Monkey241:
Simple recognition you cocked up would be a start
What have I posted that is untrue, or misleading in this thread? What errors have I made?
Please explain where I`ve “*cocked up”?
*Limit it to this thread please, we don`t want too long a list.
Put simply, you gainsaid my assertion that the money went to charities rather than treatment…
Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk
Monkey241:
Put simply, you gainsaid my assertion that the money went to charities rather than treatment…Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk
Incorrect.
I have not denied your assertion about where the monies raised by Captain Tom have gone. They have gone to NHS charities. No argument.
I have expanded on your statement by saying where those charities forward said monies.
To provide food for staff working above and beyond what is normally expected…To provide facilities that a properly funded health service might be expected to provide…
.
I have never said any charity monies go directly to patient treatment.
I have put up links to where the charities themselves say they provide funds for research and equipment.
Shouldn’t the NHS provide those funds I wonder?
PerhapsI misinterpreted this:
Those charities themselves say they give money to the NHS.
But it seems odd you went to such lengths just to confirm what Id already said
Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk
Franglais:
dieseldog999:
poor old captain tom was just another media puppet that someone saw a good earner from.
apart from the promotional company raking it in,then i believe a charity can keep up to 80 % for administration and running costs,meaning although the old codger meant well to start with,a shrewd busnesman used him as a massive earner due to the sheeple on faceache/twitter and the usual media watching/newspaper reading lemmings.
that company would have made a fortune,followed up by the various charities swallowing up to 80% of the rest,leaving the scrapings to be spent somewhere.
i just see it as similar to live aid,which started off with lies,followed up by 20 years on making no difference whatsoever to your average skinnys daily life with everyone and their granny getting their fingers into the pie and leaving the scrapings for the rabble it was meant to help.Any links on monies going to any businessman or promotion company?
.
nhscharitiestogether.co.uk/what-we-do/
Clearly much less than 80% spent on admin etc.
There are bad examples of course, but more generally 60 to 70% goes to the main cause. channel4.com/news/factcheck … ood-causes
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
to be honest i cant be ased to go looking to dig them up again.
i did spend an evening looking on youtube with several different links from there a while ago on the subject matter about no matter how much money live aid made,theres no real difference to the daktari version of joe bloggs as everyone up the tree has emptied the pot before it reaches them,and saying charities take up to 80% isnt the same as saying they all take 80%.
the only other proof i saw in real life is years ago my mate did the charity thing where you stick a quid in the tin and take a bag of sweets,ect and he just creamed it to the max and made a fortune with barely nothing heading in the right direction.
any oxfam/cancer type charity where they have new shops and new vans are def ■■■■■■ the tin,whereas a run down shop and a 300 quid transit run by voulenteers may tend to send more percent to the recipient?
personally i give to a couple of animal ones that i reckon are just using the money directly on the animals,and despite thinking that its a major con ,i also dive a few quid for the poppy when it comes round.
apart from that,then i give nothing as im quite sure its just a business hiding behind a charity sign.