Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Not that desperate, then...

Via Timmy's Other Place, I see that a number of defence charities have turned down some £3 million donations.
Defence charities have snubbed the News of the World by refusing to accept millions of pounds in donations in protest at the alleged hacking of dead soldiers’ families’ phones.
...

Paul McNamara, the paper’s fomer defence correspondent, said he had to make “50 phone calls” to charities before Barnado's, the Forces Children's Trust and the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham Charity agreed to take donations.

Timmy, of course, makes the obvious and ancient point that "money doesn't smell"...
Pecunia non olet*, after all.

What the people who used to run the paper did is one thing and that the paper has now closed would seem to be at least in part a compensation for that. Yet that last issue of the paper did raise £3 million for charity and it’s that money that is being refused.

Personally I’d take money from pretty much anywhere, judging neither the source nor the reason for donating, looking purely at the good that could be done with it. Clearly it’s me that’s out of step though.

These charities may well be snubbing the News of the World but it is the beneficiaries themselves who will suffer—you know, those brave troops who are supposedly the raisin d'être of these organisations.

I don't know how many wounds could be stitched up for £3 million—or how many prosthetic limbs, or psychological counselling sessions—but I bet it's a lot.

It's so fucking pointless too: if these charities had any common sense they would have taken the money as compensation for the damages done to their clients by the News of the Screws—you know, like the damages payments that those assorted pointless s'lebs got out of the paper—which the charities were keeping in trust in order to try to right the wrongs done by these evil people, blah, blah, etc. (Do be careful not to condemn the government that sent your brave beneficiaries off to die on the basis of total lies at this point, of course.)

The most egregious thing is that, apparently, charity funding is being colossally squeezed and, we are told, any moment now, hundreds of charities will collapse and millions will starve on the streets. At best.

But, apparently, these defence charities can afford to turn down £3 million that could have helped awful lot of people; obviously, they cannot spend their funds fast enough or something...?

And just remember, next time that any of these organisations tell some tragic story in order to solicit a tenner from you, they turned down £3 million from News International—which makes them either stupid or wasteful.

Either way, it means they'll get nothing from me...

6 comments:

Francis said...

And a Rolls-Royce doesn't care who drives it, as my old babushka used to say.

chris said...

"money doesn't smell"

Not necessarily true, their taking funds from one source could dissuade other sources to continue their donations. An example of this would be when the RNLI decided to try taking the state's shilling their donations from other sources fell so much that they actually got less money, which is why they stopped taking an state funding.

chris said...

2nd chris:

Maybe, but this was a one-off not a recurring income from the state. Also, the entire sum goes straight into their bank accounts so they do't need to pay someone to count the pennies, bring them to the bank and pay the bank charges.

John East said...

I've had one golden rule for several years now. I will happily give to any charity that is run by someone who has a smaller house than me, a cheaper car than me, and a smaller income than me. Otherwise the rich bastard can fund his own charity.

ArtCo said...

Obviously the ones that run these charities arent the ones with no limbs , no mind or no families.
It will make me think further.

Anonymous said...

Way back in 1994 I was acting for a company letting property and then selling the investment.
One of the propective tenants was a well known cancer charity. In order to get the deal done quickly they were offered ten grand. Their very expensive lawyers quibbled for so long there was no point proceeding.
I have never given money to that charity since-if they can afford to forego ten grand and pay heavy legal fees they surely don't need any donations.