Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

The Effect On Charities


Dylan
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've read that the banks sold a lot of their CDO/CDS products to charities - they become the counterparties that have to pay up when default in defined pools of corporate debt reaches certain levels. As well as banks and homebuilders, US car manufacturers are a standard inclusion in these pools - so if they go in to full default, that is likely to trigger these liabilities.

It would also mean a huge inflow of capital to the banks, and therefore the end of the credit crunch. Happy days!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should see the millions they pay to their advertising agencies, especially the ones that do the TV campaigns. I wonder how much the overpaid execs of said agencies can afford to give to charities after funding thier industry jollies to the Cannes awards and paying the salaries for their Mercedes chauffeurs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm told that there's a lot of competition to get decent jobs in this field. Anyone with direct experience?

Don't know about UK based jobs, but my daughter's working for Oxfam in Ethiopia - previously worked for them in Aceh (tsunami zone) and has also worked for the American Red X and an Italian NGO. However she only got into it by doing a lot of completely unpaid work in Cambodia (she was on the spot and volunteered), which ultimately led to tiny-peanuts work and eventually to a salary which is OK overseas but wouldn't go very far here.

However a 2nd degree in something related is apparently essential (she had one) and so is hands-on experience, which it seems you can only get by working on a voluntary basis first. She knows of at least one other person who volunteered whilst travelling and got into it that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a child is being abused they should be removed from the abuse, but who is suppose to do it? All these ads point to the NSPC, but that is what we pay taxes for social services to do.

I've never really understood the difference between the NSPC, Children in Need and what Social Services should be doing with children because they have a legal responsibility.

I would like to know specifically what these 'charities' do, except 'awareness raise' which effectively means preaching to the converted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest anorthosite

I work for a big charity (I won't say which one), at least I will be for the next few days before I leave.

Donations aren't really down - lots of people are cancelling or reducing direct debits, but its not a huge issue. Appeals are still bringing in the usual amounts.

But everyone's scared, and I think its a good thing. Lots of ideas are "on hold" that don't relate to their core work, and people are looking at ways to save money at every level. Its giving the organisation a big kick up the jacksie in terms of efficiency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a child is being abused they should be removed from the abuse, but who is suppose to do it? All these ads point to the NSPC, but that is what we pay taxes for social services to do.

I've never really understood the difference between the NSPC, Children in Need and what Social Services should be doing with children because they have a legal responsibility.

I would like to know specifically what these 'charities' do, except 'awareness raise' which effectively means preaching to the converted.

What she said. I have never understood why the NSPCC exists when an arm of government is specifically charged with looking after children and has the statutory power to do so.

To take the recent sad case, this was a clear failure but with such a problem situation would one expect the NSPCC to be involved. Or would they not because social services were? And if so what do they do?

Not knocking them before anybody emotionally rushes to their defence. I just don't see how they "fit".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a child is being abused they should be removed from the abuse, but who is suppose to do it? All these ads point to the NSPC, but that is what we pay taxes for social services to do.

I've never really understood the difference between the NSPC, Children in Need and what Social Services should be doing with children because they have a legal responsibility.

I would like to know specifically what these 'charities' do, except 'awareness raise' which effectively means preaching to the converted.

The NSPCC cannot remove children, judges are the only people who can authorise that. The NSPCC can refer individual cases to Social Services, if one is brought to their attention, and the allocated social worker and manager would then make an application for an interim care order. Then comes the full legal proceedings which can take a year or more depending on how many assessments of the parent(s) are needed, whether any relatives are volunteering to be assessed as permanent carers etc. It is a lengthy and complex procedure and a complete myth that Social Services can just grab kids on a whim.

As for the NSPCC, in their own words: "We lobby and campaign for better laws and policies to protect children." Social Services child protection teams have had to contend with 2 massive changes to public law in the last 15 years, so it's an ever-changing field.

Edited by Trifle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the NSPCC, in their own words: "We lobby and campaign for better laws and policies to protect children."

So the NSPCC is an overtly political organisation - lots of people don't realise this or understand the implications. Plenty of people donate to the NSPCC to "help save the children" without actually looking at the manifesto. Many parents would be horrified to learn, for example, that the NSPCC thinks they should be locked up or have their children taken off them because they once gave them a smack for being naughty.

The NSPCC has also been accused of promoting hysteria about paedophiles, and of propagating some of the more ridiculous child abuse urban myths such as "satanic ritual abuse". This is the sort of paranoid lunacy that means a doddery old Jersey copper can find a few old bits of wire, chicken bones and a coconut shell under the floorboards of a disused children's home and suddenly think he's found a new Auschwitz.

None of this does a thing to help children, but it does allow a few overpaid lefties to feel smug and satisfied with themselves. Of course, the charity's stance on child protection is helpfully aligned with the New Labour agenda of mass surveillance, databases and a police state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the NSPCC is an overtly political organisation - lots of people don't realise this or understand the implications. Plenty of people donate to the NSPCC to "help save the children" without actually looking at the manifesto. Many parents would be horrified to learn, for example, that the NSPCC thinks they should be locked up or have their children taken off them because they once gave them a smack for being naughty.

The NSPCC has also been accused of promoting hysteria about paedophiles, and of propagating some of the more ridiculous child abuse urban myths such as "satanic ritual abuse". This is the sort of paranoid lunacy that means a doddery old Jersey copper can find a few old bits of wire, chicken bones and a coconut shell under the floorboards of a disused children's home and suddenly think he's found a new Auschwitz.

None of this does a thing to help children, but it does allow a few overpaid lefties to feel smug and satisfied with themselves. Of course, the charity's stance on child protection is helpfully aligned with the New Labour agenda of mass surveillance, databases and a police state.

This will help keep me from responding to their heart rending appeals on TV. Thank you as I agree with you completely but sometimes my rational side is threatened by the large amounts of donor money that they spend on very slick ads to raise even larger amounts of donor money. Does seem a bit pointless ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NSPCC has also been accused of promoting hysteria about paedophiles, and of propagating some of the more ridiculous child abuse urban myths such as "satanic ritual abuse". This is the sort of paranoid lunacy that means a doddery old Jersey copper can find a few old bits of wire, chicken bones and a coconut shell under the floorboards of a disused children's home and suddenly think he's found a new Auschwitz.

This issue of paedophilia is a really tricky one because it genuinely is such a vile act. But it has now got to the stage where children are regularly sexualised through the media, through increasing intervention in telling kids about sex on an age que that gets younger and younger, forcing them into 'little adult' roles all over the place, celebrating 12 year old models hanging out their limbs and their undeveloped breasts - all sanctioned by either the media or 'public education'. Really the whole of society has sanctioned paedophilia on the basis of the blind eye to what is really being promoted. And child pornography is apparently one of the biggest black industries on the internet. We then need to Paul Gadds of this world to make ourselves feel good by kicking 'somebody, anybody'. Creepy guy but could just as easily be your next door neighbour. We don't even get close to routing out the guys that are actually abusing the kids for these sickos to watch. The fact is, we need to them to keep doing it so that we can beat the sickos that find the material, so that we can continue to justify the huge amount of money we spend on survellience that is never intended to be for the real criminals. Extremists are rarely the targets of witch-hunts.

And then there is keeping kids in all the time rather than teaching them to stick up for themselves and skiddadle if there feels like danger etc. That is what we were taught to do, be wary of strangers, don't take sweets etc. And kids just get fatter and fatter.

Are kids these days so stupid or so compliant to the big brother state that they can't just learn to say no and scream and shout. We are so busy teaching kids to be compliant we forget to teach them to look after themselves. I regret the demise of the odd broken bone from riding the bike too fast or falling off a swing and the good old fashioned scrapped knee. But those are the sorts of things that Social Services chases up because they can make themselves heros in a genuinely unheroic situation. Where there is a real and present danger they act like scared 5 year olds themselves. The NSPCC doesn't in my opinion make a swot of difference. You can lobby all you like but if Victoria Climbe is followed by Baby P in the same local authority then what is the good of all of your work? What do you really do?

Putting Harringay into administration would do far more good than giving a few pounds the the NSPCC to tell child protection workers their job is to protect children. It would send a real message to every child protection agency about what their job is, and it might actually mean something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This issue of paedophilia is a really tricky one because it genuinely is such a vile act. But it has now got to the stage where children are regularly sexualised through the media, through increasing intervention in telling kids about sex on an age que that gets younger and younger, forcing them into 'little adult' roles all over the place, celebrating 12 year old models hanging out their limbs and their undeveloped breasts - all sanctioned by either the media or 'public education'. Really the whole of society has sanctioned paedophilia on the basis of the blind eye to what is really being promoted. And child pornography is apparently one of the biggest black industries on the internet. We then need to Paul Gadds of this world to make ourselves feel good by kicking 'somebody, anybody'. Creepy guy but could just as easily be your next door neighbour. We don't even get close to routing out the guys that are actually abusing the kids for these sickos to watch. The fact is, we need to them to keep doing it so that we can beat the sickos that find the material, so that we can continue to justify the huge amount of money we spend on survellience that is never intended to be for the real criminals. Extremists are rarely the targets of witch-hunts.

And then there is keeping kids in all the time rather than teaching them to stick up for themselves and skiddadle if there feels like danger etc. That is what we were taught to do, be wary of strangers, don't take sweets etc. And kids just get fatter and fatter.

Are kids these days so stupid or so compliant to the big brother state that they can't just learn to say no and scream and shout. We are so busy teaching kids to be compliant we forget to teach them to look after themselves. I regret the demise of the odd broken bone from riding the bike too fast or falling off a swing and the good old fashioned scrapped knee. But those are the sorts of things that Social Services chases up because they can make themselves heros in a genuinely unheroic situation. Where there is a real and present danger they act like scared 5 year olds themselves. The NSPCC doesn't in my opinion make a swot of difference. You can lobby all you like but if Victoria Climbe is followed by Baby P in the same local authority then what is the good of all of your work? What do you really do?

Putting Harringay into administration would do far more good than giving a few pounds the the NSPCC to tell child protection workers their job is to protect children. It would send a real message to every child protection agency about what their job is, and it might actually mean something.

You speak a lotof sense. The one thing you have omitted is the pernicious influence of step-fathers aka live-in lovers that can change from month to month. This is where most child abuse and paedophilia really lies. Without the father/child blood-bond, some men have no restraint and therefore see step-daughters as fair game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This issue of paedophilia is a really tricky one because it genuinely is such a vile act. But it has now got to the stage where children are regularly sexualised through the media, through increasing intervention in telling kids about sex on an age que that gets younger and younger, forcing them into 'little adult' roles all over the place, celebrating 12 year old models hanging out their limbs and their undeveloped breasts - all sanctioned by either the media or 'public education'. Really the whole of society has sanctioned paedophilia on the basis of the blind eye to what is really being promoted. And child pornography is apparently one of the biggest black industries on the internet. We then need to Paul Gadds of this world to make ourselves feel good by kicking 'somebody, anybody'. Creepy guy but could just as easily be your next door neighbour. We don't even get close to routing out the guys that are actually abusing the kids for these sickos to watch. The fact is, we need to them to keep doing it so that we can beat the sickos that find the material, so that we can continue to justify the huge amount of money we spend on survellience that is never intended to be for the real criminals. Extremists are rarely the targets of witch-hunts.

And then there is keeping kids in all the time rather than teaching them to stick up for themselves and skiddadle if there feels like danger etc. That is what we were taught to do, be wary of strangers, don't take sweets etc. And kids just get fatter and fatter.

Are kids these days so stupid or so compliant to the big brother state that they can't just learn to say no and scream and shout. We are so busy teaching kids to be compliant we forget to teach them to look after themselves. I regret the demise of the odd broken bone from riding the bike too fast or falling off a swing and the good old fashioned scrapped knee. But those are the sorts of things that Social Services chases up because they can make themselves heros in a genuinely unheroic situation. Where there is a real and present danger they act like scared 5 year olds themselves. The NSPCC doesn't in my opinion make a swot of difference. You can lobby all you like but if Victoria Climbe is followed by Baby P in the same local authority then what is the good of all of your work? What do you really do?

Putting Harringay into administration would do far more good than giving a few pounds the the NSPCC to tell child protection workers their job is to protect children. It would send a real message to every child protection agency about what their job is, and it might actually mean something.

Agreed, does this corp /media behaviour have a name?

Perhaps 'paedomedia' or 'corpaedophilia'

2 or 3 years I read an article saying about the actual stats of attacks had not increased, just the media hysteria fuelling the perception that they had.

As you mention, the ill effects of obesity & isolation on kids cause major damage. Presumably, the blanket effect of increased street cctv would have made atacks on kids decrease,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I must confess when I first arrived in the UK I was terribly puzzled by the NSPCC ads as they seemed to claim a role that I thought must surely be of necessity performed by government agencies.

As to the pedophile issue, does anyone have statistics over how many cases have occurred at the hands of trusted institutions such as boy scouts/church versus the lurking nutter in the playground. I strongly suspect that these figures would dwarf the new mantra of internet predators by a lot.

Edited by adp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are kids these days so stupid or so compliant to the big brother state that they can't just learn to say no and scream and shout. We are so busy teaching kids to be compliant we forget to teach them to look after themselves. I regret the demise of the odd broken bone from riding the bike too fast or falling off a swing and the good old fashioned scrapped knee. But those are the sorts of things that Social Services chases up because they can make themselves heros in a genuinely unheroic situation. Where there is a real and present danger they act like scared 5 year olds themselves. The NSPCC doesn't in my opinion make a swot of difference. You can lobby all you like but if Victoria Climbe is followed by Baby P in the same local authority then what is the good of all of your work? What do you really do?

Putting Harringay into administration would do far more good than giving a few pounds the the NSPCC to tell child protection workers their job is to protect children. It would send a real message to every child protection agency about what their job is, and it might actually mean something.

The NSPCC didn't come out of the Climbie enquiry with any glory either.

The public inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbie has heard damning evidence about the role of the NSPCC in events leading up to the eight-year-old's death.

Victoria, who was murdered by her great aunt and her boyfriend, was referred to a centre run by the charity but no action was taken for nearly seven months.

Confidential documents shown to BBC Radio 4's Today programme suggest that crucial details on NSPCC files were changed after Victoria's death.

One read that Victoria's case was "accepted for ongoing service" when she was first referred to them, while another version, made - according to computer records - after the girl's death, was marked "no further action".

The charity has strongly denied that its records had been falsified.

During the inquiry, the NSPCC family centre was described as a "shambles" and a project in crisis.

Victoria was referred to the centre in north London on 5 August 1999 amid concerns about her poor hygiene, inappropriate dress and that she seemed anxious around her great-aunt.

The case was seen as urgent but it was a week before she was allocated a social worker.

The inquiry heard that staff had been preoccupied with organising a party. ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1781399.stm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, does this corp /media behaviour have a name?

Perhaps 'paedomedia' or 'corpaedophilia'

Institutional paedophilia would work for me. But then we would have to differentiate between care home abuse and media visual abuse. Or would we???

Presumably, the blanket effect of increased street cctv would have made atacks on kids decrease,

Why? Whose watching them. And as adp said, how many attacks are really about stranger danger?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should see the millions they pay to their advertising agencies, especially the ones that do the TV campaigns. I wonder how much the overpaid execs of said agencies can afford to give to charities after funding thier industry jollies to the Cannes awards and paying the salaries for their Mercedes chauffeurs.

A lot of charities also get a lot of pro-bono work done for them by advertising agencies as well as free or very cheap ad space.

With regards to working for one - through my own involvement I can confirm that many staff start as volunteers and/or have specialist skills like accountancy or IT. Junior posts are often the most competitive - with hundreds applying for some of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • 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.