A friend just told me that someone she knows is having her little bitch spayed.
Her husband is quite a good earner and I believe they are comfortably off. However, she is getting her elderly father to take the dog to the vets and say that it is his to qualify for a freebie from the NCDL! :rolleyes: :(
Good God! Some people really disgust me!!

Lara,
That's how they have money!! :rolleyes:
It's absolutely disgusting how people abuse the benefit system.
I would've qualified for NCDL treatment when I had my dog castrated but instead paid almost £80 at my regular vet because I didn't want to upset him by taking him somewhere strange but then, I put my dog first. (and doesn't he know it ;) ;) :) :) :D :D )
Dot

People can be very devious when it comes to money saving not spending.
Anne

Charities themselves are far from innocent, or at least the directors and staff who get phenomenal amounts in wages.
I answered so called voluntary collector adds for charities. The first was many, years ago an add for charity collectors for cancer research football pools, going door to door getting people to pay for a football pool draw.
I was surprised to find that I got (as I remember) 10P in the £, it then slowly emerged that the local agent got almost double that for each collector, the regional director in turn also got a large % and so on, I only lasted a couple of weeks. We used to meet the area agent before going out and all the talk was of how much money we would make for ourselves, when I answered the add I did not even expect any money.
Since then it has become quite common knowledge that directors of the vast majority of charities and their staff get huge incomes and in almost all cases the actual people who the charity is supposed to be for get little more than 1P in the pound spent on them.
I was fool enough to try again, this time in the eighties and for a homeless charity day centre in London. Apart from actual cash they got from various sources they were given food by Marks & Sparks, Safeway’s and probably some more.
It was scandalous, the dinners were about £1, many people didn't have that but what happened with surplus food after dinner? it was thrown out! no one who could not afford to pay got a mouthful of the surplus food it was just thrown out.
It was a standing joke amongst the staff as regards the salary the director of that specific day centre got.
The RSPCA is very well known for its antics. Sure some animals do benefit but certainly not as much as the people who work for them.
If you have an emergency call about an animal in distress you find yourself hit by a premium rate recorded message, that is an emergency facility? I was told by a private animal ambulance crew that they do some work for the Blue Cross but will not do anything for the RSPC because they use animal ambulances for trips to the supermarket and equivalents, is that how peoples contributions are intended to be spent?
Neither does anyone simply take their pet to their animal hospitals and simply get free treatment, you have to pay, if you don't they will not deal with you at all, emergencies might be treated differently, I don't know.
I knew a cabaret artist. He and his friends all, as individuals, went around hospitals on their own at Xmas to give free shows, the reason being that charity organisations would simply ask them to perform for this and that and the money again would go to very high salaries for the hierarchy, he had a lot of inside knowledge about them as he and his friends were regularly approached.
There is a dog kennels in S Herts, it is a charity, it is quite a large kennels, all it has to do to maintain its charity status is kennel a small (I think about 3 dogs) number of dogs per year to retain its charity status and even then there is a small charge of around £20.
and so it goes on!
Never again will I do anything for charity, I don't trust any of them.

Do have a look at my posting further down the list re the charitable status of PETA!!!!

Jo and the Casblaidd Flatcoats

Yes I did, it has over 38000 signatures, are charities in the US run the same as here i.e. as buisnesses?

Charities in the US are usually under a tax exempt status. I'm not sure if "business" classifications have anything to do with it. The difficulty in donating money and predicting where it will end up though has been rather controversial in the last 5 years from different flood and fire incidents.

Sept. 11th and the participation of the Red Cross has really brought this subject to a head. Red Cross apparently had sponsored pledges asking for donations that would directly go to the victims and their families in NY, PA, and DC. At the last minute, they said that some of the money would be diverted to purchase "needed" equipment that had nothing to do with those areas. Ooooh, there was a big stink after that from all over the country. :( :( Red Cross backed off on its plans and promised the monies would head towards the original destination.

It is recommended in the US that prior to any donations, either telephone or visit a website to see what percentage of "Admin Costs" is deducted. Anything over 10-15% has pretty much been stated as questionable by different "watchdog" groups.

If a telephone "charity" calls up, ask if this is a telemarketer. I recieved quite a few of these types of calls only to find out they were a "contractor." I never donated and I told them bluntly that if I wanted to, I'd just go down to my local police dept. and make sure the money went straight to them. Ya know, I never got anymore calls after that month :d
toodles

Yes it seems USA is somewheres about the same as us, I think that here somke are registered as 'profit making charities' but I don't know the ins and outs of it.
I know that Battersea dogs home will not let dogs of specific breeds go to the specific breed rescue, many of whom have tried to get them out of battersea and into their own kennels.
Anyone who has been to Battersea knows the trauma the dogs must go through, unlike country based, breed rescues.
I also know for a fact that Battersea was sued at least once in 1978 for 'detinue' thats the civil law equivilent of theft, the person who sued them was succesfull so who pays all that money for soliciters etc, the doners of course and how do we really know what goes on in these places?
Why on earth they don't let specific breeds go to the breed rescue when that rescue is willing to take them is far beyond my imagination.
So the Red Cross thing about 9/11 raises the question that if it were not such a high profile case who would have known anything about it? and how often do these funds go to 'somewhere' other than the area they were originaly supposed to go?

Hello Doogdog

What do you think about money you have taken straight from your bank for charity ?
I do that for cancer and nspcc hope they get the full amount ? you have me thinking now

Pat xx

I wouldn't ever give anything dircetly to charity again.
All food that is capable of being carried intact and is not perished (not much I admit) I give directly to homeless on the streets.
All old clothing I just give directly to them on the streets or parks.
I would never ever contemplate giveing old clothes to a charity shop to sell off.
Its easy to see what a good money making idea that PETA had.
The amount of people who would like to see NO pets at all must be so isolated and unknown to each other, with a sense of hopelessnes to their stated goal. All of a sudden a charity pops up, gives them a social bond and instead of their money going to numerous charities for the same purpose there is only one such charity collecting from all over the world from these isolated individuals, wowwww, thats a lot.
I bet the director has no interest in any of it,he more than likely wears leather shoes.

I have heard from English friends that charities in the UK may be very much on the make compared to here in the USA. I have also seen some things on the Net about various charities in the UK doing all kinds of things which appear to be questionable, or at least, not doing things as they described they do, with money eventually ending up in the pockets of a small few running the charities.
I think one of the differences here in the US is the fact that they are quite well regulated, having said that, a they are not given a blank check of trust by anyone I know as they appear to be in the UK.
I have Canadian friends and things in Canada seem to be quite different to the way things are here in the USA as regards charities. In the past, I think some years ago they also contributed to the RSPCA in Canada but there are a lot of people questioning various activities, not just with the RSPCA, but charities in general and they simply stopped donating to any charity.
The recent scandal in Australia, which involved the RSPCA, cost an awful lot of voluntary donations. They were ordered to pay $100,000 to Innotek for libel, plus court costs in July 2002. The RSPCA had lied about the use of Innotek’s static stimulation electric collars and electronic systems. Despite the fact the case was adjourned for nine months, giving the RSPCA more than enough time to get evidence for a defense, they failed to get any evidence for their claims and were consequently held guilty of libel.
The Humane Society of America studied electronic training aids including collars in 1988 and not only do they fully support such, they recommend their use.
$100,000 is a huge sum of wasted money. Think of how many animals could have been helped in various ways with that amount, instead it was thrown down the drain on a completely wasted cause. I do not know what regulations govern charities in Australia, but it seems to me that various sites around the net for any charities, no matter where they are, should never be taken on their surface value.

Hi that makes very very intersting reading, I am pleased you have taken the time to post that important information. If anyone wishes to see how registered charities are operating in the UK it is very easy as The Charity Commisions web site is on line. You will be surprised at the amount of money some of them collate. You will also be surprised how many of them do not return their accounts annually, they are given 10 months over the end of the financila year but still some are 3 to 4 years behind. Look at some animal charities both large and small some local to your home and you will surprised and very annoyed to find that some that you may have respected have fallen into this trap. The CC are not on the ball at all and only do a paper sift of returns. That is why that many charities do not get noticed unless an individual draws their attention to it.
Pat

Oh wixcom, the RSPCA here is known as the richest animal charity in UK. There is almost no info about them but if you type in your search ‘’animadversion’that takes you to an interesting site, I think its run by that PETA thing but even so there are some interesting things on there about RSPCA. One quote is from The mail on Sunday June 17 2001, that states the director general, Peter Davies is on £90,000 per year.
Another site claims it has £170 million in the bank.
The case against RSPCA by Innotek was really an open and shut case, the RSPCA had claimed the collars were dangerous, inhumane and high level electric shocks were administered to dogs etc etc, non of which were true. The RSPCAcould easily have settled out of court to cut costs by accepting liability, they quite simply had no defence at all as the record of the collars and the support for them is beyond question. All that money could have gone to helping animals in all sorts of ways.
I know the collars are supported by Humane Society of America but the RSPCA did not need to go there to find that out, the head vet of the RSPCA UK is Chris Lawrence. He uses the static invisible fence system on one dog and his two cats. That is first hand knowledge and not hearsay.
It would have taken one phone call to UK and all that money would have been saved, even the NFU endorses them, some farmers use them here as well as vets.
I also said that the emergency number was a premium line with a recorded message. I was wrong, I just tried it and it was answered by a person. I did try it about 4 years ago in an emergency and then it was a recorded premium rate message, its not beyond belief it attracted to much criticism which has now got a real emergency line open, progress at last.

Sadly you're right about animal charities. Many years ago the local branch of a large (and generally reputable) dog charity where the people were on the make so badly that the whole thing fetched up with a conviction in court. Even more sadly it isn't always the big animal charities. I was once peripherally involved with a small rescue outfit. I can't say much about it since it hasn't come to the attention of the law (yet!), but some of the things I know of first hand or have heard about would make your hair stand on end. My set up is such that I can easily 'help out' in a practical as well as financial way, and dogs give us so much that I'd love to find a genuine outfit, but after all that I'm very wary indeed.

I hadn't thought about small local charities but now you mention it I remember the caberate artist telling me about the one night charity things put on by pubs. He said they were just one of the biggest money spinners to management than anything and as they were only the occasional one night event they had been and gone before anyone knew anything about them, let alone where the money went to.
Its when the amounts we're talking about with the RSPCA and NCDL that it really hits home just how much is involved.
One web site said that the RSPCA had more failed prosecutions than convictions. If that statement is looked at it must be taken into account that the RSPCA has more experience in animal prosecutions than anyone, therefor why do they prosecute, spending money collected from the public, when with their experience they know what case would win or fail in court.
Haveing said that the statement I read gave little detail of anything so I ama bit sceptical as to their source of knowledge.
The Innotek case in Australia is important because it is a PLC with an unblemished record and whose electronic training systems have an excellent reputation, there was never any possibility of the RSPCA being able to substantiate anything they said so why spend all that money of defending a hopeless case of lieing.
Was the court case you mention civil or criminal?

Thats a shame Sharon,it looks bad on small charities who desperatly try to keep going for the sake of what they believe in,in my experience and I only speak for the ones I know they work hard for Love not profit :) still everything is not always as it seems :(

My worst experience was with the homeless one, the people were there in fron of you and seeing food just thrown out like that was sickening for them and me.
I am no great philanthropist giveing or worrying about charity but if I were to give to a dog rescue charity I would find out what food they used and drop a bag in.

Mattie I know that many small rescues are wonderful, and I know that they need money to do the work, but often you need to have at least a toe in the door before you see what is really going on and, sorry to say, I'm wary now :-(.

The 'animadversion' site is not run by Peta. It is I believe run by/or has some input by Wendy Slark who is the secretary of The Welsh Association of Licenced Breeders. This association was formed some years ago rather quickly when some of the Welsh puppy farmers got together in a panic to form an association when it was feared that legislation was to be introduced that would effect their livelihood. This was also to give them some clout when they tried unsuccessfully to be part of a meeting that was held by The All Party Animal Welfare Group to discuss the issue of puppy farming. Wendy Slark has I believe the KC affix of Vetnor/Ventnor and breeds Old English Sheepdogs.
Yes, the RSPCA does have in excess of £170 million, this can be confirmed by looking on the Charity Commissions web site.
Pat

Yes I did get the impression there was some puppy farm interest in that site as well as PETA, that was the reason I said "Stillthere is some interesting stuff there".

All major charities try to retain 3 yrs working capital in their bacnk accounts incase of a decline in public donations.

Fiona
x x x