I agree, BAD news gets more coverage but donating to a charity should be done under the radar. If people only give for the sake of getting noticed, rewarded, tax breaks .. they should not bother!Quote:
Originally Posted by Numpty's Missus
Printable View
I agree, BAD news gets more coverage but donating to a charity should be done under the radar. If people only give for the sake of getting noticed, rewarded, tax breaks .. they should not bother!Quote:
Originally Posted by Numpty's Missus
I bet the charities don't see it that way! Especially when it is large sums of money. Surely they are better off with the donations than without them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greylandy
What a negative comment, firstly if you noted in NM's postQuote:
I agree, BAD news gets more coverage but donating to a charity should be done under the radar. If people only give for the sake of getting noticed, rewarded, tax breaks .. they should not bother!
. I also have heard the same sort of comment when Bill Gates was donating millions upon millions to some charity/ medical cause. They were also using Microsoft and there was an underlying attitude that the $$$ should be given with/ without the requirement for using MS products. As BigJon postedQuote:
which is why being busted for drugs gets mentioned but donating a cool million to allergy research does not :angry:
Anyhow the main reason for the post was a) someone at age 42 dies of a heart attack, I'm 39 and just quit the smokes, it makes me think.Then b) just the difference between a well known footballer ( not to everyone) dies of suspected drug OD, the forums light up. A well known ( again not to everyone) business man and philanthropist dies of a sudden heart attack and zip, bar on the news. Just thought interesting,Quote:
I bet the charities don't see it that way! Especially when it is large sums of money. Surely they are better off with the donations than without them.
Regards
Stevo
P.S Hope that is better for you Redback :2up::tease:
Very true, he was capaigning not long ago to get more funding for childrens disease's , 1 of his daughters has a severe food alergy to nuts etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by ak
Crazy John, from what little I saw of him as his business is not represented in this region, was not a self seeking media tart.
I believe his energies went into the business.
There are many other very rich individuals who are publicity shy, and for good reason.
Footballers and the like are in the public gaze, due to their career. People follow 'football' and as a consequence, follow players and are interested in them, for whatever reason. Some players don't overly help themselves either, by seeking 'publicity'.
There are many magazines with vast circulations that pander to an eager, awaiting readership.
(Some) people want sensational gossip - I'm constantly asked to run gossip in the local paper I run, but I don't, which I think disappoints some readers...
GQ
Cant rubbish the footy boys coz I like cricket but ol Warney gets in enough strife he can share some among those that need a top up of there bad things to do list.
Always sad when anyone dies, successful or not, if you smoke you are really playing with fire, you can be fit as a malley bull and die jogging, or you can smoke and drink and live until you are 80 or a bus can get you anytime, you never know when the big fella wants you to join him. Sorry for Crazys family am sure he was a good bloke.
I don't see why my comment was negative. I said: "If people only give for the sake of getting noticed, rewarded, tax breaks .. they should not bother!" (Note the word in bold .. just in case you miss it again!)Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo68
Giving to charity to get free publicity or to flog your products is ... IMHO .. a business transaction and should be referred to as one. Yes, both parties benefit and I don't have a problem with that (insert Bill Gates example) but when people genuinely offer a donation in empathy of another human being or whatever cause, without expecting anyting in return there is no reason why it shouldn't be done anonymously. That is my point.
... and yes Stevo, we did get the main reason of your post ... see my first reply.
Because what you are advocating still means the charities would miss out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greylandy
Agree 100% Jon .. charities will not and should not reject such a donation but when a charity can offer some benefits to the large company donating millions .. is it still a charity donation or does it become a business partnership where both parties benefit?Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon
Going back to my reply to Stevo, if giving is ONLY done to benefit oneself .. my personal view is .. you don't have a charitable heart and should not bother.
Good point ...Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon