Moral choice - give money away or buy stuff/services instead?

[oddoneout]

We are agreeing and not agreeing.

It's not about forbidden items.

If a vibe café serving vegan food to autistic people is the cause, that's fine by me.

I just don't want the governor living in a four bedroom house.

Not even if s/he has an aged relative and 2 children to house? I understand the sentiment but I don't think number of bedrooms has got much to do with it.

[Lat-Literal]

Not even if s/he has an aged relative and 2 children to house? I understand the sentiment but I don't think number of bedrooms has got much to do with it.

I accept there are variables like region and dependents. That's fair. But leaving any money one has, however little, is not the trifling thing that many view it as being and that includes charities with posters urging legacies. I would certainly want a detailed form to be completed by the overseers about their own personal arrangements just as charities require of other people when they want to volunteer to help them without payment. Given that is unlikely - and to my mind over-burdensome - I'd rather go direct to the tiny and the non promoting.

Again, it sounds, what, arch, perhaps and I can feel that as I write it - but I am very genuine about this anti corporate value of mine.

And I can't help it.

[Serial_Apologist]

This is your consistent theme. Certainly I don't wholly disagree with it and I respect it. But central heating, a few basic gadgets to help in the home, the occasional holiday, a modest home where one wasn't at the mercy of the unsavoury, even the monstrous car. One. One car. None of this was awful. In sync, I would argue that the broadening of access to culture, sophisticated and, yes, popular within reason, was overdue.

Well there's nothing to compare with consistency! On the other hand - not wishing to downgrade the advantages you've listed, Lat - what was sacrificed by the new planning dispensations were the old communities that conferred a collective sense of identity, as you yourself have I'm sure pointed out before.

But there are many other strands here. America decided on a change of course. What America wants and then does, Europe always follows as its lapdog. Britain was no exception - and at the heart of the bogus divisions in debate today is the fact that both the EU and Britain will be under American dominance.

Being late to the party, America advantaged its own position in the capitalist order by learning from the mistakes and historical baggage perpetually precipitating Europe back into wars. Plus the fact that America delayed its own abolition of slavery, and for longer than de-colonising European countries had a convenient post-slavery class as a pool of cheap labour, rather as in apartheid South Africa (if we overlook the balance differences, obviously!) and the broad geographical scope that enabled its wide range of food produce not needing to be imported. With the latest technological and productive means to hand America was therefore bound to dominate the world of post-colonialism.

The trade unions did not represent many underpaid workers and had no interest in a lot of those but they pushed beyond the acceptable in order to divide poorer people.

As someone who was involved in campaigns for the rights of workers to join trade unions in the 1970s I would point a reminder at the numbers of workplaces whose managements refused unionisation, as was permitted by statute. Trade unionism in the UK has in any case always restricted itself to terms and conditions, seeing the Labour Party and Parliament as being the legitimate enablers of change.

The oil crisis. If anything drove that impetus, it was that. Much is made of old establishment fearing it would lose its privileged position but actually that was not the case. That had seen deprivation.

The old landowning aristocracy had to change, and in this country (unlike in France!) made a smart move of buying into the new capitalism, although even in the 20th century there were divisions between the landed and what the latter called "trade" - rather well brought out in the 1959 film "I'm All Right Jack".

It was the cosy "Ferris Bueller" kids of old establishment who cut up rough. The depletion of industry was the excuse for any old tat to be sold at ludicrous prices in the name of fitting in from sports wear and trainers onwards. Black and other non white people, gay people, women, latterly and half-heartedly disabled people.....all have been bought off with overdue equal rights so that they don't take to the streets on economic grounds. Most in these categories are like my old boss Roy's old Mum who thinks British Gas is lovely because it sounds right.

Not that I "do" opinion pieces these days.

People are neither informed or offered alternatives to assess, politics are presented as like the weather, though this might be starting to change, notwithstanding the unaccountability and limitations of "social media".

[oddoneout]

I accept there are variables like region and dependents. That's fair. But leaving any money one has, however little, is not the trifling thing that many view it as being and that includes charities with posters urging legacies. I would certainly want a detailed form to be completed by the overseers about their own personal arrangements just as charities require of other people when they want to volunteer to help them without payment. Given that is unlikely - and to my mind over-burdensome - I'd rather go direct to the tiny and the non promoting.

Again, it sounds, what, arch, perhaps and I can feel that as I write it - but I am very genuine about this anti corporate value of mine.

And I can't help it.

You are not alone in those views, and many will choose to support small local charities for that reason. Knowing the people running the show and in many cases being able to visit a site where the money is being used is seen as preferable to the big name outfits, although it's not a guarantee against malpractice sadly.
For many however opting for the 'Just give £3 a month to help....' is a much easier and quicker way to deal with the good works niggle of conscience, and an assumption is made that the money will be used appropriately.

[Serial_Apologist]

You are not alone in those views, and many will choose to support small local charities for that reason. Knowing the people running the show and in many cases being able to visit a site where the money is being used is seen as preferable to the big name outfits, although it's not a guarantee against malpractice sadly.
For many however opting for the 'Just give £3 a month to help....' is a much easier and quicker way to deal with the good works niggle of conscience, and an assumption is made that the money will be used appropriately.

I think that, rather as with religious causes of one sort or another, charities can start off with high-minded intentions, carrying out their mission statements to the letter, but can end up corrupted by the corrupting nature of the system, especially when expected to step in for depleted state run and funded bodies, as is being seen, and becoming a source of disillusionment among the otherwise generous public.

[ardcarp]

I'm reminded of the story of CS Lewis and Tolkien going on a walking tour of England and coming across someone begging for money. Lewis put his hand in his pocket and gave the man what change he had. Tolkien disapprovingly said, “He’s just going to spend it on drink, you know,” to which Lewis's reply was, “I was just going to spend it on drink.”

Yes, nice one. This summer hols I re-read Orwell's Down and Out in Paris and London. When it was written, the Welfare State did not exist. I was less surprised by his descriptions of poverty than I was when I first read the book approx 45 years ago.

Warning: One has to be prepared for certain descriptions which were common currency in pre-war Britain but are rightly considered non-PC today.

[oddoneout]

I think that, rather as with religious causes of one sort or another, charities can start off with high-minded intentions, carrying out their mission statements to the letter, but can end up corrupted by the corrupting nature of the system, especially when expected to step in for depleted state run and funded bodies, as is being seen, and becoming a source of disillusionment among the otherwise generous public.

It's one of those incremental creep situations I think in many cases. As a charity gets bigger and 'more successful'(however one measures that) the business side of it gets further away from the active side which engages directly with the public. Much of that may be inevitable and enable a better, objective, approach to the practicalities of running the business side of the operation(employment, finance, regulatory compliance etc) but given the generally poor standard of management in this country it's the point at which the rot starts to set in in my view. As a result those at the other end delivering the charity's work, fund-raising, running charity shops etc can find themselves subject to decisions they struggle to understand and apparently ignored when making suggestions or voicing concerns, so it's not really that surprising that questions about matters such as running costs or staff behaviour don't get addressed until perhaps picked up by an external agency. The public tends to expect that charities will behave well by virtue of their charitable status so reaction to reports that those at the top of such organisations have clay feet the same as 'ordinary' companies(of whom it's almost expected these days) results in a particularly damaging backlash, not just for the organisation directly involved but the charity section in general; once that trust is damaged regaining it is difficult to say the least.
Even where nothing actually wrong is going on, there are times when the large charities seem to have a .. how shall I put this..'less than constructive' approach to what is in effect customer engagement. I had a bruising encounter with a very large landholding charity a while ago when I was looking into life membership. The website had been 'improved' and I not only couldn't find any of the information I wanted, but also struggled with navigating around it as the fancy effects and pictures made it slow to load, and confusing where links didn't work. Emails were bounced around as whichever address I used seemed to be the 'wrong' one. I didn't get the information I wanted and also was told that the website had been designed to work on mobile devices as that was 'what the majority of our members use and want'. In other words it was all my fault for not having the right equipment to get the best out of their wonderful new toy. Some months later I had an email out of the blue giving me some of the information I had originally requested plus a rather half-hearted apology. Too little too late, I had made my decision against joining following the initial unsatisfactory exchanges, and had also found out more about 'the majority of our members' and the new website,which confirmed my suspicions that all was not as they said but having spent so much on it the official line was that everything was wonderful. The fact that I had initially approached them with constructive feedback(such as reporting faulty links) and a request for help, added to my annoyance at their response. Never mind, their loss was another charity's gain as it happened and one with which I am in any case much more involved.

[Flay]

You could always lend your money. Then you get it back and can lend it again.

https://www.kiva.org

[Serial_Apologist]

It's one of those incremental creep situations I think in many cases. As a charity gets bigger and 'more successful'(however one measures that) the business side of it gets further away from the active side which engages directly with the public. Much of that may be inevitable and enable a better, objective, approach to the practicalities of running the business side of the operation(employment, finance, regulatory compliance etc) but given the generally poor standard of management in this country it's the point at which the rot starts to set in in my view. As a result those at the other end delivering the charity's work, fund-raising, running charity shops etc can find themselves subject to decisions they struggle to understand and apparently ignored when making suggestions or voicing concerns, so it's not really that surprising that questions about matters such as running costs or staff behaviour don't get addressed until perhaps picked up by an external agency. The public tends to expect that charities will behave well by virtue of their charitable status so reaction to reports that those at the top of such organisations have clay feet the same as 'ordinary' companies(of whom it's almost expected these days) results in a particularly damaging backlash, not just for the organisation directly involved but the charity section in general; once that trust is damaged regaining it is difficult to say the least.
Even where nothing actually wrong is going on, there are times when the large charities seem to have a .. how shall I put this..'less than constructive' approach to what is in effect customer engagement. I had a bruising encounter with a very large landholding charity a while ago when I was looking into life membership. The website had been 'improved' and I not only couldn't find any of the information I wanted, but also struggled with navigating around it as the fancy effects and pictures made it slow to load, and confusing where links didn't work. Emails were bounced around as whichever address I used seemed to be the 'wrong' one. I didn't get the information I wanted and also was told that the website had been designed to work on mobile devices as that was 'what the majority of our members use and want'. In other words it was all my fault for not having the right equipment to get the best out of their wonderful new toy. Some months later I had an email out of the blue giving me some of the information I had originally requested plus a rather half-hearted apology. Too little too late, I had made my decision against joining following the initial unsatisfactory exchanges, and had also found out more about 'the majority of our members' and the new website,which confirmed my suspicions that all was not as they said but having spent so much on it the official line was that everything was wonderful. The fact that I had initially approached them with constructive feedback(such as reporting faulty links) and a request for help, added to my annoyance at their response. Never mind, their loss was another charity's gain as it happened and one with which I am in any case much more involved.

Also, as one who prefers giving small change to tin-rattlers in shopping precincts to unsolicited emails and foot-in-the-door visitors, the number of occasions on which I'm being told I must sign up and make regular donations, and that my immediate offer is not acceptable, is yet another deterrance I find, these days. It's a shame people carry less small change on them nowadays, and I for one wouldn't trust one of those card insert devices which even some Big Issue sellers are now using, with Sir Bird's OK.

[Serial_Apologist]

You could always lend your money. Then you get it back and can lend it again.

https://www.kiva.org

You are being ironic, I take it?

[oddoneout]

Also, as one who prefers giving small change to tin-rattlers in shopping precincts to unsolicited emails and foot-in-the-door visitors, the number of occasions on which I'm being told I must sign up and make regular donations, and that my immediate offer is not acceptable, is yet another deterrance I find, these days. It's a shame people carry less small change on them nowadays, and I for one wouldn't trust one of those card insert devices which even some Big Issue sellers are now using, with Sir Bird's OK.

My local Air Ambulance service runs a lottery which in the past I have occasionally supported by paying a one-off annual subscription by cheque. I can accept that that is no longer acceptable, due to costs(even if it niggles slightly in terms of who is doing whom a favour and who is it who wants the money) but when I was told it was monthly direct debit or nothing the intended renewal didn't happen.

[Serial_Apologist]

My local Air Ambulance service runs a lottery which in the past I have occasionally supported by paying a one-off annual subscription by cheque. I can accept that that is no longer acceptable, due to costs(even if it niggles slightly in terms of who is doing whom a favour and who is it who wants the money) but when I was told it was monthly direct debit or nothing the intended renewal didn't happen.

Yes, this is just the sort of thing I mean.

[french frank]

I'm being told I must sign up and make regular donations, and that my immediate offer is not acceptable, is yet another deterrance I find, these days.

I get a lot of door-knockers who want me to sign up for a DD. I say if they have a website, I will go and make a donation, but I've already chosen the causes I want to give to regularly.

As for loans: Credit Unions?

[Serial_Apologist]

I get a lot of door-knockers who want me to sign up for a DD. I say if they have a website, I will go and make a donation, but I've already chosen the causes I want to give to regularly.

As for loans: Credit Unions?

One of the few remaining socially altruistic types of institution still around. It's either them, the cold-faced bank or the friendly local loan shark. I just hope credit unions, such as the friendly one in Peckham a friend was recently forced to resort to, manage to survive - uncorrupted and in their present form.

[Padraig]

...credit unions, such as the friendly one a friend was recently forced to resort to...

S_A, Credit Unions belong to the members. There's no forcing, no stigma, if you need a loan. If you don't need a loan your savings finance those members who do.

PS While Seamus Heaney won a Nobel for Lit, fellow College past pupil John Hume, who founded the Credit Union in Derry, won his Nobel for Peace. John is not too well now. Spare him a thought.