You may have read or seen on the news that an elderly lady jumped to her death. Charities have been blamed for contributing to her state of mind. Since her death many have come forward to show the amount of begging mail they receive per week, plus phone harassment. It isn't only mail but excessive TV advertising and posters in Motorway toilets etc. Whilst we know that money needs to be raised, it seems that if money can be got, there are now no holds barred as to how they do it, and is now no longer charitable. Your thoughts on this welcome http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/577561/Poppy-seller-Olive-Cooke-family-call-for-charity-law-change
That's why I only donate locally these. I donated to St. Judes hospital a couple of years ago and have been swamped with mail ever since. Not only from St. Judes but many others. I'm certain they sell the names of donors to other charities, probably with a big headline; Hey we found another sucker. They don't want a one time donation either. They want people to sign up for continuing monthly donations. Somehow they've all decided 19 dollars per month is the amount we should pay. I'm sure most have seen the enormous amounts of money the executives of many charities receive and the small amount that actually goes to help the needy. I wanted to donate to WOUNDED WARRIOR so I got on their website but they just wanted too much information and had no provisions for a one time donation. I didn't donate. A local sheriff's deputy was killed just last week and an account has been set up to help his family. That I will donate to.
Sadly, in these consumerist and materialist times, charities are starting to behave in the manner of aggressive multinationals. There is definitely an 'in your face' attitude these days and it's quite unpleasant at times. I was out the other day and got accosted by a charity 'mugger'. In fact, the environmental charity he was campaigning for would get my support generally, but I don't like being jumped on in the street. I quietly pointed this out and got a sneering "Have a nice day" back from him. "Please don't be sarcastic," I said, at which point he got very irate. I suggested he take some anger management courses.
When I worked for Champion Paper Company, the company had a United Way drive each year and, of course, they always pushed for one hundred percent contribution, something that the union supported them in. In the United Way campaign, employees would agree to have a certain amount deducted from their paycheck each week. Most people wouldn't notice a $25 deduction from their paycheck each week, whereas a one-time contribution of $1,300 would be tough to come up with, so everyone signed up to have at least something deducted from their check each year, giving Champion a 100 percent participation. In mid-December one year, one of our employees was advised that more than half of her paycheck would be deducted for the last two weeks of December, resulting in her not even being able to pay her bills, let alone buy Christmas gifts for her children. Due to a clerical error somewhere, the money that she had agreed to have deducted from her check each week was never deducted and she never noticed that, and it wasn't noticed until December, when United Way demanded full payment of what was, in fact, a contract. Rather than taking $25 a week, which wouldn't have been an imposition, they were going to take half her paycheck in the weeks leading up to Christmas. She filed a grievance against the company, and I became involved as the chief shop steward, thinking that the error was on the part of the company's payroll department. As it turned out, the error was on the part of United Way, which had neglected to include her commitment when they returned their paperwork to the company following the United Way drive. I contacted United Way, and they refused to give an inch. From their point of view, she had signed a contract and they wanted their money. She should have noticed that the money was not being deducted, they said. The only recourse would have been taking it to court, which is beyond what the union would do, and it would have cost her perhaps more than the $1,300 they were taking. Interestingly, since this came up just before the next year's United Way drive, practically no one agreed to sign up for United Way deductions, so they lost far more than they collected from what was, in fact, their error. Those of us who were around then never signed up for United Way deductions again, so it was a continued loss.
You may have read about me and "Jerry's Kids" in a post I made. It is outrageous about these charities and especially the "administration costs". If you are hungry and I can afford it, I will feed you and that is it for me!
So called "charities" are far from helping people or even children overall. Oh, they advertise a lot, and seek wonderful (and usually very misleading ) publicity, but it will help some today to see that the charities mentioned in this thread are not doing more good than harm. The most popular ones in the untied states do far more harm than good for decades now.