But if the charities don't give a competitive salary they will end up with the dregs. Surely it is better to pay someone £40k a year and get good results than £25 and get crap(Original post by eleenia)
what do you mean? because they have to be paid form it? Admin etc? Do you know what always suprises me? When you look at the job section in the Guardian and see how much people who work high up in charities actually get paid. It's ridiculous. Their salary could provide enough money for all the starving puppies and build 100 schools in Africa!
Turn on thread page Beta
Animal Charity Should Be Banned watch
- 11-09-2004 16:43
(Original post by Beejra)
- 11-09-2004 17:31
I agree with you in principal, but your measure would be a little drastic.
What has always appalled me is that the RSPCA has Crown endorsement (ie the R is for Royal) while the NSPCC has not.
While I realise that the royal prefix is merely ceremonial, surely the crown (or I suppose the government today) has its priorities wrong
OK - why don't we ban children's charities? Surley a western democracy should be able to look after it's own children without needing help from charities?
If all the money given to animals was then spent on children you would have a point but it wouldn't.
A poor family in this country can have an animal as a pet knowing that if it is ill they can take it to a vet's for free or a minimum charge. In this way some animal charities help children because a child's put is cared for in stead of it sufferi g or being put to sleep.
I foster cat's for 'Cat's Protection' - i am unable to give money to charity so I volunteer my time in this way, I couldn't do that for a children's charity so in my case, abolishing Cats Protection would harm the cats I care for without helping anyone or anything else.
Finally does anyone know if Eton is still a registered charity? I know it was for a long time. Is anyone here in favour of abolishing the RSPCA and giving it's funds to Eton?
(Original post by Gnostic XXX)
- 11-09-2004 18:21
Millions of animals suffer daily for humans. Humans are the vermin.
(Original post by foolfarian)
- 12-09-2004 13:06
But if the charities don't give a competitive salary they will end up with the dregs. Surely it is better to pay someone £40k a year and get good results than £25 and get crap
Although, I think that if someone really cared about the charity they would put in the same hard work no matter how much they're getting paid. I don't think the amount of money one gets paid is any reflection on how hard they work.
- 12-09-2004 13:32
if people didnt exist, we wudnt need the RSPCA
(Original post by englishstudent)
- 12-09-2004 21:06
I know this is gonna be controversial... but hey the forum's called "debate".
In my opinion, all animal charities should be banned.
No I don't get my kicks out of harming gerbils... ne worry pas. It really frustrates me though when I see in the paper that Auntie Flo (or whoever) has left her estate worth £2.7 million to a cat charity.
Charities such as the NSPCC receive much less money annually than the RSPCA - this is a horrible reflection on out society. For £200 a blind African can have his or her sight restored with a simple cataracts operation. Yet (because of the availability of animal charities) there is little money donated to a really worth cause.
What do you think?
I disagree because animal rights is an issue close to my heart. I don't know but given the choice my money would probably end up with RSPCA rather than any other organization. This is by no means an shrug off to the people who are suffering but animals have rights to. Animal torture and abuse are common now adays. Making monkeys or bears dance in order to earn money is cruelty too. So I guess it all comes down to where your heart is.
what I think is a bigger problem is that the amount of money going to a couple of pints friday night could have helped these organizations be that for animals or humans. That is a worry. Again it is about priorities.
Cool topic by the way.
- 12-09-2004 22:21
While I don't think any charities should be banned (except the crooked ones where they take 90% of the money and give 10% to those who need it), I definitely place more importance on some charities than others. Obviously this is just my opinion (coming from virtue of the fact that I said it) but I think there should be more money going to people in need than to animals in need.
Other people feel differently. Understood. But I certainly place more importance into other humans than animals. I'm sure if they could think that way, cats would give more importance to other cats than to humans.
(Original post by Onearmedbandit)
- 12-09-2004 22:25
but I think there should be more money going to people in need than to animals in need.
(Original post by englishstudent)
- 12-09-2004 23:25
Obviously they can't be banned. But in an ideal world they wouldn't even exist. I'd rather 100 dogs died than one child. In this country especially we have a totally warped view of what is important in this respect.
(Original post by randdom)
- 13-09-2004 00:46
I wouldn't say that in an ideal world they wouldn't exist because I think that these charities do an important job. However I do think that in an ideal world child and elderly protection charities would be getting much more money than animal charities.