Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Malthus

Wwf Polar Bear Ads

Recommended Posts

These ads to give £3 / month to save polar bears drive me nuts.

It's wrong in just about every way possible.

Polar bears are not an endangered species, even if they are they are nasty things who kill loads of even cuter seals ;)

But mostly I would like to know what the hell they do with the donations that could possibly affect a polar bear in any way :angry:

rant over

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These ads to give £3 / month to save polar bears drive me nuts.

It's wrong in just about every way possible.

Polar bears are not an endangered species, even if they are they are nasty things who kill loads of even cuter seals ;)

But mostly I would like to know what the hell they do with the donations that could possibly affect a polar bear in any way :angry:

rant over

Probably the same sort of things most of us would do with an ample supply of free money.

WWF presents itself as a charity which it is not.

The adopt a polar bear thing is probably its most blatant con trick to date.

Why do people fall for it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Polar bears are the mascots for the whole global warming/climate change/climate disruption scam.

I would imagine if they were sentient they'd be pretty pissed off at being abused in this way. Either that or they may be asking where's their share of the money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.worldtwitch.com/animal_charities_2001.htm

From 2001:

KATHRYN S. FULLER President WWF $262,401

Image what they are on now ?

Nothing compared to this one though:

CHRISTOPHER A. SMITH Wildlife Conservation Society $852,749

And how about this local charity in Nortthampton:

http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/local/st_andrew_s_hospital_charity_chief_on_547_000_salary_1_2149372?commentspage=0

"St Andrew’s Hospital charity chief on £547,000 salary"

"In total 35 staff pocketed wages of more than £100,000 as of March 2010."

“A lot of their income actually does come from the public purse because they’re charging for contracts that come from the local authorities and the NHS.”

That is truely shocking !!!

You could make a difference this time last year....and get paid £30K:

http://www.publicaffairslinks.co.uk/wwf2.html

Someone I know invests charities cash for them...he says..."i'd not give them money they all make a very good living out of helping others"

It would appear chairty begins at home...with other peoples cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad it's not just me ;)

We're getting a charity commission in Northern Ireland for the first time, the estimate is that 12-15,000 charities will need to be registered.

For a population of 1.6 million this is madness.

The best example recently was a campaign to fund an air ambulance, loads of money raised , allegedly 90% spent on costs and no air ambulance :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any charity that pays for staff is not a charity.

I tend to agree, although saying that no one involved in a charity is allowed to be paid is a touch too far, I think. The larger charities do need to operate on a day to day basis and someone has to do it.

Charities, at least in British law, have to operate within certain legal confines and derive very large tax-breaks. The essence of a registered charity is that it operates under the unbrella of trust law meaning that it has to have trustees which are supposed to administer the trust under the general law relating to trusts. In short, the trust exists in order to carry out its charitable purposes.

I think that if individuals are being paid very large salaries then it could reasonably be argued that the trust may not be being operated solely for the benefit of its charitable purposes. Also, there is the argument that it really isn't fair that a few senior executives of charities are allowed to pay them selves vast sums as they are, in essence, only able to do so because of the tax breaks making the charity a viable option to operate in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to agree, although saying that no one involved in a charity is allowed to be paid is a touch too far, I think. The larger charities do need to operate on a day to day basis and someone has to do it.

Charities, at least in British law, have to operate within certain legal confines and derive very large tax-breaks. The essence of a registered charity is that it operates under the unbrella of trust law meaning that it has to have trustees which are supposed to administer the trust under the general law relating to trusts. In short, the trust exists in order to carry out its charitable purposes.

I think that if individuals are being paid very large salaries then it could reasonably be argued that the trust may not be being operated solely for the benefit of its charitable purposes. Also, there is the argument that it really isn't fair that a few senior executives of charities are allowed to pay them selves vast sums as they are, in essence, only able to do so because of the tax breaks making the charity a viable option to operate in the first place.

I was a trustee of a large medical charity for a few years. You could only serve for 3 years then someone else would be elected. Because we had an income of about

£3 million there was no way that we could have operated on an amateur basis so we had to hire staff.

1 The Government do not fund medical research in any meaningful way although they do of course run Universities which leads to qualified researchers.

2 No one wants to volunteer to help a charity. Once we were invited to take part in an open day run by the local council at which all charities could display their work and try to drum up volunteers. Even though we were involved in genetic research trying to combat inherited diseases that currently kill children, nobody was interested.

However, the animal charities did very well. I think British people are seriously screwed up when it comes to animals. (Probably all those Victorian sentimentalists like Anna Sewell etc. who seemed to think that animals brains work exactly the same as humans')

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was a trustee of a large medical charity for a few years. You could only serve for 3 years then someone else would be elected. Because we had an income of about

£3 million there was no way that we could have operated on an amateur basis so we had to hire staff.

1 The Government do not fund medical research in any meaningful way although they do of course run Universities which leads to qualified researchers.

2 No one wants to volunteer to help a charity. Once we were invited to take part in an open day run by the local council at which all charities could display their work and try to drum up volunteers. Even though we were involved in genetic research trying to combat inherited diseases that currently kill children, nobody was interested.

However, the animal charities did very well. I think British people are seriously screwed up when it comes to animals. (Probably all those Victorian sentimentalists like Anna Sewell etc. who seemed to think that animals brains work exactly the same as humans')

The directors and senior management of many charities will be on permanent contracts though, not 3 years ones like the trustees. It is, in my view, unjust that they hould get vast salaries from on organisation which is only financially viable due to massive tax breaks. They simply would not have their jobs if it wasn't for the tax breaks so should have to sacrifice some income because of it.

You are right, people in this country have a fvcked up attitude towards animal charities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The directors and senior management of many charities will be on permanent contracts though, not 3 years ones like the trustees. It is, in my view, unjust that they hould get vast salaries from on organisation which is only financially viable due to massive tax breaks. They simply would not have their jobs if it wasn't for the tax breaks so should have to sacrifice some income because of it.

You are right, people in this country have a fvcked up attitude towards animal charities.

As far as I am aware, Trustees are Company Directors by law.

Not too sure about Charities being allowed professional directors.

Certainly the Senior Management are professional, but how would you manage without them?

Having collected the money, it is not simply a matter of dishing it out. We needed to award research grants and not being highly skilled medical people we needed advice. Have to say that the professional awards sub committee of co-opted top medical people gave their time for nothing. But there was a day to day need to run the charity and keep an eye on the researchers. This could only be done effectively by hiring well qualified people. We certainly did not pay over the odds but at the same time we were competing in the London labour market and it was not so easy to find the right people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me too. There's no way on earth I am falling for this one. Not after the last time. I'm still waiting for that bloody Jaguar and was £27 down before I was able to stop the direct debit.

you should count yourself lucky. The one I got bit the turkey in half, knocked over the Christmas tree and tried to shag my gran.

I dread to think what a polar bear would do to the carpets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who'd win; a polar bear or a lion?

Polar bear. The romans used to make animals fight, and bears always beat lions with ease apparently. Boring fight they reckoned.

Anyway back on topic. They will use the money to buy lots and lots of freezers and stick them in the oceans to refreeze them, thereby helping the polar bears. Of course the electricity used will contribute to global warming and melt the ice again, but I didn't want to burst their bubble so I didn't tell them that when I sold them 1,000 chest freezers at £850 each (charity discount).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the koalas?

I don't think a Koala is actually a bear.

On a similar subject was having a tiger vs gorilla debate today. I reckon the tiger easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think a Koala is actually a bear.

On a similar subject was having a tiger vs gorilla debate today. I reckon the tiger easy.

Koalas are f*cking vicious.

Hmmmm, tiger v gorilla. Actually its the gorilla for the same reason as bear v big cat. They have such a hard thump they just break the neck of the cat first swipe before it can get close enough to bite. Hence boring fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Koalas are f*cking vicious.

Hmmmm, tiger v gorilla. Actually its the gorilla for the same reason as bear v big cat. They have such a hard thump they just break the neck of the cat first swipe before it can get close enough to bite. Hence boring fight.

I am not so sure. The speed of a tiger is impressive and those big claws and teeth. Gorilla missed with its swipe and it would be game over IMO.

Anyway.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not so sure. The speed of a tiger is impressive and those big claws and teeth. Gorilla missed with its swipe and it would be game over IMO.

Anyway.....

Ah but you forget ... monkeys throw sh1t, that's a secret weapon or special power thing.

Is it in the jungle or out in the open. Jungle would make it even more complex. Trees for the gorilla to hang around and climb in, but foliage for the tiger to sneak around in all camouflaged and all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah but you forget ... monkeys throw sh1t, that's a secret weapon or special power thing.

Is it in the jungle or out in the open. Jungle would make it even more complex. Trees for the gorilla to hang around and climb in, but foliage for the tiger to sneak around in all camouflaged and all.

Open land. Just had a google and tigers are generally larger too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Open land. Just had a google and tigers are generally larger too.

Not convinced size is everything, I once read that mice scare elephants.

How about we donate to the WWF and ask them to arrange a matchup, instead of sending pictures and letters from our adopted animals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the koalas?

Have you ever seen a p*ssed off koala?

(They are nasty little perverts too. Most of them are dying from a sexually transmitted disease. Whenever they are given to a girl/woman to cuddle, the randy little buggers always grope their breasts. Always!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bah

Lions and big cats are pretty weak alone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLVq8RWgYZk

This bull totally owns the lion, as Lions fight the chav wayy...

I.e. chav is weak individually but tends to fight 10-1 against people thinking this makes them well 'ard. Must disgustingly when Sunny was beaten up by chavs while he was in a pool of his own blood the lead chav thought it funny to say don't fook with ME when really it was his 10 mates who out numbered him not him by any stretch of the word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 284 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.