Fundraisers' anger as Jigsaw appeal loses £500k in "admin"

Bournemouth Echo: The plans for the new building The plans for the new building

MORE than half a million pounds raised for Royal Bournemouth Hospital’s Jigsaw Appeal has gone on management fees, fundraising costs and investment losses.

Between 2006/7 and 2011/12, a total of £2,199,685 has been raised for the appeal, which was set up to fund improved facilities for cancer and blood disorder patients.

That figure included £812,000 in donations and more than £1million in legacies, with the rest coming from investments and interest.

But figures released under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that £514,085 has been deducted in that time due to administration fees, fundraising costs and investment losses.

The appeal fund stood at £1,685,600 at the end of the financial year.

A group who raised £55,000 for the Jigsaw Appeal and its predecessor the Tenovus Diamond Appeal have criticised hospital bosses for not spending the money several years ago when the £2m total was reached.

They fear the hospital’s recently announced plans for a £3m cancer and women’s centre are little more than a “smokescreen” to detract attention from their concerns.

However, hospital bosses insist they are “absolutely committed” to a new cancer and blood disorders facility and say the Jigsaw Appeal funds will be spent wisely to improve services for cancer patients.

They also say their charity accounts have been independently audited, their running costs are lower than those of other charity appeals and their investments have performed well, generating money for the appeal.

Jan Oates, of Ophir Road in Bournemouth, is unconvinced. “That money was given to them five or six years ago to refurbish wards 10 and 11 and none of that has been spent,” she said.

“Those wards have been described by the hospital themselves as some of the worst facilities they have.

“There are thousands of people who have been through those wards in the past few years who would have benefitted from those wards being refurbished. Instead, the money has just sat there.”

The figures show that in the last three financial years, management or administration charges of £10,747, £15,577 and £14,681 have been applied, even though the appeal was officially closed in 2009.

Jan added: “How many coffee mornings is that? How many fundraising events? It is so very frustrating.”

A spokesperson for the Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust said: “The Trust is absolutely committed to a new cancer and blood disorders facility at the Royal Bournemouth Hospital. The Board of Directors is frustrated by, and regrets, the delay but the funds are available and it is determined to spend them wisely.

“We are fortunate to have many charity fundraisers and donors and we thank them for their continued support. The hospital experience of our patients will be greatly improved because of the fundraising from this appeal.”

They said the published accounts were below the £2m previously announced because there were outstanding pledges that will only be released when building work starts.

They point out that the investment income generated for the appeal stands at £164,998 and offsets the fundraising costs of £164,595.

Have your say

FUNDRAISER Sarah Bates said: “What’s upsetting is that fundraising is very hard work and we did it for nothing. We now feel very let down.”

JENNY White said: “I started fundraising 10 years ago after losing a number of relatives to cancer. I’m very angry at the situation we now find ourselves in.”

SHIRLEY Sherman said: “We know that the hospital gives good treatment and the staff are marvellous. This is about improving facilities.”

ROSEMARY Mundy said: “We’ve gone on for so many years pushing for this and it feels like we’re back to square one. We don’t seem to be getting anywhere.”

Comments have been closed on this story. If you want to comment, email newsdesk@bournemouthecho.co.uk.

Comments (59)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:48am Mon 3 Dec 12

jenksy84 says...

Stories like this will just make the public even more sceptical of how public money is being spent. £514,085 gone on administration fees, fundraising costs and investment losses is appalling. One quarter of the total fund!

Some people clearly did well off the backs of normal people's hard work raising money for those that really need it.
Stories like this will just make the public even more sceptical of how public money is being spent. £514,085 gone on administration fees, fundraising costs and investment losses is appalling. One quarter of the total fund! Some people clearly did well off the backs of normal people's hard work raising money for those that really need it. jenksy84

8:58am Mon 3 Dec 12

BmthNewshound says...

Charities are already seeing a reduction in the amount they are receiving on donations. When people are struggling to make ends meet for a charity to divert such a large amount to cover admin fees and costs is simply immoral. Charities should have a very low risk profile when it comes to investments - questions need to be asked as to how these investment losses were made, who advised the charity on their investments and how much they received in fees for giving this advise.
.
Perhaps this case should be referred to the Charities Commission for investigation.
Charities are already seeing a reduction in the amount they are receiving on donations. When people are struggling to make ends meet for a charity to divert such a large amount to cover admin fees and costs is simply immoral. Charities should have a very low risk profile when it comes to investments - questions need to be asked as to how these investment losses were made, who advised the charity on their investments and how much they received in fees for giving this advise. . Perhaps this case should be referred to the Charities Commission for investigation. BmthNewshound

9:00am Mon 3 Dec 12

ILOVEBOURNEMOUTH says...

This id why you should be weary giving to charity, you might be fooled into thinking your money goes to whatever the charity claims. But there are always "overheads".

Also, want to become rich? Set up/invent a new religion.
This id why you should be weary giving to charity, you might be fooled into thinking your money goes to whatever the charity claims. But there are always "overheads". Also, want to become rich? Set up/invent a new religion. ILOVEBOURNEMOUTH

9:11am Mon 3 Dec 12

Hessenford says...

I am surprised that so many people give to charities any more as a great amount of money donated is skimmed off by non descript individuals, children in need and comic relief are prime examples of what I would call simple theft of donated money.
I would like to know how £500.000 is justified for admin costs, An investigation should be conducted straight away.
I am surprised that so many people give to charities any more as a great amount of money donated is skimmed off by non descript individuals, children in need and comic relief are prime examples of what I would call simple theft of donated money. I would like to know how £500.000 is justified for admin costs, An investigation should be conducted straight away. Hessenford

9:15am Mon 3 Dec 12

roguetrader666 says...

A large proportion of Sandbanks home owners have achieved their wealth through setting up charities. It's one of the biggest cons going which is why the government tried to clamp down on it recently. Tax gets claimed back on 'donations' and there is nothing to stop 99% administration costs being charged. As a business owner I get regular calls from charities, where the person urging me to donate is on a £35k pa salary. Get a job as chief executive or on the board of these big charities and you're made.
A large proportion of Sandbanks home owners have achieved their wealth through setting up charities. It's one of the biggest cons going which is why the government tried to clamp down on it recently. Tax gets claimed back on 'donations' and there is nothing to stop 99% administration costs being charged. As a business owner I get regular calls from charities, where the person urging me to donate is on a £35k pa salary. Get a job as chief executive or on the board of these big charities and you're made. roguetrader666

9:22am Mon 3 Dec 12

frasier says...

Sadly, this is far from unusual. Anyone considering putting their time and effort into voluntary charitable activity should check out the charity's accounts at http://www.charity-c
ommission.gov.uk/. This may seem cynical, but it is a real eye-opener to see how much some of these outfits claim to spend on "generating voluntary income" and "trading to raise funds", compared with the amount they actually spend on their charitable activity.
Sadly, this is far from unusual. Anyone considering putting their time and effort into voluntary charitable activity should check out the charity's accounts at http://www.charity-c ommission.gov.uk/. This may seem cynical, but it is a real eye-opener to see how much some of these outfits claim to spend on "generating voluntary income" and "trading to raise funds", compared with the amount they actually spend on their charitable activity. frasier

9:22am Mon 3 Dec 12

Old Colonial says...

This is no 'ordinary' charity. It's an NHS administered money-pit.

See the Charity Commission website or get hold of a copy of their accounts.
This is no 'ordinary' charity. It's an NHS administered money-pit. See the Charity Commission website or get hold of a copy of their accounts. Old Colonial

9:22am Mon 3 Dec 12

Arjay says...

And charities wonder why people are becoming more reluctant to make donations?.....
The salaries and 'expenses' paid out by some of them are nothing short of obscene.
Of course, they always employ some 'smart a*sed' wordsmith to try and put a gloss on these expenses, but people aren't stupid...they know a rip off when they see one!
It's a very short sighted approach.... in the longer term it will cost some charities dearly, but by then these 'marketing' types will have taken the money and be long gone.....
And charities wonder why people are becoming more reluctant to make donations?..... The salaries and 'expenses' paid out by some of them are nothing short of obscene. Of course, they always employ some 'smart a*sed' wordsmith to try and put a gloss on these expenses, but people aren't stupid...they know a rip off when they see one! It's a very short sighted approach.... in the longer term it will cost some charities dearly, but by then these 'marketing' types will have taken the money and be long gone..... Arjay

9:28am Mon 3 Dec 12

speedy231278 says...

Sadly, these days most charities are there to make money for themselves as well as the alleged charity itself. Otherwise, how else would you see adverts in papers for 'chuggers' to be paid £10-15 an hour for annoying people in the street? Anyone working for a charity should be on minimum wage - it's there to help the cause, not line the pockets of some greedy directors and trustees!
Sadly, these days most charities are there to make money for themselves as well as the alleged charity itself. Otherwise, how else would you see adverts in papers for 'chuggers' to be paid £10-15 an hour for annoying people in the street? Anyone working for a charity should be on minimum wage - it's there to help the cause, not line the pockets of some greedy directors and trustees! speedy231278

9:36am Mon 3 Dec 12

whataboutthat says...

Agree with the above omments regarding public goodwill being exploited. We all want an end to cancer but is money the best way fo dealing with it when money invites corruption? Furthermore, this newspaper promotes all sorts of charities, big and small, ad nauseum, and shares some responsibility in checking out the credentials behind moner raising appeals before endless promotion in the paper ond on this web site. What is particularly galling is that the figures here approximate to one day's spending on the British army in Afghansitan - remember that war and the bodies coming home? Some priase to the Echo for one of it's Freedom of Info articles - but it could have been more hard hitting. The "fundraisers' outrage at Jigsaw scandal" springs to mind as better headline.
Agree with the above omments regarding public goodwill being exploited. We all want an end to cancer but is money the best way fo dealing with it when money invites corruption? Furthermore, this newspaper promotes all sorts of charities, big and small, ad nauseum, and shares some responsibility in checking out the credentials behind moner raising appeals before endless promotion in the paper ond on this web site. What is particularly galling is that the figures here approximate to one day's spending on the British army in Afghansitan - remember that war and the bodies coming home? Some priase to the Echo for one of it's Freedom of Info articles - but it could have been more hard hitting. The "fundraisers' outrage at Jigsaw scandal" springs to mind as better headline. whataboutthat

9:42am Mon 3 Dec 12

wokboy60 says...

As noted by a number of commentators on here , "Charidee" is the next big scandal waiting to unfold ! The sad events surrounding the fund raising for the the New Bournemouth Hospital facility are a perfect example of people getting rich /making a good living on the back of others honest desire to help those less fortunate.Look at any High Street and the amount of "Charity Shops " thereon and then multiply the income from across every town in the country....we are talking a billion pound industry thats staffed at the ground level by unpaid volunteers selling free goods ,but above the shop staff the managers start to appear on, very well paid salarys !! And just where does all that income go ??? Age UK for a start ....anybody ever seen any real money from them ?? A lot of these charitys have now reached a stage where they do not really have a useful function but have created an Industry that has to be kept going ! As somebody has already commented ...if you want to get rich quick ...start a Charity !!
As noted by a number of commentators on here , "Charidee" is the next big scandal waiting to unfold ! The sad events surrounding the fund raising for the the New Bournemouth Hospital facility are a perfect example of people getting rich /making a good living on the back of others honest desire to help those less fortunate.Look at any High Street and the amount of "Charity Shops " thereon and then multiply the income from across every town in the country....we are talking a billion pound industry thats staffed at the ground level by unpaid volunteers selling free goods ,but above the shop staff the managers start to appear on, very well paid salarys !! And just where does all that income go ??? Age UK for a start ....anybody ever seen any real money from them ?? A lot of these charitys have now reached a stage where they do not really have a useful function but have created an Industry that has to be kept going ! As somebody has already commented ...if you want to get rich quick ...start a Charity !! wokboy60

10:06am Mon 3 Dec 12

jinglebell says...

This is just the tip of the iceberg; the entire NHS and its related quangos are filled with management groups all receiving salaries, and/or expenses for 'services/work' that in the harsh light of day is hard to justify.
Where times are tough, people start scrutinising far more closely how vast sums of money are spent. It has become - along with the "poverty industry" - just another way for those already in receipt of high incomes to skim off yet more.
Time for a Dispatches or Panorama programme to investigate the vast amount of money that disappears into management fees.
This is just the tip of the iceberg; the entire NHS and its related quangos are filled with management groups all receiving salaries, and/or expenses for 'services/work' that in the harsh light of day is hard to justify. Where times are tough, people start scrutinising far more closely how vast sums of money are spent. It has become - along with the "poverty industry" - just another way for those already in receipt of high incomes to skim off yet more. Time for a Dispatches or Panorama programme to investigate the vast amount of money that disappears into management fees. jinglebell

10:13am Mon 3 Dec 12

rozmister says...

So if you devote your life to working for charities you should forfeit the prospect of being able to afford your own home, having luxury goods or just living to a reasonable standard by staying on NMW from starting in the industry as a young person to retirement?

If charity wages were capped at NMW you would find that no one stayed in the industry and progressed to the top jobs because there would be no opportunity to progress financially. You'd end up with people who had no relevant experience taking jobs as Directors because no one with years of experience and skills would want to take NMW (which isn't even a living wage in this country - so people working for charities doing much more important work than someone in say finance would be living on the breadline as their reward).

People working for charities should be paid a fair wage that reflects their skills and experience just like you would in the public or private sector.

Chuggers are paid over NMW to sweeten the deal because they get verbally abused on the streets of the UK on a daily basis. An easy job earning NMW would be working in a supermarket - if you want people to do something harder you have to pay them for it.

25% is a large proportion of their fundraising and I understand why people are very angry about this. Maybe some of the people who are fundraising for the Jigsaw appeal could become trustees which would gain them access to financial records and then look for a way to streamline the running costs? If they became trustees they may also be able to speed up the ward refurbishments which I'm sure can't come soon enough for patients!
So if you devote your life to working for charities you should forfeit the prospect of being able to afford your own home, having luxury goods or just living to a reasonable standard by staying on NMW from starting in the industry as a young person to retirement? If charity wages were capped at NMW you would find that no one stayed in the industry and progressed to the top jobs because there would be no opportunity to progress financially. You'd end up with people who had no relevant experience taking jobs as Directors because no one with years of experience and skills would want to take NMW (which isn't even a living wage in this country - so people working for charities doing much more important work than someone in say finance would be living on the breadline as their reward). People working for charities should be paid a fair wage that reflects their skills and experience just like you would in the public or private sector. Chuggers are paid over NMW to sweeten the deal because they get verbally abused on the streets of the UK on a daily basis. An easy job earning NMW would be working in a supermarket - if you want people to do something harder you have to pay them for it. 25% is a large proportion of their fundraising and I understand why people are very angry about this. Maybe some of the people who are fundraising for the Jigsaw appeal could become trustees which would gain them access to financial records and then look for a way to streamline the running costs? If they became trustees they may also be able to speed up the ward refurbishments which I'm sure can't come soon enough for patients! rozmister

10:30am Mon 3 Dec 12

Ebb Tide says...

Leadership from some senior executives seems to have been missing (or mistaken) in managing the expectations of fund-raisers and the public.

Hopefully the quality of leadership at Poole hospital will avoid any such disturbing scenarios evolving ? !!

Hope springs eternal !!!
Leadership from some senior executives seems to have been missing (or mistaken) in managing the expectations of fund-raisers and the public. Hopefully the quality of leadership at Poole hospital will avoid any such disturbing scenarios evolving ? !! Hope springs eternal !!! Ebb Tide

10:40am Mon 3 Dec 12

The Renegade Master says...

This story highlights the reason why I no longer give to any charity. You never know just how much of your donation actually goes where it's needed. There are too many parasites involved with charities. It's a racket and that's why I keep my hands in my pocket when collection tins are rattled in my face or when a sob story advert appears on the tv for snow leopards or tigers!
This story highlights the reason why I no longer give to any charity. You never know just how much of your donation actually goes where it's needed. There are too many parasites involved with charities. It's a racket and that's why I keep my hands in my pocket when collection tins are rattled in my face or when a sob story advert appears on the tv for snow leopards or tigers! The Renegade Master

11:02am Mon 3 Dec 12

wokboy60 says...

With reference to The Renegade masters last sentence , ....."and when an advert appears with an African child apparently appealing for more money for clean water !! " So much Aid /Charity money has been directed at Africa that most "African Children " should have their own Jacuzzi's by now ! Wheres the money gone ??... Swiss bank Accounts !!
With reference to The Renegade masters last sentence , ....."and when an advert appears with an African child apparently appealing for more money for clean water !! " So much Aid /Charity money has been directed at Africa that most "African Children " should have their own Jacuzzi's by now ! Wheres the money gone ??... Swiss bank Accounts !! wokboy60

11:06am Mon 3 Dec 12

the smiling assassin says...

Ebb Tide wrote:
Leadership from some senior executives seems to have been missing (or mistaken) in managing the expectations of fund-raisers and the public. Hopefully the quality of leadership at Poole hospital will avoid any such disturbing scenarios evolving ? !! Hope springs eternal !!!
... but don't forget that when Bournemouth takes over Poole Hospital the managers will all be from Bournemouth. So don't hold your breath hoping they'll be any differant!
[quote][p][bold]Ebb Tide[/bold] wrote: Leadership from some senior executives seems to have been missing (or mistaken) in managing the expectations of fund-raisers and the public. Hopefully the quality of leadership at Poole hospital will avoid any such disturbing scenarios evolving ? !! Hope springs eternal !!![/p][/quote]... but don't forget that when Bournemouth takes over Poole Hospital the managers will all be from Bournemouth. So don't hold your breath hoping they'll be any differant! the smiling assassin

11:15am Mon 3 Dec 12

the smiling assassin says...

wokboy60 wrote:
With reference to The Renegade masters last sentence , ....."and when an advert appears with an African child apparently appealing for more money for clean water !! " So much Aid /Charity money has been directed at Africa that most "African Children " should have their own Jacuzzi's by now ! Wheres the money gone ??... Swiss bank Accounts !!
I agree! The problem with giving any country billions in aid money is that the country then becomes aid dependant, in other words without charity/aid money they can’t function as an independent country!
... and as for all this tosh about making these countries self-sufficient! Some countries have had so much in charity/aid money over the years that their problems should have been solved long ago! The problem is that they mostly take a short term view of the problem, i.e. food and water for the next 12 months but don't create a coherent strategy for long term self-sufficiency.

But that’s going off-issue. As regards the Jigsaw Appeal, surely once a charity appeal closes all they have to do is leave the money in the bank to earn interest, so why the ‘admin’ costs??
[quote][p][bold]wokboy60[/bold] wrote: With reference to The Renegade masters last sentence , ....."and when an advert appears with an African child apparently appealing for more money for clean water !! " So much Aid /Charity money has been directed at Africa that most "African Children " should have their own Jacuzzi's by now ! Wheres the money gone ??... Swiss bank Accounts !![/p][/quote]I agree! The problem with giving any country billions in aid money is that the country then becomes aid dependant, in other words without charity/aid money they can’t function as an independent country! ... and as for all this tosh about making these countries self-sufficient! Some countries have had so much in charity/aid money over the years that their problems should have been solved long ago! The problem is that they mostly take a short term view of the problem, i.e. food and water for the next 12 months but don't create a coherent strategy for long term self-sufficiency. But that’s going off-issue. As regards the Jigsaw Appeal, surely once a charity appeal closes all they have to do is leave the money in the bank to earn interest, so why the ‘admin’ costs?? the smiling assassin

11:18am Mon 3 Dec 12

Tom 'Boscombe' Jones says...

Time for police investigations and charity commission complaints, while the police are at it could they please have a close look at town hall, these guys are skimming off millions.
Time for police investigations and charity commission complaints, while the police are at it could they please have a close look at town hall, these guys are skimming off millions. Tom 'Boscombe' Jones

11:48am Mon 3 Dec 12

Adrian XX says...

People who work for charities need to be properly compensated - they should get a similar wage to someone in the private sector. For a large national charity this might be £100k for the chief executive. Charities cannot pay dividends so all salaries are genuine salaries and are tax accordingly.

I have no idea how many paid fund-raisers or managers are involved with Bournemouth Hospital Charity, but I would like to find out. I would also like some further investigation to find out how much of the loss was due to investment losses and how much was taken in fees.

The problem with local organisations is that they don't have to face the music in quite the same way national organisations do - there is no local equivalent of the Today program, Newsnight or Question Time - I think it would be nice to see some of the managers at Bournemouth hospital put in the public spotlight. Of course you'll need a local person skilled and intelligent enough to ask the right questions.
People who work for charities need to be properly compensated - they should get a similar wage to someone in the private sector. For a large national charity this might be £100k for the chief executive. Charities cannot pay dividends so all salaries are genuine salaries and are tax accordingly. I have no idea how many paid fund-raisers or managers are involved with Bournemouth Hospital Charity, but I would like to find out. I would also like some further investigation to find out how much of the loss was due to investment losses and how much was taken in fees. The problem with local organisations is that they don't have to face the music in quite the same way national organisations do - there is no local equivalent of the Today program, Newsnight or Question Time - I think it would be nice to see some of the managers at Bournemouth hospital put in the public spotlight. Of course you'll need a local person skilled and intelligent enough to ask the right questions. Adrian XX

11:55am Mon 3 Dec 12

rozmister says...

Arjay wrote:
rozmister wrote: "25% is a large proportion of their fundraising and I understand why people are very angry about this".

Angry? -- you've got it!
You say that these charities need to pay more than the NMW, to attract better quality staff?
Doesn't sound as if we have 'better quality' staff here, if they allow 25% of funds to go on 'admin' of one sort or another.
Unless of course they're simply just crooks?.....
I didn't say that Jigsaw Appeal have better quality staff I have no idea who works for them and until I saw this article no idea they may have any management issues.

I was simply pointing out it's pretty ridiculous to tar all charity workers with the same brush and insist that they sacrifice the things YOU take for granted on your salary and live on NMW (and tax credits) for the rest of their life because they chose to work for a charity and therefore should live a life of pennance whilst devoting their working life to others.

I work for a charity (not the Jigsaw Appeal) because I am truly passionate about making a difference to the community I live in and helping the less fortunate. However I'm young and I dream of owning my own house one day (unlikely anyway), going on holiday abroad (can't afford to yet) and starting my own family. I studied hard at university and now work hard in my job - why should I be restricted to NMW for the rest of my life because I want to make a difference? If I had chosen to work in finance on graduation I'd already be earning significantly more than I do and could look forward to being handsomely rewarded financially for the rest of my life - I've already taken a lower salary why should my salary be lowered even further?
[quote][p][bold]Arjay[/bold] wrote: rozmister wrote: "25% is a large proportion of their fundraising and I understand why people are very angry about this". Angry? -- you've got it! You say that these charities need to pay more than the NMW, to attract better quality staff? Doesn't sound as if we have 'better quality' staff here, if they allow 25% of funds to go on 'admin' of one sort or another. Unless of course they're simply just crooks?.....[/p][/quote]I didn't say that Jigsaw Appeal have better quality staff I have no idea who works for them and until I saw this article no idea they may have any management issues. I was simply pointing out it's pretty ridiculous to tar all charity workers with the same brush and insist that they sacrifice the things YOU take for granted on your salary and live on NMW (and tax credits) for the rest of their life because they chose to work for a charity and therefore should live a life of pennance whilst devoting their working life to others. I work for a charity (not the Jigsaw Appeal) because I am truly passionate about making a difference to the community I live in and helping the less fortunate. However I'm young and I dream of owning my own house one day (unlikely anyway), going on holiday abroad (can't afford to yet) and starting my own family. I studied hard at university and now work hard in my job - why should I be restricted to NMW for the rest of my life because I want to make a difference? If I had chosen to work in finance on graduation I'd already be earning significantly more than I do and could look forward to being handsomely rewarded financially for the rest of my life - I've already taken a lower salary why should my salary be lowered even further? rozmister

12:03pm Mon 3 Dec 12

Arjay says...

Adrian XX wrote: "For a large national charity this might be £100k for the chief executive".

You are joking, right?..... I'm not sure the kind of person who would happily take £100K a year, from charity contributions made by oridinary folk , really has the right ethos to be directing a charity?.....

And please don't start the old chestnut about 'needing to pay this kind of money to attract people of the 'right 'calibre'.
I know that nonsense, you know that's nonsense, but the smart 'wordsmiths' I mentioned above will certainly do their best to try and convince us otherwise.

If you're lucky enough to move in circles where these kinds of salaries are considered the norm, then of course you're going to want to join in.
Claiming that these kinds of payments are actually justified, in any moral way?...... oh please!!
Adrian XX wrote: "For a large national charity this might be £100k for the chief executive". You are joking, right?..... I'm not sure the kind of person who would happily take £100K a year, from charity contributions made by oridinary folk , really has the right ethos to be directing a charity?..... And please don't start the old chestnut about 'needing to pay this kind of money to attract people of the 'right 'calibre'. I know that nonsense, you know that's nonsense, but the smart 'wordsmiths' I mentioned above will certainly do their best to try and convince us otherwise. If you're lucky enough to move in circles where these kinds of salaries are considered the norm, then of course you're going to want to join in. Claiming that these kinds of payments are actually justified, in any moral way?...... oh please!! Arjay

12:05pm Mon 3 Dec 12

rozmister says...

Arjay wrote:
Adrian XX wrote: "For a large national charity this might be £100k for the chief executive".

You are joking, right?..... I'm not sure the kind of person who would happily take £100K a year, from charity contributions made by oridinary folk , really has the right ethos to be directing a charity?.....

And please don't start the old chestnut about 'needing to pay this kind of money to attract people of the 'right 'calibre'.
I know that nonsense, you know that's nonsense, but the smart 'wordsmiths' I mentioned above will certainly do their best to try and convince us otherwise.

If you're lucky enough to move in circles where these kinds of salaries are considered the norm, then of course you're going to want to join in.
Claiming that these kinds of payments are actually justified, in any moral way?...... oh please!!
So one person mentions that they think a Chief Executive should earn 100k and now we're all wordsmiths moving in circles where people earn that?

There's a big difference between believing office staff should earn more than NMW and demanding everyone gets paid £100k.

But don't let that get in the way of your sweeping generalisations.
[quote][p][bold]Arjay[/bold] wrote: Adrian XX wrote: "For a large national charity this might be £100k for the chief executive". You are joking, right?..... I'm not sure the kind of person who would happily take £100K a year, from charity contributions made by oridinary folk , really has the right ethos to be directing a charity?..... And please don't start the old chestnut about 'needing to pay this kind of money to attract people of the 'right 'calibre'. I know that nonsense, you know that's nonsense, but the smart 'wordsmiths' I mentioned above will certainly do their best to try and convince us otherwise. If you're lucky enough to move in circles where these kinds of salaries are considered the norm, then of course you're going to want to join in. Claiming that these kinds of payments are actually justified, in any moral way?...... oh please!![/p][/quote]So one person mentions that they think a Chief Executive should earn 100k and now we're all wordsmiths moving in circles where people earn that? There's a big difference between believing office staff should earn more than NMW and demanding everyone gets paid £100k. But don't let that get in the way of your sweeping generalisations. rozmister

12:15pm Mon 3 Dec 12

Arjay says...

rozmister wrote:
Arjay wrote:
rozmister wrote: "25% is a large proportion of their fundraising and I understand why people are very angry about this".

Angry? -- you've got it!
You say that these charities need to pay more than the NMW, to attract better quality staff?
Doesn't sound as if we have 'better quality' staff here, if they allow 25% of funds to go on 'admin' of one sort or another.
Unless of course they're simply just crooks?.....
I didn't say that Jigsaw Appeal have better quality staff I have no idea who works for them and until I saw this article no idea they may have any management issues.

I was simply pointing out it's pretty ridiculous to tar all charity workers with the same brush and insist that they sacrifice the things YOU take for granted on your salary and live on NMW (and tax credits) for the rest of their life because they chose to work for a charity and therefore should live a life of pennance whilst devoting their working life to others.

I work for a charity (not the Jigsaw Appeal) because I am truly passionate about making a difference to the community I live in and helping the less fortunate. However I'm young and I dream of owning my own house one day (unlikely anyway), going on holiday abroad (can't afford to yet) and starting my own family. I studied hard at university and now work hard in my job - why should I be restricted to NMW for the rest of my life because I want to make a difference? If I had chosen to work in finance on graduation I'd already be earning significantly more than I do and could look forward to being handsomely rewarded financially for the rest of my life - I've already taken a lower salary why should my salary be lowered even further?
A highly commendable attitude, if slightly misguided?
I can see wanting to help other folk as a very useful aspiration..... but may I suggest that a more effective way for someone as well educated as you to contribute, would be to take a higher paid job, and then use some of that extra cash to help where it was most needed. (By you, in the short term, it would seem?)

If the rules for the administration of charities were made more transparent, then you simply wouldn't need as much professional 'expertise' to administer such things.
Sadly, they're not, and there is quite a lot of evidence that the 'wrong' kind of people are attracted to charity administration, simply because it's so wide open to abuse, because of the complexities.....
[quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Arjay[/bold] wrote: rozmister wrote: "25% is a large proportion of their fundraising and I understand why people are very angry about this". Angry? -- you've got it! You say that these charities need to pay more than the NMW, to attract better quality staff? Doesn't sound as if we have 'better quality' staff here, if they allow 25% of funds to go on 'admin' of one sort or another. Unless of course they're simply just crooks?.....[/p][/quote]I didn't say that Jigsaw Appeal have better quality staff I have no idea who works for them and until I saw this article no idea they may have any management issues. I was simply pointing out it's pretty ridiculous to tar all charity workers with the same brush and insist that they sacrifice the things YOU take for granted on your salary and live on NMW (and tax credits) for the rest of their life because they chose to work for a charity and therefore should live a life of pennance whilst devoting their working life to others. I work for a charity (not the Jigsaw Appeal) because I am truly passionate about making a difference to the community I live in and helping the less fortunate. However I'm young and I dream of owning my own house one day (unlikely anyway), going on holiday abroad (can't afford to yet) and starting my own family. I studied hard at university and now work hard in my job - why should I be restricted to NMW for the rest of my life because I want to make a difference? If I had chosen to work in finance on graduation I'd already be earning significantly more than I do and could look forward to being handsomely rewarded financially for the rest of my life - I've already taken a lower salary why should my salary be lowered even further?[/p][/quote]A highly commendable attitude, if slightly misguided? I can see wanting to help other folk as a very useful aspiration..... but may I suggest that a more effective way for someone as well educated as you to contribute, would be to take a higher paid job, and then use some of that extra cash to help where it was most needed. (By you, in the short term, it would seem?) If the rules for the administration of charities were made more transparent, then you simply wouldn't need as much professional 'expertise' to administer such things. Sadly, they're not, and there is quite a lot of evidence that the 'wrong' kind of people are attracted to charity administration, simply because it's so wide open to abuse, because of the complexities..... Arjay

12:22pm Mon 3 Dec 12

rozmister says...

Transparency should be something every charity strives to achieve you're right Arjay. You should be prepared to produce and explain every single penny you spent down to the £1.20 you spend on milk for tea in the office! I think the biggest issue is the 'consultants' brought in on projects who charge a lot of money for their services and charge by the hour. If a job turns out to be bigger than they originally estimated they simply earn more which I'm sure they don't mind!

I enjoy my low paid job because I enjoy dealing with the people who use our services. They're all vulnerable adults and providing a high quality service for them is really satisfying! I don't think on a personal level I'd get the same job satisfaction from working for a large corporation but I've sacrificed about £3k per annum on my salary for that job satisfaction! I just hope if I continue to work hard I can progress and earn more whilst still working for a charity.
Transparency should be something every charity strives to achieve you're right Arjay. You should be prepared to produce and explain every single penny you spent down to the £1.20 you spend on milk for tea in the office! I think the biggest issue is the 'consultants' brought in on projects who charge a lot of money for their services and charge by the hour. If a job turns out to be bigger than they originally estimated they simply earn more which I'm sure they don't mind! I enjoy my low paid job because I enjoy dealing with the people who use our services. They're all vulnerable adults and providing a high quality service for them is really satisfying! I don't think on a personal level I'd get the same job satisfaction from working for a large corporation but I've sacrificed about £3k per annum on my salary for that job satisfaction! I just hope if I continue to work hard I can progress and earn more whilst still working for a charity. rozmister

12:24pm Mon 3 Dec 12

speedy231278 says...

If it's a charity, and you want to help make a difference, surely you'd draw the minimum wage to ensure the maximum goes to the actual cause that money is being raised for? There's clearly plenty of money in these things, as they are usually trying to sell secondhand furniture for more than it would cost new!
If it's a charity, and you want to help make a difference, surely you'd draw the minimum wage to ensure the maximum goes to the actual cause that money is being raised for? There's clearly plenty of money in these things, as they are usually trying to sell secondhand furniture for more than it would cost new! speedy231278

12:47pm Mon 3 Dec 12

Adrian XX says...

speedy231278 wrote:
If it's a charity, and you want to help make a difference, surely you'd draw the minimum wage to ensure the maximum goes to the actual cause that money is being raised for? There's clearly plenty of money in these things, as they are usually trying to sell secondhand furniture for more than it would cost new!
People working for charities have their own needs - some people want to own a house or have a couple of kids to feed or perhaps need to run a car. You can't do these things on minimum wage.
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: If it's a charity, and you want to help make a difference, surely you'd draw the minimum wage to ensure the maximum goes to the actual cause that money is being raised for? There's clearly plenty of money in these things, as they are usually trying to sell secondhand furniture for more than it would cost new![/p][/quote]People working for charities have their own needs - some people want to own a house or have a couple of kids to feed or perhaps need to run a car. You can't do these things on minimum wage. Adrian XX

12:54pm Mon 3 Dec 12

Adrian XX says...

And please don't start the old chestnut about 'needing to pay this kind of money to attract people of the 'right 'calibre'.
I know that nonsense, you know that's nonsense, but the smart 'wordsmiths' I mentioned above will certainly do their best to try and convince us otherwise.


It's not about attracting people of the right calibre - it's about attracting anyone at all. If you set a cap on charity chief executive wages of £30000 for example, for the larger charities you will not attract anyone capable of doing the job. If you put someone incapable in the position, you will lose more money.

Here is a list of chief executive salaries for your information:
http://bit.ly/9L1Z0t
[quote]And please don't start the old chestnut about 'needing to pay this kind of money to attract people of the 'right 'calibre'. I know that nonsense, you know that's nonsense, but the smart 'wordsmiths' I mentioned above will certainly do their best to try and convince us otherwise.[/quote] It's not about attracting people of the right calibre - it's about attracting anyone at all. If you set a cap on charity chief executive wages of £30000 for example, for the larger charities you will not attract anyone capable of doing the job. If you put someone incapable in the position, you will lose more money. Here is a list of chief executive salaries for your information: http://bit.ly/9L1Z0t Adrian XX

12:58pm Mon 3 Dec 12

jinglebell says...

rozmister wrote:
Transparency should be something every charity strives to achieve you're right Arjay. You should be prepared to produce and explain every single penny you spent down to the £1.20 you spend on milk for tea in the office! I think the biggest issue is the 'consultants' brought in on projects who charge a lot of money for their services and charge by the hour. If a job turns out to be bigger than they originally estimated they simply earn more which I'm sure they don't mind!

I enjoy my low paid job because I enjoy dealing with the people who use our services. They're all vulnerable adults and providing a high quality service for them is really satisfying! I don't think on a personal level I'd get the same job satisfaction from working for a large corporation but I've sacrificed about £3k per annum on my salary for that job satisfaction! I just hope if I continue to work hard I can progress and earn more whilst still working for a charity.
I totally agree that all organisations which purport to work on behalf of, or for the good of the public in some way - whether that is the local Council, a charity, the NHS or whatever, should have all expenses and incomes easily available for the public to see. These days that should be online as well as being able to request hard copies.
I know of 4 organisations where using sweeping phrases such as "management costs" have enabled them to distribute monies of £100K plus on a regular basis to their board members on top of their expenses, and in reality the only management costs are for a couple of hours of office paperwork done by an office temp. each month.
All of this needs national exposure in the press...let's hope any "regulation" of the press does not inhibit them from doing so.
[quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: Transparency should be something every charity strives to achieve you're right Arjay. You should be prepared to produce and explain every single penny you spent down to the £1.20 you spend on milk for tea in the office! I think the biggest issue is the 'consultants' brought in on projects who charge a lot of money for their services and charge by the hour. If a job turns out to be bigger than they originally estimated they simply earn more which I'm sure they don't mind! I enjoy my low paid job because I enjoy dealing with the people who use our services. They're all vulnerable adults and providing a high quality service for them is really satisfying! I don't think on a personal level I'd get the same job satisfaction from working for a large corporation but I've sacrificed about £3k per annum on my salary for that job satisfaction! I just hope if I continue to work hard I can progress and earn more whilst still working for a charity.[/p][/quote]I totally agree that all organisations which purport to work on behalf of, or for the good of the public in some way - whether that is the local Council, a charity, the NHS or whatever, should have all expenses and incomes easily available for the public to see. These days that should be online as well as being able to request hard copies. I know of 4 organisations where using sweeping phrases such as "management costs" have enabled them to distribute monies of £100K plus on a regular basis to their board members on top of their expenses, and in reality the only management costs are for a couple of hours of office paperwork done by an office temp. each month. All of this needs national exposure in the press...let's hope any "regulation" of the press does not inhibit them from doing so. jinglebell

1:14pm Mon 3 Dec 12

outdoordopey says...

I worked in the fundraising department that launched this appeal and am horrified that the money still hasnt been spent. yes, I drew a salary but ran lots of events, its the fat cats at the top of the hospital that use the money and the so called volunteers on the charities trustee board who claim expenses! I am now ashamed to say that I worked there.
I worked in the fundraising department that launched this appeal and am horrified that the money still hasnt been spent. yes, I drew a salary but ran lots of events, its the fat cats at the top of the hospital that use the money and the so called volunteers on the charities trustee board who claim expenses! I am now ashamed to say that I worked there. outdoordopey

1:17pm Mon 3 Dec 12

rozmister says...

speedy231278 wrote:
If it's a charity, and you want to help make a difference, surely you'd draw the minimum wage to ensure the maximum goes to the actual cause that money is being raised for? There's clearly plenty of money in these things, as they are usually trying to sell secondhand furniture for more than it would cost new!
If I drew a minimum wage I would struggle to be able to cover my living expenses every month. I live in a shared house and am a single person - if it was NMW for the rest of my life and I struggle now how would I ever have a family or a holiday or a flat of my own (even rented)? Should I give up the goals that other people in my generation strive for because I work for a charity?

The fact that anybody in this country lives on a National Minimum Wage that isn't a Living Wage is an absolute scandal. Trying to force more people to live on it is crazy.

If charities are spending too much money they should be looking to reduce overheads and make sure they pay people a FAIR wage based on their experience and skills. Putting everybody on NMW and expecting the Treasury to pick up the difference through tax credits is not a viable solution!
[quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: If it's a charity, and you want to help make a difference, surely you'd draw the minimum wage to ensure the maximum goes to the actual cause that money is being raised for? There's clearly plenty of money in these things, as they are usually trying to sell secondhand furniture for more than it would cost new![/p][/quote]If I drew a minimum wage I would struggle to be able to cover my living expenses every month. I live in a shared house and am a single person - if it was NMW for the rest of my life and I struggle now how would I ever have a family or a holiday or a flat of my own (even rented)? Should I give up the goals that other people in my generation strive for because I work for a charity? The fact that anybody in this country lives on a National Minimum Wage that isn't a Living Wage is an absolute scandal. Trying to force more people to live on it is crazy. If charities are spending too much money they should be looking to reduce overheads and make sure they pay people a FAIR wage based on their experience and skills. Putting everybody on NMW and expecting the Treasury to pick up the difference through tax credits is not a viable solution! rozmister

1:34pm Mon 3 Dec 12

Arjay says...

Adrian XX wrote:
And please don't start the old chestnut about 'needing to pay this kind of money to attract people of the 'right 'calibre'.
I know that nonsense, you know that's nonsense, but the smart 'wordsmiths' I mentioned above will certainly do their best to try and convince us otherwise.


It's not about attracting people of the right calibre - it's about attracting anyone at all. If you set a cap on charity chief executive wages of £30000 for example, for the larger charities you will not attract anyone capable of doing the job. If you put someone incapable in the position, you will lose more money.

Here is a list of chief executive salaries for your information:
http://bit.ly/9L1Z0t
Hang on! --- we've gone from £100K down to £30K ... from the sublime to the ridiculous!

And despite what you say, the idea that you wouldn't attract anyone capable of doing the job, for less than £100K is simply an insultt to many, many hardworking folk perfectly capable of taking on such a task - and for a slary of less than £100K
Now, if they don't have the right 'connections' they may of course never be given the opportunity.......bu
t to say you wouldn't 'attract anyone at all' if you offered - well let's split the difference - £75K is, as I say, simply insulting..

Of course, the clever 'wordsmiths' will soon be here, trying to justify this outrageous state of affairs within the charities sector (I was going to say industry, but I thought I'd better not)....
[quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: [quote]And please don't start the old chestnut about 'needing to pay this kind of money to attract people of the 'right 'calibre'. I know that nonsense, you know that's nonsense, but the smart 'wordsmiths' I mentioned above will certainly do their best to try and convince us otherwise.[/quote] It's not about attracting people of the right calibre - it's about attracting anyone at all. If you set a cap on charity chief executive wages of £30000 for example, for the larger charities you will not attract anyone capable of doing the job. If you put someone incapable in the position, you will lose more money. Here is a list of chief executive salaries for your information: http://bit.ly/9L1Z0t[/p][/quote]Hang on! --- we've gone from £100K down to £30K ... from the sublime to the ridiculous! And despite what you say, the idea that you wouldn't attract anyone capable of doing the job, for less than £100K is simply an insultt to many, many hardworking folk perfectly capable of taking on such a task - and for a slary of less than £100K Now, if they don't have the right 'connections' they may of course never be given the opportunity.......bu t to say you wouldn't 'attract anyone at all' if you offered - well let's split the difference - £75K is, as I say, simply insulting.. Of course, the clever 'wordsmiths' will soon be here, trying to justify this outrageous state of affairs within the charities sector (I was going to say industry, but I thought I'd better not).... Arjay

1:49pm Mon 3 Dec 12

Arjay says...

That should of course read £65K, not £75K, so clearly I needn't apply. Sorry about that...

Although, what's being £10K adrift in this area?......
That should of course read £65K, not £75K, so clearly I needn't apply. Sorry about that... Although, what's being £10K adrift in this area?...... Arjay

2:07pm Mon 3 Dec 12

oneshortleg says...

I have been a volunteer fundraiser for many years, I always work with smaller charities for this very reason. Remember the Oxfam scandal a few years ago when they found less than 11p from every £1 raised directly went to those in need!!
I have been a volunteer fundraiser for many years, I always work with smaller charities for this very reason. Remember the Oxfam scandal a few years ago when they found less than 11p from every £1 raised directly went to those in need!! oneshortleg

3:13pm Mon 3 Dec 12

Bob49 says...

"in the last three financial years, management or administration charges of £10,747, £15,577 and £14,681 have been applied, even though the appeal was officially closed in 2009"


So let's cut to the chase. Stop the waffle about how good/bad charities are and ask where has THIS particular money has gone.

Ask what was defined (and accepted) as 'administration charges'.

Ask who authorised these payments and and ask who received these payments.

It did not simply disappear, someone or some persons signed the cheques and someone received those cheques.

If they were 'expenses' then let us be told what those expenses were.

Those who donated money and help raise funds are entitled to that information as an absolute must. If only to dispel any notions that once again certain folk have been able to use the pretext of 'expenses' to line their own pockets.
.
"in the last three financial years, management or administration charges of £10,747, £15,577 and £14,681 have been applied, even though the appeal was officially closed in 2009" So let's cut to the chase. Stop the waffle about how good/bad charities are and ask where has THIS particular money has gone. Ask what was defined (and accepted) as 'administration charges'. Ask who authorised these payments and and ask who received these payments. It did not simply disappear, someone or some persons signed the cheques and someone received those cheques. If they were 'expenses' then let us be told what those expenses were. Those who donated money and help raise funds are entitled to that information as an absolute must. If only to dispel any notions that once again certain folk have been able to use the pretext of 'expenses' to line their own pockets. . Bob49

3:25pm Mon 3 Dec 12

Arjay says...

Bob49 wrote:
"in the last three financial years, management or administration charges of £10,747, £15,577 and £14,681 have been applied, even though the appeal was officially closed in 2009"


So let's cut to the chase. Stop the waffle about how good/bad charities are and ask where has THIS particular money has gone.

Ask what was defined (and accepted) as 'administration charges'.

Ask who authorised these payments and and ask who received these payments.

It did not simply disappear, someone or some persons signed the cheques and someone received those cheques.

If they were 'expenses' then let us be told what those expenses were.

Those who donated money and help raise funds are entitled to that information as an absolute must. If only to dispel any notions that once again certain folk have been able to use the pretext of 'expenses' to line their own pockets.
.
All highly commendable intentions.

Not likely to make any difference though. There will always be a 'legitimate' reason for all these mysterious expenses.

Some of these people may be 'crooks,' in the eyes of those who have given their hard earned, but they're not stupid.
They will have covered their tracks.

It would be interesting to see some of their 'justifications' though ... see if they can be made to squirm a bit?
Unlikely, I would have thought.........
[quote][p][bold]Bob49[/bold] wrote: "in the last three financial years, management or administration charges of £10,747, £15,577 and £14,681 have been applied, even though the appeal was officially closed in 2009" So let's cut to the chase. Stop the waffle about how good/bad charities are and ask where has THIS particular money has gone. Ask what was defined (and accepted) as 'administration charges'. Ask who authorised these payments and and ask who received these payments. It did not simply disappear, someone or some persons signed the cheques and someone received those cheques. If they were 'expenses' then let us be told what those expenses were. Those who donated money and help raise funds are entitled to that information as an absolute must. If only to dispel any notions that once again certain folk have been able to use the pretext of 'expenses' to line their own pockets. .[/p][/quote]All highly commendable intentions. Not likely to make any difference though. There will always be a 'legitimate' reason for all these mysterious expenses. Some of these people may be 'crooks,' in the eyes of those who have given their hard earned, but they're not stupid. They will have covered their tracks. It would be interesting to see some of their 'justifications' though ... see if they can be made to squirm a bit? Unlikely, I would have thought......... Arjay

3:27pm Mon 3 Dec 12

Ebb Tide says...

the smiling assassin wrote:
Ebb Tide wrote:
Leadership from some senior executives seems to have been missing (or mistaken) in managing the expectations of fund-raisers and the public. Hopefully the quality of leadership at Poole hospital will avoid any such disturbing scenarios evolving ? !! Hope springs eternal !!!
... but don't forget that when Bournemouth takes over Poole Hospital the managers will all be from Bournemouth. So don't hold your breath hoping they'll be any differant!
I guess we await the election of the governors who are required to foster openness and transparency - in accordance with all the guidance concerning corporate governance and accountability.!

Hope there will be enough with sufficient 'firmness' to protect Poole.
[quote][p][bold]the smiling assassin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ebb Tide[/bold] wrote: Leadership from some senior executives seems to have been missing (or mistaken) in managing the expectations of fund-raisers and the public. Hopefully the quality of leadership at Poole hospital will avoid any such disturbing scenarios evolving ? !! Hope springs eternal !!![/p][/quote]... but don't forget that when Bournemouth takes over Poole Hospital the managers will all be from Bournemouth. So don't hold your breath hoping they'll be any differant![/p][/quote]I guess we await the election of the governors who are required to foster openness and transparency - in accordance with all the guidance concerning corporate governance and accountability.! Hope there will be enough with sufficient 'firmness' to protect Poole. Ebb Tide

3:35pm Mon 3 Dec 12

muscliffman says...

What do people expect.

How much of the tax we 'have' to pay to the NHS (or any other service for that matter) actually reaches the front line staff and services?

A substantial amount of our taxpayer money is taken by bloated 'adminstrations' and fat-cat bosses - so why should a charity escape this routine self serving public sector process.

In this particular case more detail is needed and importantly the identities of the specific beneficieries from this 'Jigsaw' fund........... Name and shame time please Echo - or anyone else who reliably can.

We would really like to know who is on a nice little earner at the expense of the cancer sufferers for whom this money was intended.
What do people expect. How much of the tax we 'have' to pay to the NHS (or any other service for that matter) actually reaches the front line staff and services? A substantial amount of our taxpayer money is taken by bloated 'adminstrations' and fat-cat bosses - so why should a charity escape this routine self serving public sector process. In this particular case more detail is needed and importantly the identities of the specific beneficieries from this 'Jigsaw' fund........... Name and shame time please Echo - or anyone else who reliably can. We would really like to know who is on a nice little earner at the expense of the cancer sufferers for whom this money was intended. muscliffman

4:11pm Mon 3 Dec 12

coster says...

There are far,far too many 'charities'.It seems possible to elect yourself as a charity without any real review - the 'commissioners' do not carry out an assessment with any strength, and we suckers keep falling for it!.
There are far,far too many 'charities'.It seems possible to elect yourself as a charity without any real review - the 'commissioners' do not carry out an assessment with any strength, and we suckers keep falling for it!. coster

4:12pm Mon 3 Dec 12

Imaximus says...

Its a puzzle to me?
Its a puzzle to me? Imaximus

4:56pm Mon 3 Dec 12

BIGTONE says...

All aboard the gravy train....
All aboard the gravy train.... BIGTONE

5:32pm Mon 3 Dec 12

Adrian XX says...

Hang on! --- we've gone from £100K down to £30K ... from the sublime to the ridiculous!

And despite what you say, the idea that you wouldn't attract anyone capable of doing the job, for less than £100K is simply an insultt to many, many hardworking folk perfectly capable of taking on such a task - and for a slary of less than £100K


I only suggested £30k as an example as I thought you might suggest it as a cap. Despite what you think, you need significant skills and experience to run a large organisation such as the British Heart Foundation (again, just an example), and it simply is not the case that "many hardworking folk are perfectly capable of taking on such a task". You need to be an accountant, a lawyer, have retail skills (they operate hundreds of shops), have good HR skills, have some medical knowledge. These are all absolute pre-requisites and they all reduce the pool of candidates to choose from.
[quote]Hang on! --- we've gone from £100K down to £30K ... from the sublime to the ridiculous! And despite what you say, the idea that you wouldn't attract anyone capable of doing the job, for less than £100K is simply an insultt to many, many hardworking folk perfectly capable of taking on such a task - and for a slary of less than £100K[/quote] I only suggested £30k as an example as I thought you might suggest it as a cap. Despite what you think, you need significant skills and experience to run a large organisation such as the British Heart Foundation (again, just an example), and it simply is not the case that "many hardworking folk are perfectly capable of taking on such a task". You need to be an accountant, a lawyer, have retail skills (they operate hundreds of shops), have good HR skills, have some medical knowledge. These are all absolute pre-requisites and they all reduce the pool of candidates to choose from. Adrian XX

5:43pm Mon 3 Dec 12

John T says...

What an uncharitable lot most of you are, and that is when your Moaner- in-Chief, pete Woodley, is today unable to have his usual tuppenceworth, because he is receiving treatment from the much maligned NHS.
I have blood cancer and expect to benefit one day from this new facility when it is opened and hence see some benefit from the taxes I have paid for the last 50 years. Sadly, I do not, however, expect to see any benefit from the billions of pounds of my, and other taxpayers' money that has been frittered away to bail out the banks and still continue to pay bankers' bonuses.
@rozmister, I say keep up your good work as there are far too few, both young and old, with your sense of humanity.
@ The Echo, I say well done for spreading such gloom at what would normally be the prime time of year for charities to expect some 'goodwill from all men', and
@ a lot of the rest of you, May you have a Cheerful Christmas and a Prosperous and Healthy New Year in your selfish little worlds!
What an uncharitable lot most of you are, and that is when your Moaner- in-Chief, pete Woodley, is today unable to have his usual tuppenceworth, because he is receiving treatment from the much maligned NHS. I have blood cancer and expect to benefit one day from this new facility when it is opened and hence see some benefit from the taxes I have paid for the last 50 years. Sadly, I do not, however, expect to see any benefit from the billions of pounds of my, and other taxpayers' money that has been frittered away to bail out the banks and still continue to pay bankers' bonuses. @rozmister, I say keep up your good work as there are far too few, both young and old, with your sense of humanity. @ The Echo, I say well done for spreading such gloom at what would normally be the prime time of year for charities to expect some 'goodwill from all men', and @ a lot of the rest of you, May you have a Cheerful Christmas and a Prosperous and Healthy New Year in your selfish little worlds! John T

5:56pm Mon 3 Dec 12

stevobath says...

ILOVEBOURNEMOUTH wrote:
This id why you should be weary giving to charity, you might be fooled into thinking your money goes to whatever the charity claims. But there are always "overheads".

Also, want to become rich? Set up/invent a new religion.
Be 'wary' rather than 'weary'....Also why not take your' own advice & start a religion? Ludicrous like a lot of your posts
[quote][p][bold]ILOVEBOURNEMOUTH[/bold] wrote: This id why you should be weary giving to charity, you might be fooled into thinking your money goes to whatever the charity claims. But there are always "overheads". Also, want to become rich? Set up/invent a new religion.[/p][/quote]Be 'wary' rather than 'weary'....Also why not take your' own advice & start a religion? Ludicrous like a lot of your posts stevobath

6:10pm Mon 3 Dec 12

Arjay says...

Adrian XX wrote:
Hang on! --- we've gone from £100K down to £30K ... from the sublime to the ridiculous!

And despite what you say, the idea that you wouldn't attract anyone capable of doing the job, for less than £100K is simply an insultt to many, many hardworking folk perfectly capable of taking on such a task - and for a slary of less than £100K


I only suggested £30k as an example as I thought you might suggest it as a cap. Despite what you think, you need significant skills and experience to run a large organisation such as the British Heart Foundation (again, just an example), and it simply is not the case that "many hardworking folk are perfectly capable of taking on such a task". You need to be an accountant, a lawyer, have retail skills (they operate hundreds of shops), have good HR skills, have some medical knowledge. These are all absolute pre-requisites and they all reduce the pool of candidates to choose from.
I was beginning to think you were making a serious point, until I read your ridiculous list of qualifications!
Clearly, anyone with any real professional quality competence in ALL of those facilities simply doesn't exist.
Candidates may well need to try and convince the appropriate appointments board that they have all of these skills, but in reality you would simply be employing a 'jack of all trades, master of none,' by believing any such 'sales' pitch......

Although, as we have seen, the wastefulness of many of these charities would suggest that's exactly what has occurred!

It is also not possible to make such generalisations as to the function of a CEO.
On of the biggest charities, UKCMRI, with a turnover of over £300M, pays their CEO £140K.
That may be appropriate for an organisation of that size, but to suggest the selection of Sir Paul Nurse was made because of his skills in law, accountancy and retail sales is frankly nonsense!
A Nobel Laureate he may be. Retail 'supremo' as well?... I have my doubts! .... (If I'm wrong, sorry Sir Paul)
I suspect Sir Paul was selected primarily because of his high standing within the international medical community. If an appointment of that significance commands a salary of £140K, then I suggest that CEOs of much smaller and less significant charities should command much smaller salaries......but they're not going to leave the gravy train, if they can get away with it, are they?.....
[quote][p][bold]Adrian XX[/bold] wrote: [quote]Hang on! --- we've gone from £100K down to £30K ... from the sublime to the ridiculous! And despite what you say, the idea that you wouldn't attract anyone capable of doing the job, for less than £100K is simply an insultt to many, many hardworking folk perfectly capable of taking on such a task - and for a slary of less than £100K[/quote] I only suggested £30k as an example as I thought you might suggest it as a cap. Despite what you think, you need significant skills and experience to run a large organisation such as the British Heart Foundation (again, just an example), and it simply is not the case that "many hardworking folk are perfectly capable of taking on such a task". You need to be an accountant, a lawyer, have retail skills (they operate hundreds of shops), have good HR skills, have some medical knowledge. These are all absolute pre-requisites and they all reduce the pool of candidates to choose from.[/p][/quote]I was beginning to think you were making a serious point, until I read your ridiculous list of qualifications! Clearly, anyone with any real professional quality competence in ALL of those facilities simply doesn't exist. Candidates may well need to try and convince the appropriate appointments board that they have all of these skills, but in reality you would simply be employing a 'jack of all trades, master of none,' by believing any such 'sales' pitch...... Although, as we have seen, the wastefulness of many of these charities would suggest that's exactly what has occurred! It is also not possible to make such generalisations as to the function of a CEO. On of the biggest charities, UKCMRI, with a turnover of over £300M, pays their CEO £140K. That may be appropriate for an organisation of that size, but to suggest the selection of Sir Paul Nurse was made because of his skills in law, accountancy and retail sales is frankly nonsense! A Nobel Laureate he may be. Retail 'supremo' as well?... I have my doubts! .... (If I'm wrong, sorry Sir Paul) I suspect Sir Paul was selected primarily because of his high standing within the international medical community. If an appointment of that significance commands a salary of £140K, then I suggest that CEOs of much smaller and less significant charities should command much smaller salaries......but they're not going to leave the gravy train, if they can get away with it, are they?..... Arjay

6:46pm Mon 3 Dec 12

Phixer says...

The Renegade Master wrote:
This story highlights the reason why I no longer give to any charity. You never know just how much of your donation actually goes where it's needed. There are too many parasites involved with charities. It's a racket and that's why I keep my hands in my pocket when collection tins are rattled in my face or when a sob story advert appears on the tv for snow leopards or tigers!
Why do we need UK charities to save dogs in Greece?

How much of donations are spent on all those charity bags being delivered and collected? I don't have anything useful to put in them and I wouldn't leave them out for the Pikeys to collect. Mind you, I recycle the bags as liners in my kitchen swing-bin.
[quote][p][bold]The Renegade Master[/bold] wrote: This story highlights the reason why I no longer give to any charity. You never know just how much of your donation actually goes where it's needed. There are too many parasites involved with charities. It's a racket and that's why I keep my hands in my pocket when collection tins are rattled in my face or when a sob story advert appears on the tv for snow leopards or tigers![/p][/quote]Why do we need UK charities to save dogs in Greece? How much of donations are spent on all those charity bags being delivered and collected? I don't have anything useful to put in them and I wouldn't leave them out for the Pikeys to collect. Mind you, I recycle the bags as liners in my kitchen swing-bin. Phixer

6:49pm Mon 3 Dec 12

Phixer says...

Old Colonial wrote:
This is no 'ordinary' charity. It's an NHS administered money-pit.

See the Charity Commission website or get hold of a copy of their accounts.
Why is the hospital planning to refurbish wards with charity money? What is wrong with using my tax money for that?

Oh, forgot - too much tax money wasted on paying salaries for dead wood management!

So, the Jigsaw appeal has nothing to do with making life at little easier for patients?
[quote][p][bold]Old Colonial[/bold] wrote: This is no 'ordinary' charity. It's an NHS administered money-pit. See the Charity Commission website or get hold of a copy of their accounts.[/p][/quote]Why is the hospital planning to refurbish wards with charity money? What is wrong with using my tax money for that? Oh, forgot - too much tax money wasted on paying salaries for dead wood management! So, the Jigsaw appeal has nothing to do with making life at little easier for patients? Phixer

7:04pm Mon 3 Dec 12

rebelred says...

A disgrace that we raise money for a high profile local charity which has not been used for the purpose we raised it for and then find out it is being reduced even more. I for one will think again before i raise money for such a high profile local charity. I thought the aim was to improve the conditions in which patients are treated are improved. I hope patients that use this important service receive the standard of care in suitable surroundings that is conduscive with their needs. The nurses do a sterling job but need better resources
A disgrace that we raise money for a high profile local charity which has not been used for the purpose we raised it for and then find out it is being reduced even more. I for one will think again before i raise money for such a high profile local charity. I thought the aim was to improve the conditions in which patients are treated are improved. I hope patients that use this important service receive the standard of care in suitable surroundings that is conduscive with their needs. The nurses do a sterling job but need better resources rebelred

7:08pm Mon 3 Dec 12

Rabbitman64 says...

This is always the problem when money that should be supplied by the Government or NHS from taxation is not used by the hospital for whatever reason or is not made available. Genuine historical charities that go beyond the last thirty years are worth donating too? However Charities that are too closely connected with the state are often used by the state to get things done. A new low level for the Tories they are even starting to give charities a bad name?
This is always the problem when money that should be supplied by the Government or NHS from taxation is not used by the hospital for whatever reason or is not made available. Genuine historical charities that go beyond the last thirty years are worth donating too? However Charities that are too closely connected with the state are often used by the state to get things done. A new low level for the Tories they are even starting to give charities a bad name? Rabbitman64

7:28pm Mon 3 Dec 12

ShuttleX says...

I stopped donating money to the RBH after the last con. We were led to believe that the patients were going to benefit from the money, but only the fat cats at the top did. I will never donate so much as one pence to that Jigsaw appeal, and I would advice everybody else to do the same. They are scam artists, pure and simple. Most of my donated money now goes to the RNLI and H4H
I stopped donating money to the RBH after the last con. We were led to believe that the patients were going to benefit from the money, but only the fat cats at the top did. I will never donate so much as one pence to that Jigsaw appeal, and I would advice everybody else to do the same. They are scam artists, pure and simple. Most of my donated money now goes to the RNLI and H4H ShuttleX

8:14pm Mon 3 Dec 12

Ebb Tide says...

Rabbitman64 wrote:
This is always the problem when money that should be supplied by the Government or NHS from taxation is not used by the hospital for whatever reason or is not made available. Genuine historical charities that go beyond the last thirty years are worth donating too? However Charities that are too closely connected with the state are often used by the state to get things done. A new low level for the Tories they are even starting to give charities a bad name?
Understood and appreciated !

How low can that can politicians go when they can't say what is necessary to their electorate ?

If I can't say what I mean I don't expect anyone to know how to respond to me in any sort of helpful manner ?

'Openness and transparency' is often mentioned for building a 'Big Society' but who imagines it is really being fostered ??
[quote][p][bold]Rabbitman64[/bold] wrote: This is always the problem when money that should be supplied by the Government or NHS from taxation is not used by the hospital for whatever reason or is not made available. Genuine historical charities that go beyond the last thirty years are worth donating too? However Charities that are too closely connected with the state are often used by the state to get things done. A new low level for the Tories they are even starting to give charities a bad name?[/p][/quote]Understood and appreciated ! How low can that can politicians go when they can't say what is necessary to their electorate ? If I can't say what I mean I don't expect anyone to know how to respond to me in any sort of helpful manner ? 'Openness and transparency' is often mentioned for building a 'Big Society' but who imagines it is really being fostered ?? Ebb Tide

8:57pm Mon 3 Dec 12

O'Reilly says...

rozmister wrote:
speedy231278 wrote:
If it's a charity, and you want to help make a difference, surely you'd draw the minimum wage to ensure the maximum goes to the actual cause that money is being raised for? There's clearly plenty of money in these things, as they are usually trying to sell secondhand furniture for more than it would cost new!
If I drew a minimum wage I would struggle to be able to cover my living expenses every month. I live in a shared house and am a single person - if it was NMW for the rest of my life and I struggle now how would I ever have a family or a holiday or a flat of my own (even rented)? Should I give up the goals that other people in my generation strive for because I work for a charity?

The fact that anybody in this country lives on a National Minimum Wage that isn't a Living Wage is an absolute scandal. Trying to force more people to live on it is crazy.

If charities are spending too much money they should be looking to reduce overheads and make sure they pay people a FAIR wage based on their experience and skills. Putting everybody on NMW and expecting the Treasury to pick up the difference through tax credits is not a viable solution!
LOL.......hoisted by your own petard.
[quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]speedy231278[/bold] wrote: If it's a charity, and you want to help make a difference, surely you'd draw the minimum wage to ensure the maximum goes to the actual cause that money is being raised for? There's clearly plenty of money in these things, as they are usually trying to sell secondhand furniture for more than it would cost new![/p][/quote]If I drew a minimum wage I would struggle to be able to cover my living expenses every month. I live in a shared house and am a single person - if it was NMW for the rest of my life and I struggle now how would I ever have a family or a holiday or a flat of my own (even rented)? Should I give up the goals that other people in my generation strive for because I work for a charity? The fact that anybody in this country lives on a National Minimum Wage that isn't a Living Wage is an absolute scandal. Trying to force more people to live on it is crazy. If charities are spending too much money they should be looking to reduce overheads and make sure they pay people a FAIR wage based on their experience and skills. Putting everybody on NMW and expecting the Treasury to pick up the difference through tax credits is not a viable solution![/p][/quote]LOL.......hoisted by your own petard. O'Reilly

9:43pm Mon 3 Dec 12

mytown1 says...

The sad fact is that people who thought they were helping to improve the lives of the people who needed help the most when they are sick have been let down by the "powers that be". How sad that they have been treated in such a cavalier manner by RBH. Like many others I will not give to another appeal by RBH.
The sad fact is that people who thought they were helping to improve the lives of the people who needed help the most when they are sick have been let down by the "powers that be". How sad that they have been treated in such a cavalier manner by RBH. Like many others I will not give to another appeal by RBH. mytown1

12:08am Tue 4 Dec 12

roguetrader666 says...

Does anyone remember the first Red Nose Day back in 1987? It didn't take place in 1988 because there was an investigation into £millions going missing. I don't remember hearing the outcome or of any prosecutions. It was all hushed up.
Does anyone remember the first Red Nose Day back in 1987? It didn't take place in 1988 because there was an investigation into £millions going missing. I don't remember hearing the outcome or of any prosecutions. It was all hushed up. roguetrader666

12:08am Tue 4 Dec 12

roguetrader666 says...

Does anyone remember the first Red Nose Day back in 1987? It didn't take place in 1988 because there was an investigation into £millions going missing. I don't remember hearing the outcome or of any prosecutions. It was all hushed up.
Does anyone remember the first Red Nose Day back in 1987? It didn't take place in 1988 because there was an investigation into £millions going missing. I don't remember hearing the outcome or of any prosecutions. It was all hushed up. roguetrader666

12:11am Tue 4 Dec 12

Shaftsbury says...

ShuttleX wrote:
I stopped donating money to the RBH after the last con. We were led to believe that the patients were going to benefit from the money, but only the fat cats at the top did. I will never donate so much as one pence to that Jigsaw appeal, and I would advice everybody else to do the same. They are scam artists, pure and simple. Most of my donated money now goes to the RNLI and H4H
Sorry to alarm you ShuttleX - both of these two charities, RNLI and H4H (volunteers and their standard staff aside) both pay hugely amounts to their top management too........
[quote][p][bold]ShuttleX[/bold] wrote: I stopped donating money to the RBH after the last con. We were led to believe that the patients were going to benefit from the money, but only the fat cats at the top did. I will never donate so much as one pence to that Jigsaw appeal, and I would advice everybody else to do the same. They are scam artists, pure and simple. Most of my donated money now goes to the RNLI and H4H[/p][/quote]Sorry to alarm you ShuttleX - both of these two charities, RNLI and H4H (volunteers and their standard staff aside) both pay hugely amounts to their top management too........ Shaftsbury

2:54am Tue 4 Dec 12

muscliffman says...

Shaftsbury wrote:
ShuttleX wrote:
I stopped donating money to the RBH after the last con. We were led to believe that the patients were going to benefit from the money, but only the fat cats at the top did. I will never donate so much as one pence to that Jigsaw appeal, and I would advice everybody else to do the same. They are scam artists, pure and simple. Most of my donated money now goes to the RNLI and H4H
Sorry to alarm you ShuttleX - both of these two charities, RNLI and H4H (volunteers and their standard staff aside) both pay hugely amounts to their top management too........
You do have a point, a quick glance at the expensive executive motors usually to be found in the Poole based RNLI car parks may indeed be very telling.
For a lot of the donated money that may well be as near to the sea as it will ever get!
[quote][p][bold]Shaftsbury[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ShuttleX[/bold] wrote: I stopped donating money to the RBH after the last con. We were led to believe that the patients were going to benefit from the money, but only the fat cats at the top did. I will never donate so much as one pence to that Jigsaw appeal, and I would advice everybody else to do the same. They are scam artists, pure and simple. Most of my donated money now goes to the RNLI and H4H[/p][/quote]Sorry to alarm you ShuttleX - both of these two charities, RNLI and H4H (volunteers and their standard staff aside) both pay hugely amounts to their top management too........[/p][/quote]You do have a point, a quick glance at the expensive executive motors usually to be found in the Poole based RNLI car parks may indeed be very telling. For a lot of the donated money that may well be as near to the sea as it will ever get! muscliffman

4:23am Tue 4 Dec 12

no vested interest says...

The west and especially the Brits look down their collective noses when this sort of thing happens in 3rd world Dictatorships.
So how does it feel when it happens in your own country,used,abused,
conned
taken advantage of.
Why are'nt the police after this sort of white collar crime,its endemic.Its probably because that holy cow,the honest British Constabulary has been corrupted by Murdoch and his Toffy Boys in Westminster.
Oh woe is me,the end is nigh,what do you expect you suckers....
The west and especially the Brits look down their collective noses when this sort of thing happens in 3rd world Dictatorships. So how does it feel when it happens in your own country,used,abused, conned taken advantage of. Why are'nt the police after this sort of white collar crime,its endemic.Its probably because that holy cow,the honest British Constabulary has been corrupted by Murdoch and his Toffy Boys in Westminster. Oh woe is me,the end is nigh,what do you expect you suckers.... no vested interest

8:00am Tue 4 Dec 12

JamesBond0070 says...

I remember well about the "Oxfam" scandal. When I was living in Poole, I used go "door to door" for free raising donations for the charity. I am now in Canada. You can imagine the shock that I received on learning that nineteen twentieths of all the collections had been going to so-called "administrative expenses" and not to the very poor in India, as the heavy advertising by the charity suggested. I have since learned that many so called "charities" are just scams to "soak" the gullible, and enrich some of the richest citizens.
I remember well about the "Oxfam" scandal. When I was living in Poole, I used go "door to door" for free raising donations for the charity. I am now in Canada. You can imagine the shock that I received on learning that nineteen twentieths of all the collections had been going to so-called "administrative expenses" and not to the very poor in India, as the heavy advertising by the charity suggested. I have since learned that many so called "charities" are just scams to "soak" the gullible, and enrich some of the richest citizens. JamesBond0070

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree