Well that is my money well spend.

[Fragony]

Ok, I knew that most of my tsunami-donation would go to the management, organisation, or any of the million euro earning non-existant jobs of the charity industry, but that I was actually funding the beating of women is a bit too much.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2508262,00.html

for that 100 euro I gave they better make it hurt really bad :furious3:

Why do I even bother giving money to charity, bleh

[Sjakihata]

I agree that is horrid. However, stopping charity completely because of incidents like this is not the option, I believe. Charity to disasters is important. Earthquakes, tsunamis and the like especially in the 3rd world shouldn't stop. Charity is not a viable option, though it is necessary in cases like this.

[Scurvy]

:no:

--> charity is vital though,

[Kralizec]

Wow, that's disgusting.

[Don Corleone]

Oh good, I get to beat the Lefties to the punch....

1) The Times is a rag and the story is almost certainly fabricated. Until we see it in the Guardian, we cannot trust it as valid.

2) Why do you hate muslims? Even according to the article, only a small fraction of Indonesia's muslims support Sharia, yet you're thinking about cutting your requisite aid donations, just because of the actions of a small minority. Shame on you!

3) People only resort to Sharia because the actions of the United States scare them into thinking their own cultural identities are threatened. Force the US to withdraw from Iraq,Kuwait and all other foreign places they occupy (like Korea), dismantle Israel, and ban all trappings of Christmas and even the tiny minority of hardliners in Indonesia will feel better and the canings will stop.

How'd I do with the thought-speak there boys?

[caravel]

This is pretty much the main reason why I never give to charity.

[Fragony]

--> charity is vital though,

It is, but I used to give more. I have had it with charity funds where people at the top make 600.000 euro a year, or even more, disgusting people. They don't even spend the money, they take it to the stockmarket and beg for even more. The latest I cancelled (artsen zonder grenzen)supposedly injected water instead of medicine for a documentory, medicines were too late but the show must go on. Maffia.

[English assassin]

This is pretty much the main reason why I never give to charity.

yeah, those Friends of the Earth floggings are a bit much, eh :whip:


I have had it with charity funds where people at the top make 600.000 euro a year, or even more, disgusting people.

I don't know about 600,000Euros, but can you tell me why the CEO iof a large multinational organisation should be expected to work minimum wage just because its a charity. Is that the way to get able people into charity administration?

The usual trouble with charities is the low quality of the managers. Pay peanuts, get monkeys.

[Pannonian]

Oh good, I get to beat the Lefties to the punch....

1) The Times is a rag and the story is almost certainly fabricated. Until we see it in the Guardian, we cannot trust it as valid.

The Times is a respected newspaper. It's the Telegraph whch is prone to printing stories without investigation.

[Fragony]

The usual trouble with charities is the low quality of the managers. Pay peanuts, get monkeys.

These people get payed for a 2 hour siminar a week, it's just ordinary grabbing. If you put the money on the stock market, yeah you need experts. But what is that money doing on the stockmarket in the first place, the only thing these organisation do is making it look good on paper.

[BDC]

Wouldn't surprise me.

I think I'll give more money to feminists in future, then they can form their own sexist militia, and have a big fight with the Sharia-law chaps. Then someone can make a movie about it.

[Vladimir]

Wouldn't surprise me.

I think I'll give more money to feminists in future, then they can form their own sexist militia, and have a big fight with the Sharia-law chaps. Then someone can make a movie about it.

Staring Halle Berry! :idea:

[Scurvy]

I don't know about 600,000Euros, but can you tell me why the CEO iof a large multinational organisation should be expected to work minimum wage just because its a charity. Is that the way to get able people into charity administration?


They should be paid, but if they work for a charity they should be prepared to be charitable... :2thumbsup:

[Tribesman]

The Times is a respected newspaper.
Hold on there Pann , the Times used to be a respected newspaper , since Rupert took it over it is becoming more like the Sun without tits .:yes:

[Banquo's Ghost]

...since Rupert took it over it is becoming more like the Sun without tits

Oh I don't know, there's a few writing for it. :wink3:

[yesdachi]

Beating women is hard work, these guys gotta get paid. Perhaps we should evenly distribute our wealth with them.

[Scurvy]

Beating women is hard work, these guys gotta get paid. Perhaps we should evenly distribute our wealth with them.

its a fairly specific example, and although a lot of charity money is wrongly spent, the vast majority is used for good purpose :2thumbsup:

[yesdachi]

its a fairly specific example, and although a lot of charity money is wrongly spent, the vast majority is used for good purpose :2thumbsup:
That would be completely relative to the person receiving the charity, in this case I am sure the women beaters think that the money they received is being used for a good purpose.

I think giving to charity is a great thing but over the years I have determined that the best charities to give to are the very local ones, like your own church or other local chapter of whatever, outside the local level we rarely get to decide where our money really goes. This is exactly why I don’t think the government should be as charitable as it is with money that does not belong to it. if the people want to give let them on an individual basis and lower my taxes, if I give I’ll write it off on my own.

[Papewaio]

The example of Aceh has attracted fundamentalists from elsewhere in Indonesia, who see it as a blueprint for their own localities.

The irony is that sharia was first introduced into Aceh as part of a package of measures that ultimately succeeded in making peace in the long-running guerrilla war between the conservative, independence-minded Acehnese and the Indonesian state.

The 2004 tsunami, which killed 170,000 Indonesians, devastated the whole northern coast of Sumatra and shocked both sides in the conflict into reaching a deal after 30 years of fighting that had claimed 15,000 lives. It is, so far, a success story. The separatist guerrillas, known as GAM, have decommissioned most of their weapons and the Indonesian army has withdrawn most of its combat troops.

Last Monday the province held the first democratic elections in its history and early returns suggested that voters had elected as governor Irwandi Yusuf, a former rebel spokesman who escaped from jail after the tsunami.

Last Thursday European peace monitors withdrew, leaving an uneasy air of political tension as all sides awaited the final results.

The former guerrillas accuse the government of bolstering the Islamists and using sharia as a method of weakening their consistent demand for a progressive, democratic Aceh, ruled by its own people. “They are exploiting the religious conviction of many Acehnese to manipulate them,” wrote Aguswandi, a human rights activist, in The Jakarta Post.

Aguswandi, who like many Indonesians uses just one name, said the tactic could misfire. “The use of religion as a political tool to pacify the population or as political bribery is a dangerous move. It is like setting a timebomb. When it goes off it could unleash an era of harsh, intolerant and conservative Islam,” he wrote.

Great so when Aceh next rebels which is about as likely as a Fijian coup... it is going to have an even stronger Islamic Fundamentalist thread to it as well. Talk about setting up a minefield around your own house :dizzy2:

[BigTex]

Most charities are innefficient. Whats sad is more and more the use of hugely expensive fund raisers by big charities. Those rarely make more then they cost to create. You also have many guests of honor their recieving some form of a gift, siphoning even more away. Honestly these days whats considered charity pisses me royally off. We have fund raisers to build theatres so kids can go and watch old films (must not get TCM on cable). We have fund raisers for saving kittens, huge banquets for a new theatre. Massive fund raisers, concerts and huge holywood redcarpet events for Africa. Infact we in the USA are donating more the charity then ever before (% of income wise, not just raw $ amount).

But what is truly ironic in all this is. Charities for soup kitchens, for single mothers, help for the homeless are now at an all time low. Many soup kitchens are having to close down, and alot of the homeless shelters are having trouble staying open. It's quite sad honestly, those by far have the most bang for the buck. They generally don't have fund raisers, don't blow donations on useless stuff, and yet they are struggling.

If we can't even help the poor and starving around us, how are we supposed to help the poor and starving in Africa?:shame:

[doc_bean]

It is, but I used to give more. I have had it with charity funds where people at the top make 600.000 euro a year, or even more, disgusting people. They don't even spend the money, they take it to the stockmarket and beg for even more. The latest I cancelled (artsen zonder grenzen)supposedly injected water instead of medicine for a documentory, medicines were too late but the show must go on. Maffia.

Docters without borders is probably one of the 'best' charities though, the people are payed peanuts, even the (regional) bosses, they even gave money back after they had raised enough to help the tsunami victims. It's pretty much the only charity I support. I don't like big fundraisers (like what happened with the tsunami) since the people who raised the money probably have no idea how to spend it.

I'm still a bit unsure about the red cross, on the one hand they seem like a well organised charity, otoh, they seem so big and professional there's bound to be corruption, but to what extend ?

Probably not nearly as bad as the UN though.



I think I'll give more money to feminists in future, then they can form their own sexist militia, and have a big fight with the Sharia-law chaps. Then someone can make a movie about it.

Actually giving money to feminists who live under repressive regimes doesn't sound like a bad idea, too bad they don't tend to be out in the open, thus making it hard to actually give them money.

[Andres]

I think I'll give more money to feminists in future, then they can form their own sexist militia, and have a big fight with the Sharia-law chaps. Then someone can make a movie about it.

Hmmm, a pr0n movie about naked feminist lesbians in uniforms...

That's what I call charity!

I'd love to, eh, "contribute" :eyebrows:

[BDC]

Hmmm, a pr0n movie about naked feminist lesbians in uniforms...

That's what I call charity!

I'd love to, eh, "contribute" :eyebrows:

Tell me when the op's done then... :inquisitive:

[Andres]

Tell me when the op's done then... :inquisitive:

Did I say lesbians. My mistake, I mean bi-sexual offcourse...

[Major Robert Dump]

If women would stay in the kitchen where they belong and keep themselves properly covered, we wouldn't need to lash them. When I read your article, Fragony, I actually sent them more money.