Can't find many - certainly not lots!

 

What I have discovered is simply confirmation of the snout-down attitude of the upper echelon of most charities and the surprisingly wide spread attitude that to be a paid staffer on a charity somehow makes you better than the person giving up time to really work for the charity.

 

I have not found a single non board member of any charity in Spain (British or Spanish) that even gets his/her expenses paid - let alone a wage! There are hundreds of charities out there that are missmanaged on a gruesome scale by people who see charity work as an easy option for making far more money than they actually earn.

 

As always, there will be a (very) few exceptions but, just as many people seem to think stealing from a charity shop is not a criminal act (after all, the goods were supplied free!) there are far too many nonentities who use the charity gravy train to enhance their own standing - often to the detriment of the charity itself.

 

Far too little over-sight is exercised on charities. If they were audited half as vigorously as poor old Fred, the match seller, who knows how many 'missing' contributions might turn up. I find it so distasteful that the obscene salaries paid to senior officers of charities are actually defended by comparing charities to big business. Charities have no manufacturing expenses. They have few storage expenses and they generally have whole armies of people working for them to provide the cash which they like to think is going to help the poor  . . . . . . . . .  (fill that in for yourself).

 

They are NOT big enough business to justify these salaries.

 

The strange thing is that charities have hundreds of people capable of running all aspects of them at far less cost than the current system of elite skim merchants - but that will never happen because the gravy train is now rolling and the snouts are down.    

 

I am also reminded that lots of ordinary folk are earning their living by being employed by the charities.

 

However we must not overlook the armies of volunteers who have the need to contribute in their own way to relieve the suffering of humans and animals, together with investing in education projects, building projects, farming projects, rehab projects, et al projects.

Whilst in themselves not earth-shattering in the overall dysfunctional world in which we live, they bring relief and the hope of a future to a great number.

 

This is the reason why thendt Network was founded - " Linking Active Communties Around The World."   - Our Ethos -click to learn more

 

Interesting view from the Costa del Sol!

 

Supermarkets and indeed even Hypermarkets have been around in many countries for some time now.

They have evolved from the basic need of the consumer in society to find a 'one-stop shop' for many of the day-to-day provisions.  They are successful businesses. 

 

I guess the farmers have been around for some time also.  If they are anything like their opposite numbers in the UK they have also been complaining for some time now.

 

If they are all going bankrupt why is their land value soaring?  Maybe it is because of the need now to grow more crops for bio-fuels.  And so evolution continues.   

 

It is really more important to consider the issue of whether we as a world can grow enough food and deliver it in good condition to the consumer and make a profit.

 

Much of the reality is lost within so called trading agreements - like the European Common Agricultural Policy - where a few countries with agri-culture economies are subsidised by the taxpayers.

 

Free trade sadly will never be allowed to happen when the vested interests are playing with themselves in the New Capitalist Model.

 

Have a successful day - social re-engineering has been around since we all left the caves.

 

Religions are the tooth and claw that have bled whole communities to death ever since man was aware that one day he must die.

 

To ban 'disdainful remarks' smacks to me of an over-indulgence in that dreadful concept of 'positive thinking' and also has been the excuse resorted to by the religious communities for every act of genocide that has ever been committed.

 

Rather than bestow upon the religious the responsibility for the teaching of ethics, why can't we get back to the days when children learned at their parents' knees and in the classroom about teamwork, equality and how to behave in the community? Why can't we live in an age when enlightenment means not being legally bound not to dislike a person? 

 

The current attitude of 'every man is my brother because if he is a different colour to me he can sue me for every penny that I own' removes a very basic human response to other people. It is not possible to like somebody (or not dislike somebody) simply because the law says that you must. Until freedom of choice is a universal right the extremist fundamental religious will preach dissent and violence.

 

Religions, by their very nature, are divisive. The people who preach religion have a vested interest in maintaining that theirs is the only true religion. If all religious believe that there is a Godhead, is it beyond their wit to get together and see how this Godhead can be incorporated so that all religions preach the same story?    

 

Forget all the baloney that is talked about production costs and trade and agricultural policies. there is only one reason why high food prices do not benefit the farmer or the consumer - the supermarket chains have a strangle-hold on the supply lines! In Spain, fruit and vegetables are regularly destroyed or given away because the prices that supermarkets will pay for them don't cover the production and distribution costs.

 

In a recent beach dump of tonnes of produce farmers were copmplaining that they were being offered 7c- 8c per kilo for something that was being sold at €1-70 to €1-90 per kilo. Not only were they being 'insulted' by these ridiculous offers, the offers were for the total crop so that nothng could be saved to sell on at higher prices to the visiting public.

 

Supermarkets have been allowed to get to the top of the food chain, literally, and have the buying power to ensure that they make the maximum profit. They also have the advertising budgets to persuade housewives that they are providing the best value.

 

Independent retailers seldom have the buying power to compete with supermarkets nor can they afford the amount of sales-floor space to apply to bulky food products to offer any serious competition. Is there any wonder that my local supermarkets can sell potatoes at €3-50 per 3kilos while the local grower gets no visitors for his superior product at €2 per 5kilos?

 

Forget the institutionalised apologist responses and excuses - supermarkets have too much control over food prices and there seems to be enough evidence at the check outs that they are working together to ensure little competition in basic agricultural product prices.

 

It is an unavoidable fact that there are many charities on record to serve the same purpose. If you look at the charities that are in place to ease food shortages you will see that there is an unholy competiton afoot to be the recipients of the greatest level of donations.

 

WHY?

 

Why can't all these charities get together and work as one for the benefit of as many as possible? Why do they have to create offices and collection centres for themselves instead of having one or two central administartion points?

 

The answer is depressingly obvious. Charity is BIG business.

 

As you have said, the boards of these charities are not populated by charitable and concerned human beings, they are stuffed with greedy, arogant, trough raiding self-seekers. Look at any charity organisation and you will see that, at the head, is an office that drains and squanders the valiant efforts of the people 'on the ground' who actually do the work. You will see directors on obscene salaries and expense accounts who contribute nothing but their names to the organisation.

 

Are these people on the boards of the charities because they support or even understand the reason the charity exists? I doubt it very much. The impression I have is that a charitable nomenclature on a personal letter head is seen as great self publicity. Those of us who give to charity might sometimes wear a sticker - those on the boards wear the charity.

 

180,000 charities is probably 179,900 too many - but don't look for any sensible amalgamations - charity is another gravy train.     

 

Astonished to learn that the UK has over 180,000 registered charities.

 

This number begs the question of how many people are employed by them?

 

A large number earn their living from them I fancy - whilst the pay for staff is lower than in industry it is not so for many Chief Executives - It's ' Boardroom' pay for many of those folks.

 

The challenge facing us is simple.

 

Whilst we are prepared to display compassion to others throughout the world, it generally takes the form of making donations on  a humanitarian  basis.

Whilst this is a great help to those who lose everything as a result of some disaster it is not the same as being committed to compassion as a way of life.

 

The great benefit from giving makes us feel better

 

This video from Karen Armstrong gives a great presentation of the how to ~ Enjoy

 

I am indebted to Ankesh Kothari for this insight into a few of the difficulties it can produce.

 

In addition he presents a simple but powerful picture of how India was/is based on ~

 

 

Just in case we forget the promises we make, the latest reports on how we are living up to them.

 

Find out how your country is performing towards its 2010 undertaking. You can download .pdf (just click on ~

 http://one.org/international/datareport2009/downloads.html

 

 

Sadly though too many natural disasters are happening around the world.

 

The latest ~ a tsunami in the area of Samoa and almost immediately followed by an  Earthquake in Indonesia.

 

Whilst reflecting on how much pain, suffering and loss of life these events bring to the people - their families - and their friends in these tragic times I wish to remind you of a small statistic that reveals that the UN has a list of over 20% of the countries in the world that are on a 'Red Alert' in regard to poverty.  This does not take account of the poor in the remaining countries.

 

In total I guess well over 60% of the world population exist in relative poverty. 

 

Those countries who have made the headlines in the 'business economic circles'  as the fastest growing economies, have not even made a small dent in the poverty of their own countries. When is the top 20% in each of them going to help the rest in their struggles to live above the poverty-line  ?