Jump for Heroes and Hounds for heroes

For the people who fight on our behalf:

Comments

http://jump4heroes.com/

uktaxpal | | Permalink
Paul Scholes's picture

Not 4 me    2 thanks

Paul Scholes | | Permalink

Hi uktp, whilst I'm behind you with your John Lennon post, for all the reasons given on previous threads on this topic, I'm anything but on this one.  Our government sent these poor guys out to be killed & maimed it's not for us to fix the damage.  Far better to give to something that will make a positive impact on the world....."nothing to kill or die for"

Old Greying Accountant's picture

I would just say Paul ...    1 thanks

Old Greying Acc... | | Permalink

... it will cost the tax payer a lot less for the damage to these guys (and girls, tut tut!) to be fixed if it is done by a charity - your solution means the government will have to tax us further, aand as we all know, they are not the most efficient at targeted spending, so every £1 you give to HFH will probably save you about £50 in tax! (leaving you £49 you wouldn't have had to give to charities you do believe in!)

No, before anyone asks, I have no basis for my figures, they were made up to emphasise a point.

Paul Scholes's picture

Or    1 thanks

Paul Scholes | | Permalink

Hi OGA - Just to clear up one thing, in our household, as well as in most of the crap TV beamed into it, Guys is Guys, I blame Friends (for that and a lot more).  Peeps is much better but doesn't seem to be appropriate in this case.

I agree with you over the use of money however I would not expect the government to ask for anymore to do its job and if it found that the budget for coping with injuries and compensation was insufficient then they would have to save it elsewhere, say by operating a Defence, rather than Offence department, ie like civilised countries do.

 

 

Old Greying Accountant's picture

The problem is ...    1 thanks

Old Greying Acc... | | Permalink

... this government didn't deploy them, may be the labour party should bear the costs then?

Paul Scholes's picture

Would it have made any difference OGA?    1 thanks

Paul Scholes | | Permalink

My memory's not that good but in both Gulf wars as well as in Afganistan I don't think either political party has much to be proud of, plus, other than a few lone voices, I don't think the opposition (at any time) screamed and shouted much when the government sent the troops off.

So whether it be about Bull Dog spirit, World police force, USA poodle or panda to the tabloids, I don't think either of the two main parties has done, or would do, anything different.

As I've said before, I have nothing but sympathy for the poor sods who feel compelled to join up (a family member included).  A significant number do so because it's better, or more exciting than, claiming benefits (and the armed forces play on it) and whilst there may be some "queen & country" element in the recruitment stuff, once they are out there, they fight for, and die for, their mates; that's how it has always worked.

If I won the lottery I dare say I would donate to a charity to help these "guys" but with limited resources I feel far more comfortable giving to a positive cause that will never get government support, besides which, and I know this sounds heartless, unlike guns, soldiers have a choice.

Is charity given without

uktaxpal | | Permalink

Is charity given without moral judjement?

This charity aims to help ex.servicemen help themselves.

Why do people join the services?Career,family loyaly,interest.Perhaps the ads on TV should be more balanced and show some of the horrors of war as well as how to be the best.

We should motivate and encourage our young people.

thisistibi's picture

Judgement    1 thanks

thisistibi | | Permalink

Everybody makes their own judgements on what charities are worthwhile.  Some people give to cat or dog charities meanwhile humans around the world are suffering and/or dying.  However, the cats and dogs wouldn't be suffering if it wasn't for the humans causing the suffering in the first place.

As for Aid for Africa.... there is an argument that this does more harm than good. 

Charities for war heroes isn't such a bad cause, but personally everything I give to charity goes to cancer charities.  That's what has personally affected me the most in my lifetime and I can see the money having a positive impact.

Charity with no strings attached ...    1 thanks

JC | | Permalink

@Paul Scholes

This is a highly emotive subject as has been demonstrated in other threads. However, afraid I disagree with the following

'.. Our government sent these poor guys out to be killed & maimed it's not for us to fix the damage ..'

If we take the stance that the person/government etc. that caused the problem should be the one to fix it then a great deal of charitable aid would cease, because inevitably it is always someone elses fault so why should we help with the problem

The logical extension of this view is -

In a lot of instances the need for charitable aid is the result of some action by a third party that causes the problem - whether it is Africa & despots or governments & war / unemployment / homelessness. Do these people also become ineligible

Again, every day we read in the press about how one can mitigate the onset of cancer, dementia, alcoholism etc. if only one followed certain rules or lifestyles.

Are we really saying that if you brought it on yourself by failing to live a certain lifestyle then tough; you are on your own because you did not help yourself so why should anyone else assist

Moralising is a very dangerous game. Of course everyone makes personal choices about who to help but humanity should rule over ideology because irrespective of how anyone gets into a difficult situation no-one should really be refused help if it is necessary (although whether it is affordable is another matter)

Ultimately charity should come with no strings attached

ShirleyM's picture

Interesting comments JC    1 thanks

ShirleyM | | Permalink

I struggle with the choice of who, or what, to support. Charities that 'educate' people, don't cause me any problem at all, but many charities do cause me anguish.

Maybe I overcomplicate things in my own mind, but I, like Paul, also wonder about the ethics of supporting some charities, ie. if we mop up the mess made by others then where is the discouragement to the people who cause the problem in the first case.

I won't get into the emotive subject of human beings, but will take animal rescue charities as an example. I do support these, but I know in my heart that whileever there is someone around to clear up somebody else's mess, then nothing will ever change, or improve. Very few animals need rescuing because of redundancy or unexpected family illness. The majority of these people would look for good homes for the pets they can no longer afford. Most animals need rescue homes because of the actions of cruel or ignorant people and whilever they get off 'scot free' then nothing is going to change, is it?

I support rescued animals for the sake of the animals, but I loathe the fact that I am also helping the people who caused the problem in the first place, and because the 'get out' was so easy for them, they will probably repeat the offence, with another animal suffering as a result.

Paul Scholes's picture

JC    1 thanks

Paul Scholes | | Permalink

Well put and I would retract the way in which I put across my last point, it was unnecessary and I apologise if I upset anyone.

In principle I have no argument with you over your reaction to my point of view, in particular, if someone finds themself homeless, I have no right to moralise over how they got there.  This is particularly apposite at the moment as I gather my pennies for Crisis & the St Martin in The Fields appeal however, those who use limited resources in these charities, and in other caring jobs (eg health service), will sometimes have to decide whether the £10 is going to do more good with A or B and the individual's actions could well determine the outcome and, because I don't have loads, I have to do the same at the charity level.

I am involved in a number of charities and my wife has worked in the charitable/voluntary sector for most of her working life.  At the moment the sector is dessimated, with longstanding local groups & charities having to close because of austerity measures and because they can not shout as loud as organisations who can grab the public's and, dare I add, tabloids', attention with "fashionable" fundraising.

Maybe it's me but the recent bling poppies and the connected help for heros stuff feels sullied and is mopping up huge sums on the back of some sort of jingoistic frenzy for a cause, ie our boys & girls "over there", that, in my reality, should have nothing to do with national pride.  I don't want them out there dying and being mutilated for me, it's a political project and a waste of life & lives.

There are some things that government have to take responsibility for and, I don't want my money to give them the impression that I collude with their recklessness.

There will be damaged ex-service personnel seeking help via Crisis & St Martin in the Fields, that's as much as I can do.

 

Tighter control on charities ...

JC | | Permalink

@Paul Scholes

I agree with a lot of what you say

However, one of the problems with charities in general is that they have become big business and whilst they do fulfil a need, a lot of the donations are 'hijacked' along the way to provide comfortable premises, CEO salaries etc.

Just look at the mountains of glossy Report & Accounts (available from Charity Commission on-line for free), advertising material, Christmas cards and so on ... that they produce - all of which diverts funds from the cause to which they were donated

No-one seems to have yet come up with a simple unit of measure to benchmark charities such as a pie chart of - 'how is your £ spent' and how much of your £ reaches the intended destination. We get it with domestic rates so why not with Charities?

I made a post recently about a Charity that landed on my desk asking for money

http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/group-thread/pennies-todays-charity-review

Perhaps I have read the figures wrong - but the thing that was really shocking is the following

' ..
Note 3:
 
Grants actually made = £10,138
 
Hang on - are we actually saying is that out of total income (all forms) of £1,147,072 they handed out £10,138 and the rest was either eaten up in costs or reserves

..'

http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends89/0001122489_ac_20101130_e_c.pdf

Also just look at the 'beano' these chaps are having with all the donations, and why build up reserves of this magnitude when the money should be handed out to those in need - their need is today and not some undefined date in the future whilst the charity builds up huge reserves

I am constantly surprised at just how generous those in the UK are with donations and giving their time/effort to help others, despite possibly being on hard times themselves.

Collectively we must be one of the most generous nations on the planet and it is hugely disappointing when the institutions set up to manage donations (charities) abuse their position in order to feather their own nest

Frankly I believe that the Charity Commission needs to crack down on abuses in this sector with the utmost urgency

ShirleyM's picture

Hopefully, this will raise money ...

ShirleyM | | Permalink

... and give people lots of pleasure, too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hR6O7VxKaQ

Fingers crossed for No 1 at Christmas!

Add comment
Log in or register to post comments