Happ Hazzard Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Or just run them so they that the onus is placed on helping who they are supposed to help, not on giving gainful employment to the self-important middle-class women who normally seem to run them. Â And by this statement, you display, yet again, that you know absolutely fuck-all about the subject you're spouting such drivel. I've been a member of Amnesty for years; I've seen the work they do, what they've accomplished and the people who do that work. Â Seems to me you're just lambasting people who give a shit to try and justify the fact that you don't. It's your prerogative not to care, but don't try and drag others down to your level. If she gave a shit, why is she pocketing a Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny McBride Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 AI isn't a poverty charity. Â Most of its work is done by volunteer letter-writers. Â It also does awareness work and lobbying. Â Most charities have paid staff because it's tough to do it as a freebie forever. Â It's not unreasonable to pay a good salary to the chief of such a big organisation. If Amnesty were a company,the boss would likely be making several times that much, and no doubt the boss of Amnesty is qualified to make that kind of money in the private sector. Â By the way, if we abolish the public sector, who's going to do all that work if not charities? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted March 8, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 8, 2011 (edited) Or just run them so they that the onus is placed on helping who they are supposed to help, not on giving gainful employment to the self-important middle-class women who normally seem to run them. Â And by this statement, you display, yet again, that you know absolutely fuck-all about the subject you're spouting such drivel. I've been a member of Amnesty for years; I've seen the work they do, what they've accomplished and the people who do that work. Â Seems to me you're just lambasting people who give a shit to try and justify the fact that you don't. It's your prerogative not to care, but don't try and drag others down to your level. If she gave a shit, why is she pocketing a Edited March 8, 2011 by Carbomb MA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 If Amnesty was a company, they would have to make a profit in order to stay in business. Â Amnesty is not a company, it is a charity. Â If Amnesty "isn't a poverty charity", why put a woman "who has a reputation as a campaigner against poverty" in charge. More to the point, why is she being given a payoff of 4 times her annual salary? Â Do Amnesty explain how much their executives are paid when they are asking people for donations in the street? I am sure a lot of donators would be put off donating if this was explained to them, also if it was explained to them how much of their money is creamed off by various layers before it gets to the people shown pictured in the leaflets they give out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted March 8, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 8, 2011 If Amnesty "isn't a poverty charity", why put a woman "who has a reputation as a campaigner against poverty" in charge. Â Why put a former executive of an oil company in charge of a bank? Â Do Amnesty explain how much their executives are paid when they are asking people for donations in the street? I am sure a lot of donators would be put off donating if this was explained to them, also if it was explained to them how much of their money is creamed off by various layers before it gets to the people shown pictured in the leaflets they give out. Â Funny how you seem to be incapable of applying the logic you use to justify the private sector to the public. Charity execs are paid that salary to attract talented people to do that job, i.e. they're being paid in accordance with what they're expected to accomplish. Seeing as how AI for the most part achieves quite a high proportion of success, I'd say it's justified. Besides, it's nowhere near the amount private corporate execs get, but you're OK with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenny McBride Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Don't be a dick. People change their industry all the time. Please go and look up Amnesty somewhere before you open your stupid fucking mouth again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted March 8, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 8, 2011 In 2010, 92% of the money Amnesty International spent was on its charitable/campaigning activities. Â http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/FI...00122010en.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 In 2010, 92% of the money Amnesty International spent was on its charitable/campaigning activities. http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/FI...00122010en.html What does that actually mean though? What is the other 8% spent on? And what is actually achieved through the work that Amnesty International do? How many of their staff are being put up in hotels and spend their time in lavish conferences and seminars, rather than actually helping the people that are being abused?  Is this woman's salary part of the 92%? How much of their donations are used to pay staff?  From what I have read about them, the stuff they do today is far removed from what the guy who set them up actually had in mind at time of founding. They seem to have a very anti-American and anti-Israeli agenda, ignoring the fact that the vast majority of human rights atrocities occur in Africa and Asia.  Why put a former executive of an oil company in charge of a bank? Banks and oil companies have the same goal, to make money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted March 8, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 8, 2011 Why put a former executive of an oil company in charge of a bank? Banks and oil companies have the same goal, to make money. Â And charities have the same goal, to raise funds, you spenk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 You know, I sometimes wonder if you live in some sort of a care home, or are in prison or something, Happ, so tenuous and simplistic is your grasp on real life. The 8% is spent on wages and admin. That's an incredibly low percentage of running costs for any company in any line of work. Â Your understanding of business seems to have been gleaned from an old copy of Monopoly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Why put a former executive of an oil company in charge of a bank? Banks and oil companies have the same goal, to make money. Â And charities have the same goal, to raise funds, you spenk. Not to actually help people using the funds then? Is a charity that raises Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 You know, I sometimes wonder if you live in some sort of a care home, or are in prison or something, Happ, so tenuous and simplistic is your grasp on real life. The 8% is spent on wages and admin. How do you know this? I'm not saying that it isn't true. Â Where does the other 92% get spent? I find it very hard to see what Amnesty actually does with that amount of money given that it is very difficult to measure what their success rate is. Â How much do they spend on advertising? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted March 8, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 8, 2011 Sometimes people who refer to a fact when posting on an Internet site include a link to the source material for that fact. When they do so, it's to allow other people the opportunity to verify the material and read more about the detail behind it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 (edited) Sometimes people who refer to a fact when posting on an Internet site include a link to the source material for that fact. When they do so, it's to allow other people the opportunity to verify the material and read more about the detail behind it. Some people simply haven't got time to read a document of the length of the one you linked to. Â Since you obviously know what you're looking for, can you point out what the relevent bits are? I find it hard to get my head round what Amnesty actually do with the money they recieve. Â Is it fair to say that AA are more of a political lobby group, more concerned with putting pressure on governments than actually doing anything themselves to directly help the people that are victims of human rights abuses? Edited March 8, 2011 by Happ Hazzard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Chris B Posted March 8, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted March 8, 2011 Sometimes people who refer to a fact when posting on an Internet site include a link to the source material for that fact. When they do so, it's to allow other people the opportunity to verify the material and read more about the detail behind it. Some people simply haven't got time to read a document of the length of the one you linked to. Â Since you obviously know what you're looking for, can you point out what the relevent bits are? I find it hard to get my head round what Amnesty actually do with the money they recieve. Â Is it fair to say that AA are more of a political lobby group, more concerned with putting pressure on governments than actually doing anything themselves to directly help the people that are victims of human rights abuses? Â For fuck's sake. Just search for 'objectives' in the document and stop whining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts