why give money to childrens charities?

Heineken Helen

Seriously, if little Sophie is being raped and wants to contact somebody... shouldn't the help BE THERE?

Why are they asking for £2 a month so she has help... isn't that what the police/teachers/etc. are there for? What are they doing? Why do they want charities to do their job for them? :?

Who Princess

Heineken Helen wrote:

Seriously, if little Sophie is being raped and wants to contact somebody... shouldn't the help BE THERE?

Why are they asking for £2 a month so she has help... isn't that what the police/teachers/etc. are there for? What are they doing? Why do they want charities to do their job for them? :?

In a perfect world I'm sure the help would be there.

I really can't speak to the situation in the U.K. where I understand the situation is different. Here in the States I spent 24 years working at nonprofits/social service agencies (the preferred terms to charities). They serve as an adjunct to the police and teachers whose jobs are supported by taxpayers and who are always overwhelmed, teachers in particular. The staff in social service agencies have specialized training for dealing with different kinds of issues pertaining to children or domestic violence or whatever the problem may be. More and more often those agencies work in collaborative arrangements with police departments and school districts. So they are all doing their jobs together to take care of the children.

But social service agencies are not government funded in the U.S. They may receive some grants from government sources but for the most part they rely on donations, fundraisers, and grants from foundations (usually set up by philanthropic people for just that purpose). Staff are not highly paid and do the work more out of a sense of caring then for financial reward.

But before you donate to any organization, ask questions. Ask to see an annual report. How much money do they spend on fundraising? Visit the organization. Talk to the staff. Volunteer there. You'll get an idea of what kind of work is being done and how great the need is.

JOEJOEJOE

Heineken Helen wrote:

Seriously, if little Sophie is being raped and wants to contact somebody... shouldn't the help BE THERE?

Why are they asking for £2 a month so she has help... isn't that what the police/teachers/etc. are there for? What are they doing? Why do they want charities to do their job for them? :?

They should pass a law that people on the dole are not allowed to use the dough for beer, and then give that money to the police/teachers/etc.

Wobbie

Heineken Helen wrote:

Seriously, if little Sophie is being raped and wants to contact somebody... shouldn't the help BE THERE?

Why are they asking for £2 a month so she has help... isn't that what the police/teachers/etc. are there for? What are they doing? Why do they want charities to do their job for them? :?

Please don't bag on teachers, Helen. It's a thankless, underpaid job and their hands are seriously tied in regard to what they can or can't get involved in. :oops:

soulsinging

imalive wrote:

Heineken Helen wrote:

Seriously, if little Sophie is being raped and wants to contact somebody... shouldn't the help BE THERE?

Why are they asking for £2 a month so she has help... isn't that what the police/teachers/etc. are there for? What are they doing? Why do they want charities to do their job for them? :?

Please don't bag on teachers, Helen. It's a thankless, underpaid job and their hands are seriously tied in regard to what they can or can't get involved in. :oops:

The demands we place on teachers are ridiculous. It's not enough that they educate, we also expect that they will guide their moral development, serve as police in the building, psychologists, social workers, doctors, and now rape crisis counselors?

PearlJamaholic

why give money to anyone? let the government tax it all away.

Irish Al

Heineken Helen wrote:

Seriously, if little Sophie is being raped and wants to contact somebody... shouldn't the help BE THERE?

Why are they asking for £2 a month so she has help... isn't that what the police/teachers/etc. are there for? What are they doing? Why do they want charities to do their job for them? :?

I have to admit Helen that its been a long time since I read a thread by you and found myself shaking my head and asking...is this the same person I've met....well this is one of those times. As someone who has worked with children who have been raped, mentally and physically abused and disowned by the people who are meant to love and care for them, the amount of funding provided by govt is sickening, this is why children continue to be abused and fall through the beurocratic net that is social services and these charities. These children who are not seen as in immediate danger are pushed down the bottom of a list by social services and this is where these charities come in, to provide support for these young people. I pray you or someone you love never have to deal with these services because, that is probably the only way you'll see their benefit :(

Still love ya tho....just about! :roll:

dunkman

Irish Al wrote:

Heineken Helen wrote:

Seriously, if little Sophie is being raped and wants to contact somebody... shouldn't the help BE THERE?

Why are they asking for £2 a month so she has help... isn't that what the police/teachers/etc. are there for? What are they doing? Why do they want charities to do their job for them? :?

I have to admit Helen that its been a long time since I read a thread by you and found myself shaking my head and asking...is this the same person I've met....well this is one of those times. As someone who has worked with children who have been raped, mentally and physically abused and disowned by the people who are meant to love and care for them, the amount of funding provided by govt is sickening, this is why children continue to be abused and fall through the beurocratic net that is social services and these charities. These children who are not seen as in immediate danger are pushed down the bottom of a list by social services and this is where these charities come in, to provide support for these young people. I pray you or someone you love never have to deal with these services because, that is probably the only way you'll see their benefit :(

Still love ya tho....just about! :roll:

i agree with Al ... 100%

even in these tough financial times i still give my monthly money to Save the Children... its my only charity.

now if this thread was about stupid animal charities you might have had my backing... but kids charities? come on.

Sian-of-the-dead

dunkman wrote:

i agree with Al ... 100%

even in these tough financial times i still give my monthly money to Save the Children... its my only charity.

now if this thread was about stupid animal charities you might have had my backing... but kids charities? come on.

I also agree with Al, however... 'stupid animal charities' mean the same to some people (myself included) as Save The Children means to you.

dunkman

Sian-of-the-dead wrote:

dunkman wrote:

i agree with Al ... 100%

even in these tough financial times i still give my monthly money to Save the Children... its my only charity.

now if this thread was about stupid animal charities you might have had my backing... but kids charities? come on.

I also agree with Al, however... 'stupid animal charities' mean the same to some people (myself included) as Save The Children means to you.

if someone would rather save a tortoise than save a child then they need help... but lets focus on Helen's moment of madness shall we..

Sian-of-the-dead

dunkman wrote:

Sian-of-the-dead wrote:

dunkman wrote:

i agree with Al ... 100%

even in these tough financial times i still give my monthly money to Save the Children... its my only charity.

now if this thread was about stupid animal charities you might have had my backing... but kids charities? come on.

I also agree with Al, however... 'stupid animal charities' mean the same to some people (myself included) as Save The Children means to you.

if someone would rather save a tortoise than save a child then they need help... but lets focus on Helen's moment of madness shall we..

Not tortoises Dunk... Kitty cats. You should know that.

Helen isn't having a moment of madness, I CAN see her point but I do also believe that childrens charities need all the help they can get... as alas, we don't live in a perfect world :(

dunkman

Sian-of-the-dead wrote:

dunkman wrote:

Sian-of-the-dead wrote:

I also agree with Al, however... 'stupid animal charities' mean the same to some people (myself included) as Save The Children means to you.

if someone would rather save a tortoise than save a child then they need help... but lets focus on Helen's moment of madness shall we..

Not tortoises Dunk... Kitty cats. You should know that.

Helen isn't having a moment of madness, I CAN see her point but I do also believe that childrens charities need all the help they can get... as alas, we don't live in a perfect world :(

yeah cats are cool... but when you have your own children you'll understand what i mean.

Having re-read her first post... i see what she is driving at... but essentially if we didnt give our money to these charities and she wanted the police/teachers/etc to solve the problem then our taxes would be double what they are now... and even then it would never be eradicated... the charity is there to support victims of child abuse... teachers are too teach and the police are there to protect/convict child abusers.... charity is what it says on the tin.

we live in a world that sees our governments spend billions on war and on olympics and other such follys... i'd rather they looked at investing in society rather than giving £xxxx amount to a fucking opera or some dog charity... i dont like opera or dogs ergo we have the choice to give to a charity in the hope that it makes a diference... no governement can solve the problems of child abuse... even with an open checkbook..

AmentsChick

Helen, I think the fact that you started this thread says alot about you. No judgment though.

Heineken Helen

Sian-of-the-dead wrote:

dunkman wrote:

Sian-of-the-dead wrote:

I also agree with Al, however... 'stupid animal charities' mean the same to some people (myself included) as Save The Children means to you.

if someone would rather save a tortoise than save a child then they need help... but lets focus on Helen's moment of madness shall we..

Not tortoises Dunk... Kitty cats. You should know that.

Helen isn't having a moment of madness, I CAN see her point but I do also believe that childrens charities need all the help they can get... as alas, we don't live in a perfect world :(

Thanks Sian... I don't think people get it... I'm as disgusted as any that this stuff goes on and obviously there should be plenty of help. I just don't think this should be CHARITY. I think it's something that should already be well covered. Are they saying that there is NO help for kids unless people donate to charity? Well that's just sick and very very sad :( there were some good points made here though which answered my questions... apart from amentschick who... well if I've nothing good to say, I won't bother since I've no time for people who simply go around throwing judgements and being all holier than thou but hey, who am I to judge?

blackredyellow

Why give money to childrens charities?

Because there are kids who need help in this world... help from people more fortunate then them.

What the hell kind of question is that?

Heineken Helen

blackredyellow wrote:

Why give money to childrens charities?

Because there are kids who need help in this world... help from people more fortunate then them.

What the hell kind of question is that?

did you read my points? I''m guessing no!

Of course kids should be helped... but this help should NOT be charity... our tax money goes towards stuff that doesn't even come CLOSE to being as important as kids getting the help they need. This should NOT depend on extra voluntary funding... EVER.

blackredyellow

Heineken Helen wrote:

blackredyellow wrote:

Why give money to childrens charities?

Because there are kids who need help in this world... help from people more fortunate then them.

What the hell kind of question is that?

did you read my points? I''m guessing no!

Of course kids should be helped... but this help should NOT be charity... our tax money goes towards stuff that doesn't even come CLOSE to being as important as kids getting the help they need. This should NOT depend on extra voluntary funding... EVER.

But the same thing could be said for homeless people, starving people, abused women/kids, neglected animals, people with cancer, etc etc etc etc... Should any of those be helped with charity or should our taxes cover it?

Heineken Helen

blackredyellow wrote:

Heineken Helen wrote:

blackredyellow wrote:

Why give money to childrens charities?

Because there are kids who need help in this world... help from people more fortunate then them.

What the hell kind of question is that?

did you read my points? I''m guessing no!

Of course kids should be helped... but this help should NOT be charity... our tax money goes towards stuff that doesn't even come CLOSE to being as important as kids getting the help they need. This should NOT depend on extra voluntary funding... EVER.

But the same thing could be said for homeless people, starving people, abused women/kids, neglected animals, people with cancer, etc etc etc etc... Should any of those be helped with charity or should our taxes cover it?

Of COURSE our taxes should cover it... there are government agencies that are supposed to deal with these things... but they tend to outsource the work to charities. I just chose kids charities cos they're usually the ones with the most sympathy. I think all charities do fantastic work, I just think these are things that our taxes should cover... cos you never know when any of them are gonna affect YOU.

AmentsChick

Heineken Helen wrote:

Of COURSE our taxes should cover it... there are government agencies that are supposed to deal with these things... but they tend to outsource the work to charities. I just chose kids charities cos they're usually the ones with the most sympathy. I think all charities do fantastic work, I just think these are things that our taxes should cover... cos you never know when any of them are gonna affect YOU.

If taxes covered all those in need there would be nothing left in your paycheck to bring home.

Heineken Helen

AmentsChick wrote:

Heineken Helen wrote:

Of COURSE our taxes should cover it... there are government agencies that are supposed to deal with these things... but they tend to outsource the work to charities. I just chose kids charities cos they're usually the ones with the most sympathy. I think all charities do fantastic work, I just think these are things that our taxes should cover... cos you never know when any of them are gonna affect YOU.

If taxes covered all those in need there would be nothing left in your paycheck to bring home.

I'm sure you'd find there'd be plenty :roll: there's more than enough to help everybody... we just prefer to build more roads and bridges or give our government pay rises.

AmentsChick

Heineken Helen wrote:

AmentsChick wrote:

Heineken Helen wrote:

Of COURSE our taxes should cover it... there are government agencies that are supposed to deal with these things... but they tend to outsource the work to charities. I just chose kids charities cos they're usually the ones with the most sympathy. I think all charities do fantastic work, I just think these are things that our taxes should cover... cos you never know when any of them are gonna affect YOU.

If taxes covered all those in need there would be nothing left in your paycheck to bring home.

I'm sure you'd find there'd be plenty :roll: there's more than enough to help everybody... we just prefer to build more roads and bridges or give our government pay rises.

Yeah, you're right...what good is infrastructure?! :roll:

Heineken Helen

AmentsChick wrote:

Yeah, you're right...what good is infrastructure?! :roll:

when there are people starving?????????????????? :shock: are ya serious? I revert to your first post in this thread and LAUGH... hysterically! GREAT argument there. You've certainly turned the tables in this thread on who's the good guy and who's the bad guy

roads roads roads... yep, just keep building them while people are dying... GREAT oh actually no, that's not funny.

chromiam

Heineken Helen wrote:

AmentsChick wrote:

Yeah, you're right...what good is infrastructure?! :roll:

when there are people starving?????????????????? :shock: are ya serious? I revert to your first post in this thread and LAUGH... hysterically! GREAT argument there. You've certainly turned the tables in this thread on who's the good guy and who's the bad guy

roads roads roads... yep, just keep building them while people are dying... GREAT oh actually no, that's not funny.

building roads and other infrastructure employs both directly and indirectly millions of people.... but yeah I guess a job, benefits and being able to feed yourself and your family are all bad things.

Heineken Helen

chromiam wrote:

Heineken Helen wrote:

AmentsChick wrote:

Yeah, you're right...what good is infrastructure?! :roll:

when there are people starving?????????????????? :shock: are ya serious? I revert to your first post in this thread and LAUGH... hysterically! GREAT argument there. You've certainly turned the tables in this thread on who's the good guy and who's the bad guy

roads roads roads... yep, just keep building them while people are dying... GREAT oh actually no, that's not funny.

building roads and other infrastructure employs both directly and indirectly millions of people.... but yeah I guess a job, benefits and being able to feed yourself and your family are all bad things.

where did I say that? Just that ac berated me in her first post here for being some kinda bad person, and then goes on to argue that infrastructure is more important than starving people. I happen to think they're BOTH important... and I certainly wouldn't argue that infrastructure is more important than giving somebody the help they need :?

norm

so you want the government, who you say doesn't do a good job at helping children, to take more money?

Heineken Helen

norm wrote:

so you want the government, who you say doesn't do a good job at helping children, to take more money?

:roll: if they did a good job helping children, we wouldn't need charities... so I don't think that's just my opinion. I'm simply saying that if a child needs help, it shouldn't depend on whether people are generous enough to give to charities or not... that help should simply BE THERE. Is that REALLY so wrong? :roll:

battan1120

I give to a children charitys everyday...by going to work everyday so that MY 6 KIds don't go without

Brain of J.Lo

Heineken Helen wrote:

Seriously, if little Sophie is being raped and wants to contact somebody... shouldn't the help BE THERE?

Why are they asking for £2 a month so she has help... isn't that what the police/teachers/etc. are there for? What are they doing? Why do they want charities to do their job for them? :?

???
Teachers and police officers, through no fault of their own, are already stretched too thin and underpaid. So...until that changes, if you care about little Sophie, just keep giving. I understand the distaste for needing private donations to fund programs that the public should fund, but don't blame teachers and police officers for it. That makes no sense.

Brain of J.Lo

soulsinging wrote:

The demands we place on teachers are ridiculous. It's not enough that they educate, we also expect that they will guide their moral development, serve as police in the building, psychologists, social workers, doctors, and now rape crisis counselors?

Excellent post. I am from a family full of teachers, and I can't help but take offense when one suggests that they don't do "enough".

chiquimonkey

Brain of J.Lo wrote:

Heineken Helen wrote:

Seriously, if little Sophie is being raped and wants to contact somebody... shouldn't the help BE THERE?

Why are they asking for £2 a month so she has help... isn't that what the police/teachers/etc. are there for? What are they doing? Why do they want charities to do their job for them? :?

???
Teachers and police officers, through no fault of their own, are already stretched too thin and underpaid. So...until that changes, if you care about little Sophie, just keep giving. I understand the distaste for needing private donations to fund programs that the public should fund, but don't blame teachers and police officers for it. That makes no sense.

thanks for saving me keystrokes.

in a perfect world there would be no need for charity, everyone would be taken care of. sadly, utopia is never gonna happen.

JOEJOEJOE

did you read my points? I''m guessing no!

Of course kids should be helped... but this help should NOT be charity... our tax money goes towards stuff that doesn't even come CLOSE to being as important as kids getting the help they need. This should NOT depend on extra voluntary funding... EVER.[/quote]

But the same thing could be said for homeless people, starving people, abused women/kids, neglected animals, people with cancer, etc etc etc etc... Should any of those be helped with charity or should our taxes cover it?[/quote]
Of COURSE our taxes should cover it... there are government agencies that are supposed to deal with these things... but they tend to outsource the work to charities. I just chose kids charities cos they're usually the ones with the most sympathy. I think all charities do fantastic work, I just think these are things that our taxes should cover... cos you never know when any of them are gonna affect YOU.[/quote]

In order to improve services for children, they would have to cut other government-funded programs, or raise taxes. What other social services would you want to cut in order to give more dough to the kids? (Lets leave out military & foreign aid as answers!).