Deserving Charities

[RussG]

Was having a debate with my sister the other day, and I thought I'd ask your opinion.

She was basically saying that Help the Hero's is the most deserving charity because it helps people who give the ultimate sacrifice for their country, or come close to it.

My argument was, they sign up for it, they go to the AFCO and sign on the dotted line, they know that one day they might have to kill or be killed. Where as no child asks or deserves to have leukemia. The air ambulance has little (or no?) government funding but have no doubt saved countless lives of innocent people who didn't ask to have their own life jeopardized.

Thoughts?
____________________
Geek, father, biker

[gherking]

That's a tricky one.

I give to the RNLI, because I'm in Cornwall and I get to see the direct benefit of my donations when I visit lifeboat stations and in the papers. Lives saved.

As tragic as every other charity's cause is, I get to see the benefits more directly with this one.

[RussG]

Good shout, as you directly see the benefits it means more to you.
____________________
Geek, father, biker

[Raffles]

If we were to adopt your stance, Russ, then very few charities would be worthy of our support. Take the RNLI for instance. They put to sea to rescue people that have chosen to put themselves in danger. The same goes for Mountain Rescue and the St. John's Ambulance Service who attend to people who have also chosen to put themselves at risk.
Where do we draw the line on deserving causes?
____________________
A good loser will always be a loser.

[RussG]

I'm not saying that Help the Hero's don't do a good job, and the people they help aren't deserving, completely the opposite, but as with the example you gave, the fishermen who needed rescuing off the Norfolk coast yesterday by the RNLI, they went out knowing that they might get into trouble, but knowing if they get a good catch they can make a hefty sum. They knew the risks but were willing to go anyway, now I enjoy fish, so I'm glad there are people who risk their lives so i can eat it.

Maybe I've entitled the thread incorrectly.
____________________
Geek, father, biker

[RussG]

Also I'm pretty sure RNLI, mountain rescue etc. are all volounteers, where as people in the Armed Forces aren't.
____________________
Geek, father, biker

[Mister James]

The air ambulance often turns out for jobs where people have crashed after drink/drug driving, or who over-dosed, or who got stabbed or shot because they are criminals in a gang and lost the fight - are they as worthy of help as soldiers who voluntarily signed up to defend their country and its interests?

You're right that people should only give their hard-earned dosh to causes they identify with, but that doesn't render the others unworthy.

On a separate note,

I take issue with the argument that 'well they signed up to it, tough shit' - as it's often applied to the forces and the police. They did sign up - to a necessary and unpleasant job, and thank The Lords Of Kobol that someone is willing to do it.

If you're willing to give up the nice things in life, like petrol, transport, imported food and law and order, then cool, we won't have an army or a police force. Otherwise, I think a bit of sympathy when they get wounded doing stuff most people wouldn't want to do is in order.
____________________
>Soultrader Mister James, I bet you are a copper
>Bazza Wow. Eyes like a shithouse rat, you...

[pa_broon74]

I don't think they are any more or less deserving as a charity. However, since government direct the Army into wars, it should do more to sucure the safety and after care of any injured soldier.

Before any one says we direct the government through our vote so share a responsibility, that is an entirely different thread altogether.

Charity is a personal thing, I would (and am) more inclined to give to children's charities as they have much less direct representation than other groups in the grand scheme of things. In terms of charity in your community, it is much better to do than to give.


____________________
Didn't catch anything.

[pinkyfloyd]

I'd give to the Air Ambulance and the RNLI as I believe these 2 shouldnt be charities at all. They should be state ran like the NHS as they are both important to the saving of life. Especially the RNLI. Normal people risk their lives for free in weather no one in their right mind should be out in to save idiots. Should be supported by the government.

Another charity I would give to is the Terrence Higgins Trust and NSPCC. The THT was founded after the death of Freddie Mercury of Queen to combat AIDS. The NSPCC is a childrens charity to help abused kids.
____________________
illuminateTHEmind wrote: I am just more evolved than most of you guys... this allows me to pick of things quickly which would have normally taken the common man years to master
Hockeystorm65:.well there are childish arguments...there are very childish arguments.....there are really stupid childish arguments and now there are......Pinkfloyd arguments!
Teflon-Mike:I think I agree with just about all Pinky has said.

[LeeR]

I think at lot of comes down to deficiencies in the system, given the money that is taken as tax/N.I. how is it we "need" charities for Cancer Research, Hospices and the like?

But regarding the R.N.L.I, Air Ambulances, and Mountain Rescue etc... as soon as they come under a government dept and receive funding you can bet they'll also have to meet targets, and get buried under a shed load of admin.

Leave them as they are and let them do their job well (as they do) I'm more than happy to fund these particular charities.

Help for Heroes... personally if the British Legion Poppy Appeal (aka Haig Fund) isn't enough then I think there's a problem and starting another charity is addressing the symptoms not the cause, whatever that may be?
____________________
My claim to fame: Austin Vince nicked my pen...