Waste? Turns out its not only charities and governments in Africa that misappropriate money

[Scouse]

Help For Heroes' money is being used to build five regional centres for actively serving military personnel rather than being used to help the wounded who've returned from battle.

Harris Tatakis, a former corporal in the Royal Marines, received multiple injuries in an IED blast. He was discharged just over a year ago and tried to get back into his recovery centre in Plymouth after months without treatment, but says he was turned away by the MoD

At least when certain people call for aid for the needy in other countries people who use the excuse "the money doesn't go where it should" can now be told to stfu

/banana republic ON

 

[Raven]

No surprise there.

Charity money collection is usually a scam one way or another. Far too much charity money gets diverted away from the actual cause.

 

[Fweddy]

I was just reading that. I don't understand how they can justify spending £20m refurbishing a stately home.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well it's certainly off, but from the "devils side" which i'll gladly take flack for, it should be considered that there necessarily isn't money for -all- people and ofcourse those people will complain. Turning away people from where the money is spent is ofcourse wrong, but again, they probably don't have the funds to house/help everyone. Money in the bank, ofcourse, but how much of that is kept there for interest and rainy day situations, or running costs and such.

I'm NOT, note it thank you, NOT saying that it's right, but we can't just go "Boo hiss you didn't help everyone" without taking into consideration the possibilities.

That all devils thing said; i think charities of this sort should be just divvied up to the people in need of the particular charity and that's that. Equally and all.

 

[rynnor]

I read the details of this and it doesn't seem a lot to get excited about tbh. The buildings are for the rehab of injured servicemen and thats what the charity is for.

It basically comes down to sour grapes from some people that the money wasn't all spent on them but theres no suggestion that the charity has spent the money other than for its stated purpose so I dont really understand how theres anything to see here?

 

[Mey]

Non story. Charity funds rehabilitation centres for wounded soldiers. Shocking!

 

[Scouse]

I read the details of this and it doesn't seem a lot to get excited about tbh. The buildings are for the rehab of injured servicemen and thats what the charity is for.

Non story. Charity funds rehabilitation centres for wounded soldiers. Shocking!

No. The charity is for the rehabilitation of soldiers once they come out of active service, but money is actually being spent on soldiers ON active service (the MoD's responsibility) and the people the money is supposed to be going to help are DENIED ACCESS.

I'm not a fan of the military - but I am a supporter of people who are being fucked over - and ex-servicemen are being fucked over, and charity supporters are being ripped off.


The charity is being used to cover up a lack of government spending.

 

[old.Tohtori]

The charity is for the rehabilitation of soldiers once they come out of active service, but money is actually being spent on soldiers ON active service (the MoD's responsibility) and the people the money is supposed to be going to help are DENIED ACCESS.

"The centres in Plymouth, Colchester, Catterick, Edinburgh and Tidworth, Wiltshire are part of the government's Defence Recovery Capability, providing training and resources to injured personnel to help them either return to duty or prepare for life outside the armed forces."

I think it's meant for both. On the denied access, there's no official word on why(or i missed it), but it's logical that if they don't have vacancy, people have to wait to get into these facilities.

 

[cHodAX]

Exactly right Scouse, this money is being used to prop up a service that the government should be supporting as it is deals with treatment and support for active personel. It is allowing the government a get out of jail free card on it's duty of care to serving soliders whilst denying money that was donated to help ex-servicemen and women who have no other access to the support they need. It's a fucking disgrace.

 

[rynnor]

No. The charity is for the rehabilitation of soldiers once they come out of active service

Sorry to spoil it as you clearly want to rant but you are factually incorrect in this statement which then ruins the rest of your blurb.

From HfH website "Help for Heroes provides direct, practical support to wounded, injured and sick Service personnel, veterans, and their families."

Note the bolded section - nothing in there about it being for ex-servicemen only.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Thread direction: predictable.

Weirdly funny in a facepalmy way.

 

[mr.Blacky]

Does not really explain the following:
The Help for Heroes flagship project is a recovery centre based as Tedworth House in Tidworth, Wiltshire, a former 18th Century Grade II listed stately home.
Its refurbishment has cost in excess of £20m.

While I think misappropriate is too strong and the stealing of money comparison is over the top (by a mile) the question remains is what is the DoD doing for the veterans? and that part is worth getting pissed of about.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Thread direction: predictable.

Challenge accepted;

We must protect these assets.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

So wait, you think a thread derailment with a half naked picture isn't predictable?

You do know this is FH don't you?

 

[mr.Blacky]

but a pic of some bunnies would be tho

 

[Mey]

No. The charity is for the rehabilitation of soldiers once they come out of active service, but money is actually being spent on soldiers ON active service (the MoD's responsibility) and the people the money is supposed to be going to help are DENIED ACCESS.

I'm not a fan of the military - but I am a supporter of people who are being fucked over - and ex-servicemen are being fucked over, and charity supporters are being ripped off.


The charity is being used to cover up a lack of government spending.

Well no it's not really is it.

Help for Heroes provides direct, practical support to wounded, injured and sick Service personnel, veterans, and their families. This is provided through grants to individuals and other Service charities, capital build projects and support for life at our four Recovery Centres across the UK.

They are pretty clear on what they do.

 

[old.Tohtori]

So wait, you think a thread derailment with a half naked picture isn't predictable?

You do know this is FH don't you?

Aha, but it's not a derailment, it's a half naked picture of a lady on topic

 

[Scouse]

I'm happy to accept that service personnel are rightly some of the recipients of help. No problem with conceding that point as it's a minor issue.

However, looking at your quote:

From HfH website "Help for Heroes provides direct, practical support to wounded, injured and sick Service personnel, veterans, and their families."

Note the bolded section - nothing in there about it being for ex-servicemen only.

The HfH website explicitly includes "veterans and their families" - but they're not getting that help - veterans are being excluded.

Active service personnel are getting it - veterans are not.

Now, we can argue the toss about what the point of the charity is - but ultimately people give money to it in the hope that injured servicemen get the proper help they need for the rest of their lives - not just until they're discharged. If you disagree with that, please state it explicitly.

The argument is being put by the veterans themselves, many of whom actively raise money for HfH.

...

 

[DaGaffer]

The charity is being used to cover up a lack of government spending.

This. I don't particularly blame Help For Heroes, I blame a government that sends troops off to war and then doesn't care to deal with the consequences, but then that's always been the British way. Help For Heroes shouldn't need to exist.

At least when certain people call for aid for the needy in other countries people who use the excuse "the money doesn't go where it should" can now be told to stfu

Sorry, don't follow that logic at all. If anything this just reinforces it.

 

[Scouse]

This. I don't particularly blame Help For Heroes, I blame a government that sends troops off to war and then doesn't care to deal with the consequences, but then that's always been the British way. Help For Heroes shouldn't need to exist.

This.

Sorry, don't follow that logic at all. If anything this just reinforces it.

If giving to charity is the correct course of action in the UK, then it's the correct course of action in Africa/wherever. Unless you're making the argument that giving to charity is ultimately futile, useless and shouldn't be done?

Yes - money gets siphoned off for the wrong thing the world over - but the point I'm making is that it's not an excuse to not to attempt to support the needy through charitable donations...

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well that's mature, spamming me with dislikes

 

[Raven]

I pay an amount to the red cross each month because I think they are one of the few charities that are actually operated properly. Help for heroes should be using the money to campaign for better government provided care, not patching up the shortcomings.

There are too many charities that exist as a business, syphoning X amount off the donations "for operating costs" as per that whole Kony scam, millions raised, what has changed? has the money even been used for anything at all?

 

[Scouse]

Well that's mature, spamming me with dislikes

Please leave this thread then, instead of attempting to derail a thread about a British charity and British soldiers.

Don't post about "how you can post anywhere in here" - just please leave this thread alone. I've asked politely...

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'll politely decline, but i will remember that when you want to talk about anything outside britain

I still think that this is a case of a vocal minority used to twist the story into a bigger one then it actually is. Not all vets are turned at the door and i didn't notice the article saying that -all- active service people gain access 24/7. That would only indicate that there is a screening process, which is needed since space/resources are limited.

 

[Raven]

That's not really the point. The charity is using the money it raises to pay for things that the government should be paying for. If the government want us to fight in a war then they should be expected to look after those that were injured in it. There has never been proper care for returning soldiers, though it is a lot better these days than say 20 years ago.

 

[DaGaffer]

If giving to charity is the correct course of action in the UK, then it's the correct course of action in Africa/wherever. Unless you're making the argument that giving to charity is ultimately futile, useless and shouldn't be done?

Yes - money gets siphoned off for the wrong thing the world over - but the point I'm making is that it's not an excuse to not to attempt to support the needy through charitable donations...

You're oversimplifying for effect; again. What this illustrates is simply that before giving your money to any charity, do your homework. If you feel the charity is i. worth supporting, ii. it is effective, or capable of being effective, and iii. it doesn't conflict with your politics, then give. If it doesn't, don't. Its not rocket science. And since its clearly the NK example you were alluding to in your first post, for me it fails on points ii and iii.

NB. I hate the fact that an economy the size of the UK's needs charities to support many areas of care in the UK itself. As well as Help for Heroes we shouldn't need Barnardos, GoSH, CRUK, McMillan, the NSPCC and a bunch of others.

 

[Scouse]

I don't disagree with much there Gaff. You're also right that I was alluding to NK (but not exclusively - as I've mentioned Africa multiple times) - and, personally, I think for both NK and Africa it's capable of being effective.

The only thing I'd mention is that sometimes you have to step above your politics and help regardless. Sometimes...

 

[old.Tohtori]

That's not really the point. The charity is using the money it raises to pay for things that the government should be paying for. If the government want us to fight in a war then they should be expected to look after those that were injured in it. There has never been proper care for returning soldiers, though it is a lot better these days than say 20 years ago.

True, they should, but where they fail(due to whatever reason), charities can help and as far as i see, this charity does just that. It's even in the description, help for both.

That's why i think the news a bit twisted to make it meet the shock value quota, where you take a few examples and make it sound like full on discrimination.

 

[rynnor]

NB. I hate the fact that an economy the size of the UK's needs charities to support many areas of care in the UK itself. As well as Help for Heroes we shouldn't need Barnardos, GoSH, CRUK, McMillan, the NSPCC and a bunch of others.

I'm not sure we really do need all of these but thats a whole other arguement.