Charity ‘Not Inclusive’ Enough For Funding

[Cloverjo]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/womens-abuse-charity-rise-loses-5m-contract-for-not-supporting-men-2tzfxm28r?shareToken=0ab286d5d379548a2614cb7897c6ebe7

Hope the link works.

I’m all for LGBTQ+ rights, but I’m also for a charity being able to focus on whatever and whoever it likes. Not having its funding withdrawn because it chooses to help a particular part of society. What do you think?

[woofgang]

additionally, I am not sure why you seem to think that the services must be supplied by a charity?

[jim360]

I'm not sure I've said that the services *must* be provided by a charity, but only that somebody has to; if a charity is willing to step up at presumably a lower cost than possible via the public sector, then by all means support them.

[Zacs-Master]

That's a big presumption, jim. Anything it's based on, or would it just help your argument (slightly) if it were true?

[woofgang]

jim "I'm not sure I've said that the services *must* be provided by a charity,"
jim "In the end I'll accept that it doesn't matter what charity receives the funding"

its not charitable funding, its a contract.

[douglas9401]

I doubt that the terms of the contract were a last minute thing.

Maybe complacency on the part of the bidders, thinking history would see them through on the nod.

[woofgang]

douglas surely not :)

[Peter Pedant]

// but I’m also for a charity being able to focus on whatever and whoever it likes...//

nope: you cant have a charity in favour of one Clove - cloverjo that is! and if you ARE a charity you have to focus on your stated charitable objects
( yeah read objaaaaay....)

as Prince Harry is finding - even in a country that does allow er a charity mainly for oneself, people may not wish to cough up

Brighton, having a battered spouse charity and saying only gurlz in a city with a large ( say the largest) gay pop...is a bit Dawinian to me

[pixie374]

Why can't they divide it between two charities, and include one for men?

[woofgang]

why would they do that? Its not a charitable donation, its a contract. Divide it between two organisations and you are paying for two lots of management and organisation

[pixie374]

To be inclusive and help the people they want to... even splitting it in half would do some good.

[jim360]

Not sure if it would help *or* hinder my argument, ZM. It should be pretty obvious that my initial reaction was, at the very least, more than a little kneejerk, and perhaps owes more to the framing of the story than the details itself. A headline of "Council awards contract to charity promising to aid more victims of domestic violence than ever before" may well be just as accurate, if not even more so, although presumably is a little less dramatic.

[woofgang]

Pixie splitting it in half is not good business because then you are paying for two lots of infrastructure and less money will be used at the sharp end. This is a nusiness contract. Its not about protecting charities its about getting the best service and most service capacity to those who need it for the money that you have to spend on it. Councils have a legal duty to spend their customers money wisely when awarding contracts

[Zacs-Master]

'It should be pretty obvious that my initial reaction was, at the very least, more than a little kneejerk'

Should it? It wasn't and even if it had been that's no reason for me not to point out how flawed your answer was.

[jim360]

I'm not sure if it's flawed, but I do keep going back and forth on this. Ultimately it comes down to what happens in practice. If this decision leads ultimately to poorer protections for domestic abuse victims, particularly for women, then that would retrospectively suggest it was a flawed decision; since a lot of people have feared that this is a likely outcome, it wouldn't even be that unpredictable.

I suspect, all the same, that I fell for the slant presented by the headline a little too easily.