed the average salary fell to £138, 949.

Forty of the 100 leaders were interviewed as part of the study and this sample said that their most time-consuming task was service delivery, followed by policy development and dealing with trustees.

What strata of society do they fit into.

Thanks for that MaxK, bit of an eye-opener what. The top five must be picking up obscene salaries, nice work if you can get it, what expenses are they allowed on top of their salaries I wonder.
2517

Same as some MPs think they are entitled to.

So the top 5 salaries between them are responsible for almost £3.4 million.Like I said, obscene.
2517

So? What are we going to do about it?

george - no idea what your question was, and in any case, i see everything is now swamped by the customary ranting posters .... glad i was far better employed by a decent lunch with a good m/e client