Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
Rnli Slammed For Spending Millions On Foreign Aid
//Bosses last week warned the lifeboat charity is facing “some major challenges” after making losses of £6.3million last year. But donations to the service are being spent on creches in Bangladesh and swimsuits for Muslim women in Tanzania.
Tory MP Nigel Evans, who sits on the Commons International Development Committee, said the charity is putting its reputation at risk.
He added: “I would say 99 per cent of the British public giving them money do not have the faintest idea it’s diverted to projects overseas.”//
https:/ /www.th esun.co .uk/new s/99343 23/rnli -slamme d-forei gn-aid- slashin g-jobs/
This is one charity I thought was struggling and really needed the money to continue its excellent work around our shores. I certainly wasn’t aware that a proportion of my donations are going overseas. Will this information put this charity’s reputation at risk?
Tory MP Nigel Evans, who sits on the Commons International Development Committee, said the charity is putting its reputation at risk.
He added: “I would say 99 per cent of the British public giving them money do not have the faintest idea it’s diverted to projects overseas.”//
https:/
This is one charity I thought was struggling and really needed the money to continue its excellent work around our shores. I certainly wasn’t aware that a proportion of my donations are going overseas. Will this information put this charity’s reputation at risk?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.How much does that 2% of fundraising equate to? £3.3m.
Well they could halve their deficit in one go by stopping foreign aid couldn’t they? Add to the fact they could get their top tier management to take a well earned pay cut or new top team (for the good of the charity of course) and its a bit less of a deficit again.
Be contrite, apologise and start anew.
Well they could halve their deficit in one go by stopping foreign aid couldn’t they? Add to the fact they could get their top tier management to take a well earned pay cut or new top team (for the good of the charity of course) and its a bit less of a deficit again.
Be contrite, apologise and start anew.
I used to work in Poole an regularly went out with the guys from the RNLI IT dept, I could tell you tails that'd make your teeth itch, needless to say I do not ever donate to them, what a shower. I'd happily go to an RNLI station and buy the blokes that do the rescue a pint, they are the lions led by a shower of TROB popinjays behind the scenes. I only give to local charities that I am connected with these days and I'm delighted to say that jim has helped in that regard of late. Big "chiridee" makes my blood boil.
The trouble with that is management can get those sorts of salaries elsewhere so there is a limit on how restricted one can be if one wants someone to do the job. That said they should pay near the bottom on the scale as otherwise companies play into management hands and all overpay against any reasonable standard.
Also, using that as a reason not to give means those in need never get helped.
Also, using that as a reason not to give means those in need never get helped.
I have no objection to top execs earning a good salary - they are employees, not volunteers and not many people would accept less than they could earn in the private or public sector just because their employer happens to be a charity.
Same goes for the skilled and unskilled workers employed by charities. Everyone deserves to be paid their full worth.
Volunteers are essential to most charities but most people can't afford to work a full week for nothing.
Same goes for the skilled and unskilled workers employed by charities. Everyone deserves to be paid their full worth.
Volunteers are essential to most charities but most people can't afford to work a full week for nothing.
It could be argued that giving money to the RNLI without knowing they were involved in overseas work is a bit 'caveat emptor'. Their report for 2018 and (basic) accounts are all on line.
It is interesting to note the wages breakdown for 2018:
The following number of employees received emoluments in
excess of £60,000 (of which directors are shown in brackets):
Number
£60,000–£69,999 35 (–)
£70,000–£79,999 12 (–)
£80,000–£89,999 4 (1)
£90,000–£99,999 5 (2)
£100,000–£109,999 4 (4)
£110,000–£119,999 1 (1)
£160,000–£169,999 1 (1)
Total 62 (9)
It is interesting to note the wages breakdown for 2018:
The following number of employees received emoluments in
excess of £60,000 (of which directors are shown in brackets):
Number
£60,000–£69,999 35 (–)
£70,000–£79,999 12 (–)
£80,000–£89,999 4 (1)
£90,000–£99,999 5 (2)
£100,000–£109,999 4 (4)
£110,000–£119,999 1 (1)
£160,000–£169,999 1 (1)
Total 62 (9)
Another example of a noble and worthy cause that has been infested by the luvvie pc brigade who seek out "positions" to parachute themselves into with the express aim of undermining the reputation and functionality. These are the same slimy self appointed spoilers who, think that providing "swimming costumes" and lessons for their chosen clients in foreign lands far far away whilst closing the swimming pools and discontinuing swimming lessons for children in a Country surrounded by water and with numerous lakes and rivers, is a jolly wheeze. Please don't tell me that they financed swimming pools in the middle of some God forsaken desert so that the swimming costumes could be used. So glad that we cancelled our standing order some while back. My heart bleeds for the brave volunteers that gave their lives serving in this institution who are now betrayed by the devious hateful usurpers who have taken control.
Having worked in a part of the NHS that attempted to keep its costs down by employing poor quality managers, I absolutely understand and support the "pay peanuts; get monkeys" thing.
I could even have felt ok about this if the idea had been to fund startups which would then be taken over by the countries concerned....but I do think that a charity which calls itself a "National" institution should stick to National Work. I am sure that the work it does abroad is good and useful but IMO it should have set up a sub organisation named accordingly.
I could even have felt ok about this if the idea had been to fund startups which would then be taken over by the countries concerned....but I do think that a charity which calls itself a "National" institution should stick to National Work. I am sure that the work it does abroad is good and useful but IMO it should have set up a sub organisation named accordingly.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.