|
Brent Jenkins wrote: I struggled to think of any charity that's ever solved the problems it set out to solve.
RNLI?
Air Ambulance?
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
Well technically, they haven't actually solved their specific problems 
Seriously though, I don't think that either of these should be charities - they both provide essential services across the UK and should be funded by government. It's arguable that because people donate to these, the government gets away with offloading it to the charity sector.
Historically, charities were actually set up by the wealthiest in Britain to benefit the general public. These days, charities seem to work the other way around.
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
The specific problem the RNLI wanted to solve was too many people dying in the sea. Problem solved, now far less people die in the sea.
Our allotment association holds a charity thing each year, and when they were having a meeting to decide which charity should benefit the Air Ambulance was suggested (as someone's relation had their live saved by it). An objection was raised by someone whose brother was in the RAF as he believed the RAF should fully fund and staff the Air Ambulance, and them continuing to get lots of donations means the government can shirk their responsibilities.
And I agree with him, and you, there are lots of charities which shouldn't exist, and the government is passing off their responsibility because of the hundreds of millions that are donated each year.
We eventually chose a couple of local charities to split the money between, and that is the approach I generally take, something small, local, meaningful to me or those I know.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
chriselst wrote: The specific problem the RNLI wanted to solve was too many people dying in the sea. Problem solved, now far less people die in the sea.
But you could argue that even one is too many 
chriselst wrote: We eventually chose a couple of local charities to split the money between, and that is the approach I generally take, something small, local, meaningful to me or those I know.
I'd agree that's probably the better approach. The big charities are really businesses taking advantage of the tax breaks they get as charities. If you look at how much some of the big cancer charities have had over the years, it's staggering, yet the big advances seem to come from the pharmaceutical industry or universities (although the charities can always provide a spokesman for the news applauding the latest advance).
I looked at the accounts of one such (very well known) charity a few years ago which had around £500 million income and spent over £150 million just on marketing, for a single year. Like I said, they really don't need my £5 a month.
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Brent Jenkins wrote: But you could argue that even one is too many
Yeah, I realised I was leaving myself open to that but as we're having a flippant argument irrelevant to main point with that bit I couldn't be bothered firming it up.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
It's the standard line you get from the charity sector to justify asking people for even more money 
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: should be funded by government.
There's a very sound economic reason that they're not and indeed nor are specialist services like this all across the world. Nor would you find anyone within the organisations themselves that would have time for any suggestion that they be brought under Government purview. Right and proper as it may seem to you, it's something that nobody on either side wants.
|
|
|
|
|
Royal Air Force Search & Rescue has been funded by the government for decades..
Member 9082365 wrote: Right and proper as it may seem to you, it's something that nobody on either side wants.
You could argue then to make every service a charity.. ambulances, police, water purification, government..
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
As an adjunct to the RAF, yes it has. As an independent service (if Mr Corbyn gets to abolish the military forces, for example) it would be rather different.
You could well argue that some services might be the better for charity status. In most cases it's an argument that's already taken place however and decided in favour of taxation rather than donation (although you could also argue that that's merely compulsory charity!)
|
|
|
|
|
Things that are essential services should really be funded and run by the government in my opinion.
A lot of focus has been placed on profitability and value for money. This is right for some areas, but there are some services are worth more to the country than you can put a price on.
Perhaps if we didn't just throw tens of billions away we'd have some money spare to spend on the things this country needs.
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Your definition of 'essential' being what? Of the basic needs of human existence, food, water, and shelter, only one has ever been in public ownership in the UK and was less than successful, allowing our sewers and pipelines to fall into a state of costly disrepair.
Is it 'essential' to rescue idiots in boats who go out in poor weather under-prepared and inexperienced? Compassionate, perhaps, but certainly not essential - the world, as the Darwin Awards suggest, could well be a sight better off for letting them drown. Clearing up accidents on roads clearly has economic value so it's easy to justify public funding of ambulance, police and fire services on the grounds of 'essential'-ness. The rescue of people that get themselves stuck up mountains, down caves, and out at sea, rather less so. It would not be an easy sell for any government to expect additional taxation to cover 'luxury' compassionate services. That's why there are very few countries in the world that even have a 'national health service' like the UK's.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 9082365 wrote: Is it 'essential' to rescue idiots in boats who go out in poor weather under-prepared and inexperienced? Compassionate, perhaps, but certainly not essential - the world, as the Darwin Awards suggest, could well be a sight better off for letting them drown.
Member 9082365 wrote: The rescue of people that get themselves stuck up mountains, down caves, and out at sea
So we should all stay indoors watching TV then, is what you're saying? And there's silly old me thinking that we were a first world country.. 
What about people at the gym who have accidents or become ill? Should they also be left to fend for themselves or die too?
Some of those "idiots" rescued from boats are risking their lives putting food on our tables or making sure the lights stay on, by the way.
Member 9082365 wrote: It would not be an easy sell for any government to expect additional taxation to cover 'luxury' compassionate services.
Isn't looking after its citizens a primary concern for a country's government? Everyone makes mistakes in life - some trivial, some much more dangerous. At some point, you probably will be affected (as we all are) so just be thankful that there are people there who will show up to help when you need them, whether it's out at sea, on top of a mountain, in the gym or sat at home watching TV.
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Nice job of hyperbolic misinterpretation there. Had you considered becoming a Daily Mail journalist?
Is looking after its citizens a primary concern for a country's Government? Actually, no. Is it morally obliged to provide for every need of every citizen? Absolutely not. Any attempt at governing in that way has, throughout history, been disastrous in the long term (if it survives long enough at all).
I am, of course, enormously glad that there are people who will step in and help. I am more than happy to be one myself. Where did I suggest otherwise? I simply do not consider myself entitled to any and every type of help buckshee (except for wholly inadequate taxation). Nor do I have any illusion about being indispensible or immortal.
A flourishing charitable sector is not a shame to this country or an indictment of its Government but the mark of true civilisation. It would be a huge backward step to bring it under Government control and make the Nanny State a reality. It should only take a momentary examination of the record of state social services, for example, not only in this country, to see the reality of how that all works out.
|
|
|
|
|
Member 9082365 wrote: Nice job of hyperbolic misinterpretation there. Had you considered becoming a Daily Mail journalist?
What's all that about? Take your pick of newspaper in the UK - Guardian, Independent, Daily Mail, Express, Telegraph, etc.. do you think any of them give you any kind of news that you can rely on?
There's a much easier thing to do though if you want to find out what's going on in the UK - get out there yourself.
Member 9082365 wrote: Is looking after its citizens a primary concern for a country's Government? Actually, no.
Well a lot of other countries seem to do alright with it, but of course we're Britain so "it can't be done". Same old, same old.
Member 9082365 wrote: Nor do I have any illusion about being indispensible or immortal.
A few weeks ago I was surfing (yes, I know, I should have been indoors safely watching TV - some people, eh!) and I got caught in a rip on a beach I was unfamiliar with. I didn't notice it at first until the beach was a long way off. Now sitting at a nice cosy desk talking about not being immortal or indispensable is lovely, but when you're looking at possibly not getting back in and ever seeing your family again, it puts things in sharp perspective.
Did I make a mistake? Yes I did. Luckily I kept my head straight, paddled across it to get out of it and then had a long, painful paddle back into the surf line. But it was comforting to know that there'd be people there to come looking for me, even if the end result was no better than to drag what was left of my body back in to shore.
Think about this: what if it's not actually you, but your kid that gets swept out to sea? Should we just say "yeah, idiot parent, they got what they deserved"? What kind of civilized country is that?
Member 9082365 wrote: A flourishing charitable sector is not a shame to this country or an indictment of its Government but the mark of true civilisation.
A flourishing charity sector is a sign of the gullibility of the general public. Paying a few quid a month to make yourself feel better doesn't change a thing. But hey, you carry on spending your money on other people's BMW's and million pound mortgages if you like, that's your choice.
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Brent Jenkins wrote: Think about this: what if it's not actually you, but your kid that gets swept out to sea? Should we just say "yeah, idiot parent, they got what they deserved"? What kind of civilized country is that?
 Really? You got that out of my detailed, reasoned argument? Final fact, then I'm done. The RNLI is a charity. That is not going to change. Not under a Conservative Government, a New Labour Government, an Old Labour Government, a whatever Labour is under Jeremy Corbyn Government, an SNP Government (can't be ruled out!) or any other. You don't have to like it. You do have to lump it or move to a country where the work that the RNLI does is wholly state funded ... if there is one!
|
|
|
|
|
Member 9082365 wrote: Really? You got that out of my detailed, reasoned argument?
Well it is what you've been saying all along.. just read through your posts again if you don't remember.
Member 9082365 wrote: Final fact, then I'm done. The RNLI is a charity. That is not going to change. Not under a Conservative Government, a New Labour Government, an Old Labour Government, a whatever Labour is under Jeremy Corbyn Government, an SNP Government (can't be ruled out!) or any other. You don't have to like it. You do have to lump it or move to a country where the work that the RNLI does is wholly state funded ... if there is one!
You're probably right. I think Britain probably is on it's way out really, that's why I was asking about other places to live/work the other week. It's like we're doing the junkyard sale - "everything's for sale, everything must go, make an offer before we close up for good".
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
You never know. There's always someone pining for the fjords! There were quite a lot of things that I used to have fun with on W3.1 that have got all serious and dull as the years go by. Hmm, where did you say that shop was again?
|
|
|
|
|
Somewhere at home I still have an 8086 Assembler for MSDos 3.1 manual (and a PC I can still use it on)
=========================================================
I'm an optoholic - my glass is always half full of vodka.
=========================================================
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes I'm still trying to convince myself I shouldn't have thrown out my OS/2 programming books.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow those are fairly new, last time I went the books were written in hieroglyphs.
New version: WinHeist Version When you have eliminated the JavaScript, whatever remains must be an empty page. Unknown
|
|
|
|
|
Hi All,
Any one else noticed this, I got some periodic update for my desk top yesterday and it resized my full screen so when I click on maximize the right hand edge (drag bar) disappears. The old method of setting the full screen doesn't appear to work now.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, are we talking about full-screen which never had any reserved real estate or maximising? Can't say I've noticed any difference myself. Perhaps a screen grab would help us make more sense of your question?
|
|
|
|
|
I was wondering if anybody else on Win 10 clicked the full screen dohicky between the X and the - and saw all the drag bars disappear?? not a major whine but odd I only noticed it after I had an update yesterday
|
|
|
|
|
Are you using the "Metro" button - it's not supposed to be full screen per-se IIRC - think tablet friendly / the old "full screen metro apps"
C# has already designed away most of the tedium of C++.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh no! I didn't think I was, just checked and no!!
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
