|
|
General chat
Started by james@justgiving at 10-23-2006 11:12. Topic has 8 replies.
  
|
|
Sort Posts:
|
|
|
|
 10-23-2006, 11:12
|
james@justgiving
 
Joined on 10-03-2005
Justgiving Towers, London
Posts 396
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-22-2006, 13:35
|
Ewan
Joined on 10-31-2006
Posts 2
|
|
|
|
Hello Folks
Our organisation assists Asylum Seekers in Liverpool and the costs of running a drop in centre, destitution project and a myriad of other smaller programmes costs almost 200k per year, none of which comes from the government unlike other bigger charities who assist Asylum Seekers. All our funding comes from Foundations and individual donors and fundraising should be a full time occupation although it tends to get squeezed in between fixing leaking roofs, reporting hate crime, halting deportations or making soup.
In our particular situation, one of our charitable objects is improving public education about Asylum Seekers and Refugees and so something like this allows us to explode the myths around Asylum. We took part in the programme but as we have yet to see it we don't know what impact, if any, it will have, but in an age where both the papers and politicians are hostile to Refugees, we're having to grab onto anything which will make people think constructively about Asylum.
It also should be said that they sought us out, not the other way round. Undoubtedly it is the media and the 'story makers' who control events but it is thereafter up to us to put clear and convincing arguments.
It is difficult to say if TV exposure like this is fair. Some charities get funding that maybe isn't essential and others get less or are ignored for something crucial. There's always a 'smash and grab' type of mentality when a new fund comes on the scene or the Home Office announces the Challenge Fund or the like and it may be that the best written bids, rather than the most worthy causes, end up with the funds. I really don't know what the answer is: giving money to charities will always be subjective and based on the individuals or the foundations personal preferences. The bottom line is that, probably, there just isn't enough to go around. We are reasonably successful in fundraising but it's difficult to sustain and with some funders, you can't go back when the grant is used so it becomes a constant search. We go into the Red in March next year, which does not leave us a lot of time to get sorted out.
As I alluded to above, my roll as centre manager increasingly becomes compromised by the fundraising requirements and I am increasingly locked away in my office instead of providing direct assistance to the service users. Having expanded greatly during the last year, it gets increasingly difficult to cover costs and so we can't afford to ignore something like the Secret Millionaire when it comes our way, especially the publicity it will bring.
All the best Ewan
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
11-23-2006, 12:19
|
james@justgiving
Joined on 10-03-2005
Justgiving Towers, London
Posts 396
|
|
|
|
Hi Ewan -
Thanks for a most interesting and informative post. I completely understand the imperative of fundraising and appreciate the programmme offered a good opportunity. But I was under the impression that the Secret Millionaire money went to random individuals, not charities. Is that not the case?
I'd love to hear more about your charity's involvement and whether you actually saw any of the money.
James.
Justgiving's Blog - news, views and other fun stuff from JG Towers
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
11-24-2006, 11:23
|
Ewan
Joined on 10-31-2006
Posts 2
|
|
|
|
Hello James - As far as I know the money went to a mixture of people and each programme was based in different settings. I don't think the programme makers would thank me for jumping the gun on our particular situation but hopefully John's views shifted during the course of his visit. All the best Ewan
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
11-24-2006, 12:47
|
james@justgiving
Joined on 10-03-2005
Justgiving Towers, London
Posts 396
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-30-2006, 14:05
|
ork100
Joined on 11-30-2006
Posts 2
|
|
|
|
|
Hi everyone,
I saw the above show advertised a while ago and have really been looking forward to it. I think one really important thing to know was that the guy on the first episode had actually been really hard up and one point and it was an act of kindness that helped him on his way. He wanted to be able to share some of his money as a sort of thank you for the help he had. The people he helped appreciated ithis and even the ones he decided would make it by themselves probably gained by the publicity of being on the tv. I thought that the way the money was given away allowed the recipients to maintain their dignity and I hope that others will be inspired by this man's example.
That's what I thought of it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
11-30-2006, 14:08
|
ork100
Joined on 11-30-2006
Posts 2
|
Re: Secret Millionaire - article that may be of interest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-06-2006, 23:40
|
Womble
Joined on 12-06-2006
Posts 1
|
Re: Secret Millionaire - article that may be of interest
|
|
|
|
|
|
I’ve watched both episodes of this series so far and after the
excellent show last week it appears to have slipped substantially. I
admire Mr Elliott for having the courage to explore life upon the
breadline. However, if a job is worth doing its worth doing right.
I’m unemployed and if I had £11 a day and £154 over two weeks to spend
on food and socialising I would be in relative hog heaven. The actual
amount payable to a single unemployed person is £124 a week. You might
get £154 if you are given the extra £15 a week paid to a person on a
training scheme or if you are in receipt of an uncommon provision. Even
so, this amount is only the gross amount you have in terms of
disposable income per week.
Out of that £124 you have to put aside money to cover electricity, gas,
clothes, tv license (he had a tv in his flat), toiletries, grooming
(haircuts etc), clothes, domestic supplies, and travel expenses. After
all deductions an unemployed persons’ net disposable income is more
like £4.50 to £5 per day. Which has to cover all food bills, a meagre
social life, and any unexpected outlays. Its hard to see how any ’10
day experience’ could provide any accurate representation of life as an
unemployed person when the money given for the duration of the
experience is so inaccurate.
My second point of contention is the ‘look at all the jobs they can
work if they want to’ nonsense. Granted a number of jobs might have
been displayed in the window but looking at an advertised vacancy is
far different from getting the job. Your skills may match those
required by the position but if 200 people are applying for that
position then 199 won’t get it even if they have the skills to do it.
I’m sure that if Mr Elliott had actually applied for those jobs, using
his fictitious character and without his actual work history, the lack
of response would have certainly enlightened him regarding the reality
of the situation.
Its farcical commentaries like this that are responsible for sustaining
the distorted opinion of what it is like to be unemployed. Make no
mistake its living life on a knife-edge each day. Knowing that a single
adverse situation can drag you down from hardship into destitution.
Interviewing some shady laggard in a pub about what its like being
unemployed offers no improvement on providing a realistic
interpretation either. I can’t afford to go into a pub and squander
money on beer so you certainly wouldn’t have found me or any of the
countless others like me in a pub. And as unemployed people go I’m
fairly well off. I don’t have a family to support and those that do
have things much harder in terms of stretching a pittance to provide
for basic needs.
This is the pitiful life that we, the unemployed, lead. And we live it
week in and week out, not just ten days. It is an uphill struggle that
is met with indifference or condemnation by those that do not know. It
is a miserable state of affairs that is compounded by the consistent
back lashings of the unemployment services; who have learnt that it is
much easier to meet targets with expulsion through sanctions than with
humane provision.
The final insult within this program was the giving of money to a
self-indebted family on the basis that the ‘guy works hard’. As though
‘hard work’ had a value in and of itself – another common misconception
- regardless of the factors surrounding that work. Granted he did work
hard, but only because he had to work long hours in order to pay off
the debts the family had accumulated. Any fiscally sane person would
have used that money to pay off their debts instead of keeping them and
the interest payments that accompany them. But no, they are given the
money to buy a house and saddle themselves with mortgage repayments on
top of the debt payments. And showing no financial acumen they accept
and smile. You seem to be struggling under the burden of your debts;
here have this house to carry as well.
I may be wrong but I believe that if a program sets itself up to
portray a lifestyle in part or whole then it has a duty to portray that
lifestyle accurately. With the power associated with any form of media,
especially TV, the failure to do that is not only disrespectful it is
downright harmful.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
Justgiving comm... » Welcome » General chat » Secret Millionaire
|
|
|
|