I thought till today that, out of all the charitable organisations, The Salvation Army was the one that could be most trusted to do the right thing.
But having heard the revelations at the Royal Commission, that delusion is now gone. They can't be trusted with children or disabled people.
So who can you trust? Here is my list of untrustworthies:
Salvos
Catholic Church
Anglican Church
Red Cross
Uniting Church
DOCS

Who is able to be trusted?

Ummmmm ... hasn't this been posted before? ::)

My grandma was in a Salvation Army girls home and suffered the abuse talked about at the Royal Commission (she developed dementia in the mid 90s and died in 2006). It severely damaged her life and had an impact on her children and grandchildren.

It used to annoy me when I was younger that people saw the Salvos as different to all the other organisations when the abuse issues started becoming known. What was worse was when I would actually relay what I knew and people would have the gall to dispute me because the "Salvos are good people and a reputable organisation". These weren't people who were part of the Salvos, just sucked in by their reputation.

I'm glad that delusion has now broken down.

Gnads wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 1:23pm:

Ummmmm ... hasn't this been posted before? ::)

;D ;D ;D

What hasn't been posted before?

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 1:30pm:

Gnads wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 1:23pm: Ummmmm ... hasn't this been posted before? ::) ;D ;D ;D What hasn't been posted before?

Herb it looks word for word the same as has been posted just recently.

It take it the author is the same.... so why wasn't the first thread enough?

I haven't posted this before. You're mistaken.

I don't know who you can trust, but add ADF and Scouting to those that can't be trusted to look after young people.

Salvos act like gods gift.. Pride comes before what??

Gnads wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 1:34pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 1:30pm: Gnads wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 1:23pm: Ummmmm ... hasn't this been posted before? ::) ;D ;D ;D What hasn't been posted before? Herb it looks word for word the same as has been posted just recently. It take it the author is the same.... so why wasn't the first thread enough?

Because we were all dozing when it was first posted.

I think the Salvation Army franchise should be sold to McDonalds. All assistance would come with a side-order of French fries.  :P

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 1:55pm:

Salvos act like gods gift.. Pride comes before what??

It's god's army isn't it? What the hell would a god need an army for anyway? snake oil salesmen.......

Actually they do some good works, for the homeless, just don't let these organisations near kids or the handicapped.

Only a moron throws the baby out with the bath water.

I’d say there are more people in these organizations that do more good than bad.

Honestly, some of you people are going to be in for a big surprise when everyone gets back to the fact that more abuse happens in the home, by people known to the family, than happens else where.

Actually they do some good works, for the homeless, just don't let these organisations near kids or the handicapped.

I'm sure they do Pansi, just as I know there are rotten apples everywhere.
But it's one thing to have rotten apples, it's another thing to employ pedantics to attempt to argue it away.
I would have thought a truly devoted organisation would not lend itself to legal word games, it would just come out and beg forgiveness for the wrongs done in its name.

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 2:19pm:

Actually they do some good works, for the homeless, just don't let these organisations near kids or the handicapped. I'm sure they do Pansi, just as I know there are rotten apples everywhere. But it's one thing to have rotten apples, it's another thing to employ pedantics to attempt to argue it away. I would have thought a truly devoted organisation would not lend itself to legal word games, it would just come out and beg forgiveness for the wrongs done in its name.

Yes, you'd think so, wouldn't you, with the way they portray themselves?

The behaviour surrounding the child sex abuse scandals has just confirmed that these organisations are about control and money, not about actually doing any good.

Aside from the legal wrangling, the fact that many (if not all) of these organisations had policies of covering up the abuse and protecting the perpetrators dispels any idea that they actually care about humanity.

::)

People trust people, not organisations.

Schu wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 2:23pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 2:19pm: Actually they do some good works, for the homeless, just don't let these organisations near kids or the handicapped. I'm sure they do Pansi, just as I know there are rotten apples everywhere. But it's one thing to have rotten apples, it's another thing to employ pedantics to attempt to argue it away. I would have thought a truly devoted organisation would not lend itself to legal word games, it would just come out and beg forgiveness for the wrongs done in its name. Yes, you'd think so, wouldn't you, with the way they portray themselves? The behaviour surrounding the child sex abuse scandals has just confirmed that these organisations are about control and money, not about actually doing any good. Aside from the legal wrangling, the fact that many (if not all) of these organisations had policies of covering up the abuse and protecting the perpetrators dispels any idea that they actually care about humanity.

Myopic, obtuse....take your pick... ::)

King FriYAY II wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 2:31pm:

Schu wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 2:23pm: bogarde73 wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 2:19pm: Actually they do some good works, for the homeless, just don't let these organisations near kids or the handicapped. I'm sure they do Pansi, just as I know there are rotten apples everywhere. But it's one thing to have rotten apples, it's another thing to employ pedantics to attempt to argue it away. I would have thought a truly devoted organisation would not lend itself to legal word games, it would just come out and beg forgiveness for the wrongs done in its name. Yes, you'd think so, wouldn't you, with the way they portray themselves? The behaviour surrounding the child sex abuse scandals has just confirmed that these organisations are about control and money, not about actually doing any good. Aside from the legal wrangling, the fact that many (if not all) of these organisations had policies of covering up the abuse and protecting the perpetrators dispels any idea that they actually care about humanity. Myopic, obtuse....take your pick... ::)

Do you mean me or the organisations?

Schu wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 2:45pm:

King FriYAY II wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 2:31pm: Schu wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 2:23pm: bogarde73 wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 2:19pm: Actually they do some good works, for the homeless, just don't let these organisations near kids or the handicapped. I'm sure they do Pansi, just as I know there are rotten apples everywhere. But it's one thing to have rotten apples, it's another thing to employ pedantics to attempt to argue it away. I would have thought a truly devoted organisation would not lend itself to legal word games, it would just come out and beg forgiveness for the wrongs done in its name. Yes, you'd think so, wouldn't you, with the way they portray themselves? The behaviour surrounding the child sex abuse scandals has just confirmed that these organisations are about control and money, not about actually doing any good. Aside from the legal wrangling, the fact that many (if not all) of these organisations had policies of covering up the abuse and protecting the perpetrators dispels any idea that they actually care about humanity. Myopic, obtuse....take your pick... ::) Do you mean me or the organisations?

I'd say the organisations are more disgraceful...

;)

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 2:00pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 1:55pm: Salvos act like gods gift.. Pride comes before what?? It's god's army isn't it? What the hell would a god need an army for anyway? snake oil salesmen....... Actually they do some good works, for the homeless, just don't let these organisations near kids or the handicapped.

Treat centreline clients worse than crap: how much moolah do they get for that?

Those providers can be bad but the salvos are just shonky with dumb women you can't talk to running 'em!

Schu wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 1:23pm:

My grandma was in a Salvation Army girls home and suffered the abuse talked about at the Royal Commission (she developed dementia in the mid 90s and died in 2006). It severely damaged her life and had an impact on her children and grandchildren. It used to annoy me when I was younger that people saw the Salvos as different to all the other organisations when the abuse issues started becoming known. What was worse was when I would actually relay what I knew and people would have the gall to dispute me because the "Salvos are good people and a reputable organisation". These weren't people who were part of the Salvos, just sucked in by their reputation. I'm glad that delusion has now broken down.

so sorry to read that Schu.. I do hope somewhere her family are getting some comfort to know its now out there with all its horror...

its been unbelievable reading about this and I am sure we are only getting small pieces.. maybe the whole Royal will be published.. these people need to know they have at last been listened too...

and anyone that has b een a part of any child abuse will be exposed no matter how long it takes.

I made up my mind I will not donate to the Salvos ever again..not my style as a rule, but I cannot accept there was any excuse any excuse whatever for this...to call themselves people of god..and to turn a blind eye, is despicable

King FriYAY II wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 2:13pm:

Only a nice person throws the baby out with the bath water. I’d say there are more people in these organizations that do more good than bad. Honestly, some of you people are going to be in for a big surprise when everyone gets back to the fact that more abuse happens in the home, by people known to the family, than happens else where.

Of course that has to be true as groups of people are wary of who they affiliate with whereas family is random...

Schu wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 2:23pm:

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 2:19pm: Actually they do some good works, for the homeless, just don't let these organisations near kids or the handicapped. I'm sure they do Pansi, just as I know there are rotten apples everywhere. But it's one thing to have rotten apples, it's another thing to employ pedantics to attempt to argue it away. I would have thought a truly devoted organisation would not lend itself to legal word games, it would just come out and beg forgiveness for the wrongs done in its name. Yes, you'd think so, wouldn't you, with the way they portray themselves? The behaviour surrounding the child sex abuse scandals has just confirmed that these organisations are about control and money, not about actually doing any good. Aside from the legal wrangling, the fact that many (if not all) of these organisations had policies of covering up the abuse and protecting the perpetrators dispels any idea that they actually care about humanity.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/15/salvation-army-officer-not-all-who-sexually-abuse-children-are-paedophiles 

... wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 2:23pm:

::) People trust people, not organisations.

disagree..

put on a uniform.. bang a drum.. telling everyone you are a soldier of the lord...

what do you expect anyone to think when they meet you dressed in the uniform of the army??...

if someone was putting you in a salvation army run home today...

would you go willingly knowing what you know now?....

In most of these organisations they are guilty of no more than naivete and bad judgment. Up until relatively recently child sexual abuse was on no ones agenda at all.  Society not only didn't talk about it but in many ways even accepted it as 'inevitable'.   Haven't you yet worked out that perhaps the salvos and the scouts and the churches etc were TARGETED by paedos simply because that gave them access to children? The naivete was to not recognise this and of course the faillure to address it is another.

What we are seeing though is that pedos target any group that gives them access to children.  TV and media have come under scrutiny recently as well and there is no organisation that works with kids that HASNT had this problem. Now however, people are aware and what you may have noticed is that in most of these organisations the cases of abuse are decades old. The problem has been seen, identified and largely rectified. But the list of victims is not yet  dealt with.

everyone has been targeted. It would be foolish to label any group as 'pedo-friendly' without recnignising that they too were targets.

King FriYAY II wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 3:46pm:

Schu wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 2:45pm: King FriYAY II wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 2:31pm: Schu wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 2:23pm: bogarde73 wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 2:19pm: Actually they do some good works, for the homeless, just don't let these organisations near kids or the handicapped. I'm sure they do Pansi, just as I know there are rotten apples everywhere. But it's one thing to have rotten apples, it's another thing to employ pedantics to attempt to argue it away. I would have thought a truly devoted organisation would not lend itself to legal word games, it would just come out and beg forgiveness for the wrongs done in its name. Yes, you'd think so, wouldn't you, with the way they portray themselves? The behaviour surrounding the child sex abuse scandals has just confirmed that these organisations are about control and money, not about actually doing any good. Aside from the legal wrangling, the fact that many (if not all) of these organisations had policies of covering up the abuse and protecting the perpetrators dispels any idea that they actually care about humanity. Myopic, obtuse....take your pick... ::) Do you mean me or the organisations? I'd say the organisations are more disgraceful... ;)

I'd agree with that. ;)

I can't dismiss the behaviour as just myopic or obtuse. These are organisations that promote the sanctity of children and monogamous relationships, yet they dispensed with those principles when it suited. I think it was all nothing more than a deliberate tactic to avoid losing any power.

These organisations draw their power from the number of people who identify as part of them. I agree that a proportion of the people who are part of religious organisations are good people, because in my experience a proportion of the world are good people. If those people come to know about abhorrent practices they won't stand for it and then the organisation loses some of its support base from which it draws its power.

There is another component to that, which is that the people in support have to be controlled so that when they do find out about matters like the covering up of sexual abuse they don't question it.

I find it hard to state that a person is a good person, though, if they had knowledge and turned a blind eye because then they are indirectly contributing to the problem by being part of the base of supporters from which the organisation draws its power that enables it to continue with its atrocities. Even if you don't stand up to what's happening, you can still walk away.

cods wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 4:01pm:

Schu wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 1:23pm: My grandma was in a Salvation Army girls home and suffered the abuse talked about at the Royal Commission (she developed dementia in the mid 90s and died in 2006). It severely damaged her life and had an impact on her children and grandchildren. It used to annoy me when I was younger that people saw the Salvos as different to all the other organisations when the abuse issues started becoming known. What was worse was when I would actually relay what I knew and people would have the gall to dispute me because the "Salvos are good people and a reputable organisation". These weren't people who were part of the Salvos, just sucked in by their reputation. I'm glad that delusion has now broken down. so sorry to read that Schu.. I do hope somewhere her family are getting some comfort to know its now out there with all its horror... its been unbelievable reading about this and I am sure we are only getting small pieces.. maybe the whole Royal will be published.. these people need to know they have at last been listened too... and anyone that has b een a part of any child abuse will be exposed no matter how long it takes. I made up my mind I will not donate to the Salvos ever again..not my style as a rule, but I cannot accept there was any excuse any excuse whatever for this...to call themselves people of god..and to turn a blind eye, is despicable

Thanks. And yes, it does bring a sense of justice to know that the Salvos have been exposed as no different to the other organisations because that was what always frustrated me.

When I used to tackle every Salvos person who asked me for donations, every one of them told me I was wrong and, in some cases, crazy to think that (and inevitably used the fact that while other organisations had been exposed nothing had come out about them so they had to be in the clear). I wonder if any of those people remember our encounters and feel ashamed. I hope so.

I still tackle them. Now they don't challenge me at all.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 4:03pm:

Schu wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 2:23pm: Yes, you'd think so, wouldn't you, with the way they portray themselves? The behaviour surrounding the child sex abuse scandals has just confirmed that these organisations are about control and money, not about actually doing any good. Aside from the legal wrangling, the fact that many (if not all) of these organisations had policies of covering up the abuse and protecting the perpetrators dispels any idea that they actually care about humanity. Link

That link isn't working for me.

Schu wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 4:57pm:

cods wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 4:01pm: Schu wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 1:23pm: My grandma was in a Salvation Army girls home and suffered the abuse talked about at the Royal Commission (she developed dementia in the mid 90s and died in 2006). It severely damaged her life and had an impact on her children and grandchildren. It used to annoy me when I was younger that people saw the Salvos as different to all the other organisations when the abuse issues started becoming known. What was worse was when I would actually relay what I knew and people would have the gall to dispute me because the "Salvos are good people and a reputable organisation". These weren't people who were part of the Salvos, just sucked in by their reputation. I'm glad that delusion has now broken down. so sorry to read that Schu.. I do hope somewhere her family are getting some comfort to know its now out there with all its horror... its been unbelievable reading about this and I am sure we are only getting small pieces.. maybe the whole Royal will be published.. these people need to know they have at last been listened too... and anyone that has b een a part of any child abuse will be exposed no matter how long it takes. I made up my mind I will not donate to the Salvos ever again..not my style as a rule, but I cannot accept there was any excuse any excuse whatever for this...to call themselves people of god..and to turn a blind eye, is despicable Thanks. And yes, it does bring a sense of justice to know that the Salvos have been exposed as no different to the other organisations because that was what always frustrated me. When I used to tackle every Salvos person who asked me for donations, every one of them told me I was wrong and, in some cases, crazy to think that (and inevitably used the fact that while other organisations had been exposed nothing had come out about them so they had to be in the clear). I wonder if any of those people remember our encounters and feel ashamed. I hope so. I still tackle them. Now they don't challenge me at all.

and I guess you don't give them money to help endangered and poor families. right? Does that help you feel morally superior?

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 5:08pm:

Schu wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 4:57pm: Thanks. And yes, it does bring a sense of justice to know that the Salvos have been exposed as no different to the other organisations because that was what always frustrated me. When I used to tackle every Salvos person who asked me for donations, every one of them told me I was wrong and, in some cases, crazy to think that (and inevitably used the fact that while other organisations had been exposed nothing had come out about them so they had to be in the clear). I wonder if any of those people remember our encounters and feel ashamed. I hope so. I still tackle them. Now they don't challenge me at all. and I guess you don't give them money to help endangered and poor families. right? Does that help you feel morally superior?

It's got nothing to do with moral superiority.

It has to do with not giving money to organisations that are dishonest and untrustworthy and that use at least a proportion of that money to further their own power structure not so they can more effectively help people but so they can more effectively further their own ends.

If someone asks me for money I expect them to be able to answer my questions and challenges to them.

When these organisations properly clean themselves up and can demonstrate that they actually place their principles of helping people about their own ends I will reconsider my position. At the moment if I was to give them money I would be contributing to the perpetration of possible crimes and their cover-up. I do not want my money used to build homes for children where they may well end up abused.

Schu wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 5:16pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 5:08pm: Schu wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 4:57pm: Thanks. And yes, it does bring a sense of justice to know that the Salvos have been exposed as no different to the other organisations because that was what always frustrated me. When I used to tackle every Salvos person who asked me for donations, every one of them told me I was wrong and, in some cases, crazy to think that (and inevitably used the fact that while other organisations had been exposed nothing had come out about them so they had to be in the clear). I wonder if any of those people remember our encounters and feel ashamed. I hope so. I still tackle them. Now they don't challenge me at all. and I guess you don't give them money to help endangered and poor families. right? Does that help you feel morally superior? It's got nothing to do with moral superiority. It has to do with not giving money to organisations that are dishonest and untrustworthy and that use at least a proportion of that money to further their own power structure not so they can more effectively help people but so they can more effectively further their own ends. If someone asks me for money I expect them to be able to answer my questions and challenges to them. When these organisations properly clean themselves up and can demonstrate that they actually place their principles of helping people about their own ends I will reconsider my position. At the moment if I was to give them money I would be contributing to the perpetration of possible crimes and their cover-up. I do not want my money used to build homes for children where they may well end up abused.

there are no childrens homes anymore and haven't been for decades. Ive hear these arguments all before and you are nothing new.  You just don't want to give and this is what you think is a nice convenient excuse.

Heard it all from bentnail about church groups 'only' passing on 95% of donations and using 5% in overhead while ignoring non-church groups that take 50%.

Heard it all before and it is always invariably lame. But the 'building childrens homes' is at least a new - if still fallacious - excuse.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 5:39pm:

Schu wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 5:16pm: It's got nothing to do with moral superiority. It has to do with not giving money to organisations that are dishonest and untrustworthy and that use at least a proportion of that money to further their own power structure not so they can more effectively help people but so they can more effectively further their own ends. If someone asks me for money I expect them to be able to answer my questions and challenges to them. When these organisations properly clean themselves up and can demonstrate that they actually place their principles of helping people about their own ends I will reconsider my position. At the moment if I was to give them money I would be contributing to the perpetration of possible crimes and their cover-up. I do not want my money used to build homes for children where they may well end up abused. there are no childrens homes anymore and haven't been for decades. Ive hear these arguments all before and you are nothing new.  You just don't want to give and this is what you think is a nice convenient excuse. Heard it all from bentnail about church groups 'only' passing on 95% of donations and using 5% in overhead while ignoring non-church groups that take 50%. Heard it all before and it is always invariably lame. But the 'building childrens homes' is at least a new - if still fallacious - excuse.

You know nothing of how much I give of my resources to help others, so it's rather presumptuous of you to suggest that this is merely an excuse not to give. But nice way to attempt to shame me.

Moreover, I apply the same rigorous checks to any organisation that asks me for money. It baffles me that charities of any sort expect donations without often being willing to explain themselves. Reputation, as we now know, is quite often an illusion.

As for the comment about children's homes, whilst I might have expressed it inaccurately, it is not an inaccurate point. The Salvos do provide shelters for women and children and in those shelters there are times when the women leave the children in the care of the workers. Now if the Salvos had come clean about their abuse instead of trying to cover it up and only begrudging accept the bare minimum of responsibility when required to I would have had faith that they would take any and all measures in the future to prevent other harm. But they didn't so I have no confidence in them doing the right thing now.

I treat all organisations the same way. It just so happens that I knew about the Salvos before it was in the public domain and while many others were under the illusion they were different. When an organisation has nothing to hide they are very forthcoming about their practices and they can demonstrate what they have done when an individual has done the wrong thing.

There are plenty of non-denominational organisations around that do just the same work as the denominational ones without the same proportion of money being siphoned off to further the denomination itself. It is also the case that when people are out to do the wrong thing they tend to gravitate to environments where they will be protected and that culture still exists with denominational organisations. There are plenty of independent womens' shelters and homeless shelters, international aid organisations and counselling services.

Conservatives are livid over being shamed by the comments of Thatcher about there being no such thing as society!

That is why they get their back up as often as they can  ;D

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 5:39pm:

Schu wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 5:16pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 5:08pm: Schu wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 4:57pm: Thanks. And yes, it does bring a sense of justice to know that the Salvos have been exposed as no different to the other organisations because that was what always frustrated me. When I used to tackle every Salvos person who asked me for donations, every one of them told me I was wrong and, in some cases, crazy to think that (and inevitably used the fact that while other organisations had been exposed nothing had come out about them so they had to be in the clear). I wonder if any of those people remember our encounters and feel ashamed. I hope so. I still tackle them. Now they don't challenge me at all. and I guess you don't give them money to help endangered and poor families. right? Does that help you feel morally superior? It's got nothing to do with moral superiority. It has to do with not giving money to organisations that are dishonest and untrustworthy and that use at least a proportion of that money to further their own power structure not so they can more effectively help people but so they can more effectively further their own ends. If someone asks me for money I expect them to be able to answer my questions and challenges to them. When these organisations properly clean themselves up and can demonstrate that they actually place their principles of helping people about their own ends I will reconsider my position. At the moment if I was to give them money I would be contributing to the perpetration of possible crimes and their cover-up. I do not want my money used to build homes for children where they may well end up abused. there are no childrens homes anymore and haven't been for decades. Ive hear these arguments all before and you are nothing new.  You just don't want to give and this is what you think is a nice convenient excuse. Heard it all from bentnail about church groups 'only' passing on 95% of donations and using 5% in overhead while ignoring non-church groups that take 50%. Heard it all before and it is always invariably lame. But the 'building childrens homes' is at least a new - if still fallacious - excuse.

what gives you the right to b e so judgemental
longy?  I find those comments in very bad taste..

does the fact his grandmother suffered at their hands which in turn affected her children...have nothing to do with anything.??

its like your support for paedophiles they have done their sentence... they should be allowed to roam free salvitating at children without any parent being aware of the danger..

you dont have to be in a childrens home to be abused...

if these so called charities turn a blind eye to what went on.. they will turn a blind eye if it goes on behind their church.

why condemn every religion bar this one...they were after all run by men...and nothing has changed in this day and age.. except they now know we are on to them...

good on you schu..I am with you.. ignore those who think they have a clue what you nan went through.. with hundreds like her..and should just move on.. its history after all..yeah right. >:(

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 6:08pm:

Conservatives are livid over being shamed by the comments of Thatcher about there being no such thing as society! That is why they get their back up as often as they can  ;D

so you are ok with child abuse... good to know.

Schu wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 6:02pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 5:39pm: Schu wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 5:16pm: It's got nothing to do with moral superiority. It has to do with not giving money to organisations that are dishonest and untrustworthy and that use at least a proportion of that money to further their own power structure not so they can more effectively help people but so they can more effectively further their own ends. If someone asks me for money I expect them to be able to answer my questions and challenges to them. When these organisations properly clean themselves up and can demonstrate that they actually place their principles of helping people about their own ends I will reconsider my position. At the moment if I was to give them money I would be contributing to the perpetration of possible crimes and their cover-up. I do not want my money used to build homes for children where they may well end up abused. there are no childrens homes anymore and haven't been for decades. Ive hear these arguments all before and you are nothing new.  You just don't want to give and this is what you think is a nice convenient excuse. Heard it all from bentnail about church groups 'only' passing on 95% of donations and using 5% in overhead while ignoring non-church groups that take 50%. Heard it all before and it is always invariably lame. But the 'building childrens homes' is at least a new - if still fallacious - excuse. You know nothing of how much I give of my resources to help others, so it's rather presumptuous of you to suggest that this is merely an excuse not to give. But nice way to attempt to shame me. Moreover, I apply the same rigorous checks to any organisation that asks me for money. It baffles me that charities of any sort expect donations without often being willing to explain themselves. Reputation, as we now know, is quite often an illusion. As for the comment about children's homes, whilst I might have expressed it inaccurately, it is not an inaccurate point. The Salvos do provide shelters for women and children and in those shelters there are times when the women leave the children in the care of the workers. Now if the Salvos had come clean about their abuse instead of trying to cover it up and only begrudging accept the bare minimum of responsibility when required to I would have had faith that they would take any and all measures in the future to prevent other harm. But they didn't so I have no confidence in them doing the right thing now. I treat all organisations the same way. It just so happens that I knew about the Salvos before it was in the public domain and while many others were under the illusion they were different. When an organisation has nothing to hide they are very forthcoming about their practices and they can demonstrate what they have done when an individual has done the wrong thing. There are plenty of non-denominational organisations around that do just the same work as the denominational ones without the same proportion of money being siphoned off to further the denomination itself. It is also the case that when people are out to do the wrong thing they tend to gravitate to environments where they will be protected and that culture still exists with denominational organisations. There are plenty of independent womens' shelters and homeless shelters, international aid organisations and counselling services.

I will still go with my original observation. I've heard it all before and when pushed the answer is almost always the same "I don't give at all or very sparingly".

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 1:15pm:

I thought till today that, out of all the charitable organisations, The Salvation Army was the one that could be most trusted to do the right thing. But having heard the revelations at the Royal Commission, that delusion is now gone. They can't be trusted with children or disabled people. So who can you trust? Here is my list of untrustworthies: Salvos Catholic Church Anglican Church Red Cross Uniting Church DOCS Who is able to be trusted?

they sould like they're all part of that christian family that longstpidone claims are so charitable ....

good thing none of those evil atheists aren't mentioned, we all know how uncaring they all are.  ;D ;D

All organisations are under the spotlight these days of instant communication, instant revelations and instant identification.

One of the good things to come out of the Internet is the ability to reveal the scumbags for what they are.

There are a lot of really good people in most of those organisations named now the dirty ones can be weeded out quickly, unlike the 'old days' of hidden secrets.

bump

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 6:58pm:

I will still go with my original observation. I've heard it all before and when pushed the answer is almost always the same "I don't give at all or very sparingly".

Righteo.

About five years ago I made the decision that direct donations to charities were not the best way to go and I made some changes to certain elements of my life instead.

I buy as much Fairtrade and locally produced items that I can. This extends to food, clothing, kitchen utensils, bathroom and cleaning products. I don't just trust what I am told; I research a fair bit to check out the companies and suppliers. A lot of my fruit and vegetables are bought direct from markets.

I have volunteered my time with three organisations including one to do with children and two women's groups. I also volunteer my professional capabilities to various projects related to women's issues and humanitarian causes. I have on three prior occasions allowed women escaping domestic violence to stay with me when there was no room at shelters and I have provided for them and their children. 

In the last financial ear my direct financial donations to three organisations totalled approximately 10% of my income. That is without, obviously, me factoring in my time.

Schu wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 7:26pm:

About five years ago I made the decision that direct donations to charities were not the best way to go

good choice .... once you donate and they get your name all they do is hound  you

I make it a point to never donate to anyone that calls me. No matter how worthwhile the cause ... it just encourages them

John Smith wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 7:29pm:

Schu wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 7:26pm: About five years ago I made the decision that direct donations to charities were not the best way to go good choice .... once you donate and they get your name all they do is hound  you I make it a point to never donate to anyone that calls me. No matter how worthwhile the cause ... it just encourages them

I totally understand that. I was the same until I discovered the joys of the Do Not Call Register. The worst of it is that the information is collated and shared (see below). So donate to one and several more suddenly start calling.

My mother gets dozens of letters and phone calls a week and no matter how many times she says she'll donate when she has the extra funds they continue to hound her.

In most cases the people calling have nothing to do with the organisation itself, but are a separate fundraising group which handle the donation gathering for a number of organisations. I appreciate that this has been proven to be the most cost-efficient and effective way of raising funds, but I think they need to improve their systems significantly and stop using information they have about a person donating to one charity to determine who they call about another.

I also don't like the way some of them prey on vulnerable people. My other grandmother was old, lonely, quite senile, well off and ridiculously generous. She was an easy target and when she was moved into a nursing home we discovered that she was donating almost half her income to charity, some of which were not ones she would have supported if she'd understood what was happening.

Schu wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 7:26pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 6:58pm: I will still go with my original observation. I've heard it all before and when pushed the answer is almost always the same "I don't give at all or very sparingly". Righteo. About five years ago I made the decision that direct donations to charities were not the best way to go and I made some changes to certain elements of my life instead. I buy as much Fairtrade and locally produced items that I can. This extends to food, clothing, kitchen utensils, bathroom and cleaning products. I don't just trust what I am told; I research a fair bit to check out the companies and suppliers. A lot of my fruit and vegetables are bought direct from markets. I have volunteered my time with three organisations including one to do with children and two women's groups. I also volunteer my professional capabilities to various projects related to women's issues and humanitarian causes. I have on three prior occasions allowed women escaping domestic violence to stay with me when there was no room at shelters and I have provided for them and their children.  In the last financial ear my direct financial donations to three organisations totalled approximately 10% of my income. That is without, obviously, me factoring in my time.

I dont think you need to tell all and sundry what you do or whom you give too.. its no ones business but yours...you have a justifiable  reason to be dead set against the salvos... until someone walks in your shoes they have no right to question you.... thats how I see it...

have an opinion on the subject by all means but to claim someone use this as AN EXCUSE not to donate at all..

is bloody pathetic..

like anything to do with child abuse... there is not excuse there nev er will be..even less so.. for those who were entrusted with child care...an d abused that TRUST  instead...there is no excuse...none whatever...if schu never put his hand in his pocket again for anyone I would not blame him..

your observations count for nothing longy >:(

cods wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 8:14pm:

Schu wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 7:26pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 6:58pm: I will still go with my original observation. I've heard it all before and when pushed the answer is almost always the same "I don't give at all or very sparingly". Righteo. About five years ago I made the decision that direct donations to charities were not the best way to go and I made some changes to certain elements of my life instead. I buy as much Fairtrade and locally produced items that I can. This extends to food, clothing, kitchen utensils, bathroom and cleaning products. I don't just trust what I am told; I research a fair bit to check out the companies and suppliers. A lot of my fruit and vegetables are bought direct from markets. I have volunteered my time with three organisations including one to do with children and two women's groups. I also volunteer my professional capabilities to various projects related to women's issues and humanitarian causes. I have on three prior occasions allowed women escaping domestic violence to stay with me when there was no room at shelters and I have provided for them and their children.  In the last financial ear my direct financial donations to three organisations totalled approximately 10% of my income. That is without, obviously, me factoring in my time. I dont think you need to tell all and sundry what you do or whom you give too.. its no ones business but yours...you have a justifiable  reason to be dead set against the salvos... until someone walks in your shoes they have no right to question you.... thats how I see it... have an opinion on the subject by all means but to claim someone use this as AN EXCUSE not to donate at all.. is bloody pathetic.. like anything to do with child abuse... there is not excuse there nev er will be..even less so.. for those who were entrusted with child care...an d abused that TRUST  instead...there is no excuse...none whatever...if schu never put his hand in his pocket again for anyone I would not blame him.. your observations count for nothing longy >:(

I always find it really frustrating when people make judgements about someone online that they don't know, especially when that is based on sweeping generalisations.

If the person doesn't respond it stands unrefuted, but if they do there's no way to prove it anyway.

You're right, there's no reason for me to feel a need to justify myself, and I appreciate you saying it, but at the same time I wanted to shed light on the fact that these sorts of individual judgement and sweeping statements are often wrong and made in total ignorance.

EDIT: quoted myself instead of editing my original post.

Schu wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 9:12pm:

I always find it really frustrating when people make judgements about someone online that they don't know, especially when that is based on sweeping generalisations. If the person doesn't respond it stands unrefuted, but if they do there's no way to prove it anyway. You're right, there's no reason for me to feel a need to justify myself, and I appreciate you saying it, but at the same time I wanted to shed light on the fact that these sorts of individual judgement and sweeping statements are often wrong and made in total ignorance.

You're right. And (interestingly) with your antagonist on this thread (while unconcerned about coming to swift unjustifiable conclusions about your motivation) is concerned about 'not being fully quoted' (i.e. including his vacuous and acerbic comments, which by the way can still be accessed within the thread) because, anything less is 'dishonest' (see http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1396315783/553#553).

What is dishonest and vindictive, is cynicism for its own sake, or, in his case with you, an opportunity to abuse your honesty by spitting acid in your face.

cods wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 4:06pm:

... wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 2:23pm: ::) People trust people, not organisations. disagree.. put on a uniform.. bang a drum.. telling everyone you are a soldier of the lord... what do you expect anyone to think when they meet you dressed in the uniform of the army??... if someone was putting you in a salvation army run home today... would you go willingly knowing what you know now?....

Dafuq?  Why would a 33 year old be put in a home?  There aren't even any homes to put me in if they wanted to. 

Schu wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 7:59pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 7:29pm: Schu wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 7:26pm: About five years ago I made the decision that direct donations to charities were not the best way to go good choice .... once you donate and they get your name all they do is hound  you I make it a point to never donate to anyone that calls me. No matter how worthwhile the cause ... it just encourages them I totally understand that. I was the same until I discovered the joys of the Do Not Call Register. The worst of it is that the information is collated and shared (see below). So donate to one and several more suddenly start calling. My mother gets dozens of letters and phone calls a week and no matter how many times she says she'll donate when she has the extra funds they continue to hound her. In most cases the people calling have nothing to do with the organisation itself, but are a separate fundraising group which handle the donation gathering for a number of organisations. I appreciate that this has been proven to be the most cost-efficient and effective way of raising funds, but I think they need to improve their systems significantly and stop using information they have about a person donating to one charity to determine who they call about another. I also don't like the way some of them prey on vulnerable people. My other grandmother was old, lonely, quite senile, well off and ridiculously generous. She was an easy target and when she was moved into a nursing home we discovered that she was donating almost half her income to charity, some of which were not ones she would have supported if she'd understood what was happening.

Unfortunately, I run my business from home so the do not call register doesn't apply. Whenever I donate I always make it a point to tell them that if they start calling me, I stop donating .

I even had an occassion once when some girl on the streets in Noosa was collecting for World Wildlife Fund, and I pulled out some money but she refused to take it .... she said she could only accept a 'subscription' type thing where they withdraw a pre determined amount automatically every month, she wanted me to sign an authority to direct debit my account  .... I laughed at her and walked away with my cash.

I don't understand how a charity can refuse cash ....

... wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 8:10am:

cods wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 4:06pm: ... wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 2:23pm: ::) People trust people, not organisations. disagree.. put on a uniform.. bang a drum.. telling everyone you are a soldier of the lord... what do you expect anyone to think when they meet you dressed in the uniform of the army??... if someone was putting you in a salvation army run home today... would you go willingly knowing what you know now?.... Dafuq?  Why would a 33 year old be put in a home?  There aren't even any homes to put me in if they wanted to.

so someone sees the funny side of child abuse.... >:( takes all kinds.

cods wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 8:51am:

... wrote on Apr 16th, 2014 at 8:10am: cods wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 4:06pm: ... wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 2:23pm: ::) People trust people, not organisations. disagree.. put on a uniform.. bang a drum.. telling everyone you are a soldier of the lord... what do you expect anyone to think when they meet you dressed in the uniform of the army??... if someone was putting you in a salvation army run home today... would you go willingly knowing what you know now?.... Dafuq?  Why would a 33 year old be put in a home?  There aren't even any homes to put me in if they wanted to.  so someone sees the funny side of child abuse.... >:( takes all kinds.

You just get weirder and weirder.

Schu wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 7:26pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 6:58pm: I will still go with my original observation. I've heard it all before and when pushed the answer is almost always the same "I don't give at all or very sparingly". Righteo. About five years ago I made the decision that direct donations to charities were not the best way to go and I made some changes to certain elements of my life instead. I buy as much Fairtrade and locally produced items that I can. This extends to food, clothing, kitchen utensils, bathroom and cleaning products. I don't just trust what I am told; I research a fair bit to check out the companies and suppliers. A lot of my fruit and vegetables are bought direct from markets. I have volunteered my time with three organisations including one to do with children and two women's groups. I also volunteer my professional capabilities to various projects related to women's issues and humanitarian causes. I have on three prior occasions allowed women escaping domestic violence to stay with me when there was no room at shelters and I have provided for them and their children.  In the last financial ear my direct financial donations to three organisations totalled approximately 10% of my income. That is without, obviously, me factoring in my time.

well done. you are however, the exception to the rule. Most people who say what you originally said, give nothing and I am sure you are as aware of that as me.

John Smith wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 7:29pm:

Schu wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 7:26pm: About five years ago I made the decision that direct donations to charities were not the best way to go good choice .... once you donate and they get your name all they do is hound  you I make it a point to never donate to anyone that calls me. No matter how worthwhile the cause ... it just encourages them

and just in time, there is the case in point Schu!

Schu wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 7:59pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 7:29pm: Schu wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 7:26pm: About five years ago I made the decision that direct donations to charities were not the best way to go good choice .... once you donate and they get your name all they do is hound  you I make it a point to never donate to anyone that calls me. No matter how worthwhile the cause ... it just encourages them I totally understand that. I was the same until I discovered the joys of the Do Not Call Register. The worst of it is that the information is collated and shared (see below). So donate to one and several more suddenly start calling. My mother gets dozens of letters and phone calls a week and no matter how many times she says she'll donate when she has the extra funds they continue to hound her. In most cases the people calling have nothing to do with the organisation itself, but are a separate fundraising group which handle the donation gathering for a number of organisations. I appreciate that this has been proven to be the most cost-efficient and effective way of raising funds, but I think they need to improve their systems significantly and stop using information they have about a person donating to one charity to determine who they call about another. I also don't like the way some of them prey on vulnerable people. My other grandmother was old, lonely, quite senile, well off and ridiculously generous. She was an easy target and when she was moved into a nursing home we discovered that she was donating almost half her income to charity, some of which were not ones she would have supported if she'd understood what was happening.

I went on the do-not-cll register about an hour after it was operationsl. UNfoirtunately, it does not apply to charities.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 4:34pm:

In most of these organisations they are guilty of no more than naivete and bad judgment. Up until relatively recently child sexual abuse was on no ones agenda at all.  Society not only didn't talk about it but in many ways even accepted it as 'inevitable'.   Haven't you yet worked out that perhaps the salvos and the scouts and the churches etc were TARGETED by paedos simply because that gave them access to children? The naivete was to not recognise this and of course the faillure to address it is another. What we are seeing though is that pedos target any group that gives them access to children.  TV and media have come under scrutiny recently as well and there is no organisation that works with kids that HASNT had this problem. Now however, people are aware and what you may have noticed is that in most of these organisations the cases of abuse are decades old. The problem has been seen, identified and largely rectified. But the list of victims is not yet  dealt with. everyone has been targeted. It would be foolish to label any group as 'pedo-friendly' without recnignising that they too were targets.

I agree with you.
There is no such thing as the perfect organisation, the perfect church or the perfect workplace etc for the simple reason that they are all filled with people and not all people are the same.

If I were to say that no blacks were to be trusted anymore because a few were guilty of crimes, I would be looked on as racist. Yet people here seem to routinely judge a whole organisation by the actions of a few.

The majority of people in churches and charitable organisations are probably decent enough people. That doesn't excuse the wrong doers.

And it's a mistake to put any group up on pedestals. I hear it all the time about nurses but they're not all perfect either.

Where there is money, there is the potential for crime-in any organisation. And I am starting to think the same of paedophiles-they can be anywhere.

It is how it is tackled that counts and that hasn't always been done well in the past, has it.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 10:28am:

Schu wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 7:26pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 6:58pm: I will still go with my original observation. I've heard it all before and when pushed the answer is almost always the same "I don't give at all or very sparingly". Righteo. About five years ago I made the decision that direct donations to charities were not the best way to go and I made some changes to certain elements of my life instead. I buy as much Fairtrade and locally produced items that I can. This extends to food, clothing, kitchen utensils, bathroom and cleaning products. I don't just trust what I am told; I research a fair bit to check out the companies and suppliers. A lot of my fruit and vegetables are bought direct from markets. I have volunteered my time with three organisations including one to do with children and two women's groups. I also volunteer my professional capabilities to various projects related to women's issues and humanitarian causes. I have on three prior occasions allowed women escaping domestic violence to stay with me when there was no room at shelters and I have provided for them and their children.  In the last financial ear my direct financial donations to three organisations totalled approximately 10% of my income. That is without, obviously, me factoring in my time. well done. you are however, the exception to the rule. Most people who say what you originally said, give nothing and I am sure you are as aware of that as me.

I don't think people have an obligation to give money to any causes. I would never expect someone to provide an excuse as to why they don't donate - their money, their choice.

The other point I was making with my post is that giving isn't just about reaching into one's pocket for a donation to charities. Time and other resources are just as valuable. Someone who, for example, donates their training and skills by working for MSF (Doctors Without Borders) is doing a lot, but they might refuse to give money directly to any organisation.

As is being someone who is prepared to stand up to wrong doing. For example, more valuable than donation to a women's shelter is preventing domestic violence in the first place. Prevention is better than cure. No amount of donated money is ever equivalent to a friend who sees a friend in strife and offers a helping hand.

This applies to your comment about John Smith subsequently. Do I think he (?) is representative of your point about people finding excuses not to donate? I wouldn't be making that judgement at all. I don't know him.

If I was the sort of person to make sweeping generalisations and individual judgements about random people on forums then I'd probably say that those who sit in judgement on others, in my experience, tend to be hypocrites. 

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 10:28am:

John Smith wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 7:29pm: Schu wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 7:26pm: About five years ago I made the decision that direct donations to charities were not the best way to go good choice .... once you donate and they get your name all they do is hound  you I make it a point to never donate to anyone that calls me. No matter how worthwhile the cause ... it just encourages them and just in time, there is the case in point Schu!

English not your forte' longlooser?

Schu wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 11:02am:

This applies to your comment about John Smith subsequently. Do I think he (?) is representative of your point about people finding excuses not to donate? I wouldn't be making that judgement at all. I don't know him.If I was the sort of person to make sweeping generalisations and individual judgements about random people on forums then I'd probably say that those who sit in judgement on others, in my experience, tend to be hypocrites.

oouchhh . ;D ;D ;D now you've done it

Longlooser only ever see's what he wants to see, regardless of what one puts up in front of him ... you'll get used to him.

he'll question your intelligence now ;)

John Smith wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 11:14am:

Schu wrote on Apr 16th, 2014 at 11:02am: This applies to your comment about John Smith subsequently. Do I think he (?) is representative of your point about people finding excuses not to donate? I wouldn't be making that judgement at all. I don't know him.If I was the sort of person to make sweeping generalisations and individual judgements about random people on forums then I'd probably say that those who sit in judgement on others, in my experience, tend to be hypocrites. oouchhh . ;D ;D ;D now you've done it Longlooser only ever see's what he wants to see, regardless of what one puts up in front of him ... you'll get used to him. he'll question your intelligence now ;)

Thanks for the heads up. So first my character, then my intelligence, and I suppose then my ideologies.

Schu wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 11:20am:

John Smith wrote on Apr 16th, 2014 at 11:14am: Schu wrote on Apr 16th, 2014 at 11:02am: This applies to your comment about John Smith subsequently. Do I think he (?) is representative of your point about people finding excuses not to donate? I wouldn't be making that judgement at all. I don't know him.If I was the sort of person to make sweeping generalisations and individual judgements about random people on forums then I'd probably say that those who sit in judgement on others, in my experience, tend to be hypocrites. oouchhh . ;D ;D ;D now you've done it Longlooser only ever see's what he wants to see, regardless of what one puts up in front of him ... you'll get used to him. he'll question your intelligence now ;) Thanks for the heads up. So first my character, then my intelligence, and I suppose then my ideologies.

no, he never debates ideology ... his change so often he can't afford to.

sherri wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 10:46am:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 4:34pm: In most of these organisations they are guilty of no more than naivete and bad judgment. Up until relatively recently child sexual abuse was on no ones agenda at all.  Society not only didn't talk about it but in many ways even accepted it as 'inevitable'.   Haven't you yet worked out that perhaps the salvos and the scouts and the churches etc were TARGETED by paedos simply because that gave them access to children? The naivete was to not recognise this and of course the faillure to address it is another. What we are seeing though is that pedos target any group that gives them access to children.  TV and media have come under scrutiny recently as well and there is no organisation that works with kids that HASNT had this problem. Now however, people are aware and what you may have noticed is that in most of these organisations the cases of abuse are decades old. The problem has been seen, identified and largely rectified. But the list of victims is not yet  dealt with. everyone has been targeted. It would be foolish to label any group as 'pedo-friendly' without recnignising that they too were targets. I agree with you. There is no such thing as the perfect organisation, the perfect church or the perfect workplace etc for the simple reason that they are all filled with people and not all people are the same. If I were to say that no blacks were to be trusted anymore because a few were guilty of crimes, I would be looked on as racist. Yet people here seem to routinely judge a whole organisation by the actions of a few. The majority of people in churches and charitable organisations are probably decent enough people. That doesn't excuse the wrong doers. And it's a mistake to put any group up on pedestals. I hear it all the time about nurses but they're not all perfect either. Where there is money, there is the potential for crime-in any organisation. And I am starting to think the same of paedophiles-they can be anywhere. It is how it is tackled that counts and that hasn't always been done well in the past, has it.

System corrupts man!

To judge people for not giving to the salvos is fascistic if not mentally uncharacteristic of stable  ;)

Schu wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 1:23pm:

My grandma was in a Salvation Army girls home and suffered the abuse talked about at the Royal Commission (she developed dementia in the mid 90s and died in 2006). It severely damaged her life and had an impact on her children and grandchildren. It used to annoy me when I was younger that people saw the Salvos as different to all the other organisations when the abuse issues started becoming known. What was worse was when I would actually relay what I knew and people would have the gall to dispute me because the "Salvos are good people and a reputable organisation". These weren't people who were part of the Salvos, just sucked in by their reputation. I'm glad that delusion has now broken down.

many blessings and yes

it certainly has as all continues to be revealed

these institutions continue to pay to rape..

these are legalized rape,torture and abuse institutions

that the government does not tax ..

quite a good cover for the freemasons to rape

children to access the tunnels of typhon

explained here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IABkDTidQ-s

http://www.cuttingedge.org/free11.html

these continue to be exposed

in the divine light

namaste




ॐ
/

Schu wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 11:02am:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16th, 2014 at 10:28am: Schu wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 7:26pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 15th, 2014 at 6:58pm: I will still go with my original observation. I've heard it all before and when pushed the answer is almost always the same "I don't give at all or very sparingly". Righteo. About five years ago I made the decision that direct donations to charities were not the best way to go and I made some changes to certain elements of my life instead. I buy as much Fairtrade and locally produced items that I can. This extends to food, clothing, kitchen utensils, bathroom and cleaning products. I don't just trust what I am told; I research a fair bit to check out the companies and suppliers. A lot of my fruit and vegetables are bought direct from markets. I have volunteered my time with three organisations including one to do with children and two women's groups. I also volunteer my professional capabilities to various projects related to women's issues and humanitarian causes. I have on three prior occasions allowed women escaping domestic violence to stay with me when there was no room at shelters and I have provided for them and their children.  In the last financial ear my direct financial donations to three organisations totalled approximately 10% of my income. That is without, obviously, me factoring in my time. well done. you are however, the exception to the rule. Most people who say what you originally said, give nothing and I am sure you are as aware of that as me. I don't think people have an obligation to give money to any causes. I would never expect someone to provide an excuse as to why they don't donate - their money, their choice. The other point I was making with my post is that giving isn't just about reaching into one's pocket for a donation to charities. Time and other resources are just as valuable. Someone who, for example, donates their training and skills by working for MSF (Doctors Without Borders) is doing a lot, but they might refuse to give money directly to any organisation. As is being someone who is prepared to stand up to wrong doing. For example, more valuable than donation to a women's shelter is preventing domestic violence in the first place. Prevention is better than cure. No amount of donated money is ever equivalent to a friend who sees a friend in strife and offers a helping hand. This applies to your comment about John Smith subsequently. Do I think he (?) is representative of your point about people finding excuses not to donate? I wouldn't be making that judgement at all. I don't know him. If I was the sort of person to make sweeping generalisations and individual judgements about random people on forums then I'd probably say that those who sit in judgement on others, in my experience, tend to be hypocrites.

My observation and experience continues to demonstrate that as a rule, people who complain about the past history of salvos or the like and carry on about failures and weakness of such groups DONT give at all to anyone. There ar ea few like yourself, but you are a rarity. John Smith proves the point.

Schu wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 11:20am:

John Smith wrote on Apr 16th, 2014 at 11:14am: Schu wrote on Apr 16th, 2014 at 11:02am: This applies to your comment about John Smith subsequently. Do I think he (?) is representative of your point about people finding excuses not to donate? I wouldn't be making that judgement at all. I don't know him.If I was the sort of person to make sweeping generalisations and individual judgements about random people on forums then I'd probably say that those who sit in judgement on others, in my experience, tend to be hypocrites. oouchhh . ;D ;D ;D now you've done it Longlooser only ever see's what he wants to see, regardless of what one puts up in front of him ... you'll get used to him. he'll question your intelligence now ;) Thanks for the heads up. So first my character, then my intelligence, and I suppose then my ideologies.

I have already applauded your behaviour.  What I said was that it is atypical.

My observation and experience continues to demonstrate that as a rule, people who complain about the past history of salvos or the like and carry on about failures and weakness of such groups DONT give at all to anyone.

___________

why would anyone give anything to an institution

of systematic ritual rape abuse torture and murder ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases

The Catholic sex abuse cases are a series of allegations, investigations, trials and convictions of child sexual abuse crimes committed by Catholic priests, nuns and members of Roman Catholic orders against children as young as three years old with the majority between the ages of 11 and 14.[1][2][3] These cases include anal and oral penetration and have resulted in criminal prosecutions of the abusers and civil lawsuits against the church's dioceses and parishes. Many of the cases span several decades and are brought forward years after the abuse occurred. Cases have also been brought against members of the Catholic hierarchy who did not report sex abuse allegations to the legal authorities. It has been shown they deliberately moved sexually abusive priests to other parishes where the abuse sometimes continued.[4] This has led to a number of fraud cases where the Church has been accused of misleading victims by deliberately relocating priests accused of abuse instead of removing them from their positions.[5]

The cases received significant media and public attention in Canada, Ireland, the United States, and throughout the world.[6] In response to the attention, members of the church hierarchy have argued that media coverage has been excessive and disproportionate.[7] According to a Pew Research Center study, media coverage mostly emanated from the United States in 2002, when the Boston Globe began a critical investigation. By 2010 much of the reporting focused on child abuse in Europe.[8][9] From 2001-2010 the Holy See, the central governing body of the Catholic Church, has "considered sex abuse allegations concerning about 3,000 priests dating back up to 50 years" according to the Vatican's Promoter of Justice.[10] Cases worldwide reflect patterns of long-term abuse and the covering up of reports.[note 1] Church officials and academics knowledgeable about the Roman Catholic Church say that sexual abuse by clergy is generally not discussed, and thus is difficult to measure.[6][11] In the Philippines, where as of 2002 at least 85% of the population is Catholic, revelations of child sexual abuse by priests followed the United States' reporting in 2002.[12]

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 12:41pm:

John Smith proves the point.

what point do I prove and how do I prove it?  :D :D :D

run away while you can little man ....

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 12:41pm:

My observation and experience continues to demonstrate that as a rule, people who complain about the past history of salvos or the like and carry on about failures and weakness of such groups DONT give at all to anyone. There ar ea few like yourself, but you are a rarity. John Smith proves the point.

Which assumes two things. First, that there's something wrong with not giving. There isn't. Second, that those reasons are unjustified excuses for not giving. They aren't. The only way it could be determined if those were merely excuses rather than reasons would be if all the various organisations cleaned up their act and changed some of their systems.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 12:41pm:

My observation and experience continues to demonstrate that as a rule, people who complain about the past history of salvos or the like and carry on about failures and weakness of such groups DONT give at all to anyone. There ar ea few like yourself, but you are a rarity. John Smith proves the poin

thats is so not true at all...I gave to the Wesley chapel charity and they badgered me and badgered me it went on for about 2 years even though I wrote to their head office..take me off your mailing list.... yes we will... but it didnt happen..so in the end I sent them back RTS..

but it doesnt stop me buying the poppies and anzac badges.. and supporting the local schools..

not much by your standards...I am sure.. but I do wish you would judge all by your observations... which are not that accurate... schu told you where he donates..thats should be enough for someone who lives on such a high moral ground. :o

I once trusted the Moonies.  Now I only trust Miley Cyrus.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 12:41pm:

My observation and experience continues to demonstrate that as a rule, people who complain about the past history of salvos or the like and carry on about failures and weakness of such groups DONT give at all to anyone. There ar ea few like yourself, but you are a rarity. John Smith proves the point.

Your observations and experience suck.

I used to give to many organisations, but now with the help of the internet I can find out where the money is really going, so I have crossed most of the benefactors off my list. I give directly to the needy these days, no middle man, advertising company or CEO getting my hard earned, charity is big business.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 10:28am:

well done. you are however, the exception to the rule. Most people who say what you originally said, give nothing and I am sure you are as aware of that as me.

That's the thing with you non-Catholics... You don't have a Pope who can pontificate and speak infallibly for you!

Schu wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 12:52pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16th, 2014 at 12:41pm: My observation and experience continues to demonstrate that as a rule, people who complain about the past history of salvos or the like and carry on about failures and weakness of such groups DONT give at all to anyone. There ar ea few like yourself, but you are a rarity. John Smith proves the point. Which assumes two things. First, that there's something wrong with not giving. There isn't. Second, that those reasons are unjustified excuses for not giving. They aren't. The only way it could be determined if those were merely excuses rather than reasons would be if all the various organisations cleaned up their act and changed some of their systems.

and to be fair, that is EXACTLY the reasons people use for not giving. When you talk about the salvos etc you are after all referring to incidents many decades past.

When I was about 10 I overhead two teachers referring to a girl in my year whose 'father visited her in her bedroom many nights a week'.  At the time I had no idea what they meant.  But they did nothing about it.  and why was that? Because society - ALL OF SOCIETY - essentially tolerated and excused it.  but it was decades ago as well.  I don't still say that teachers are evil.

cods wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 1:01pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16th, 2014 at 12:41pm: My observation and experience continues to demonstrate that as a rule, people who complain about the past history of salvos or the like and carry on about failures and weakness of such groups DONT give at all to anyone. There ar ea few like yourself, but you are a rarity. John Smith proves the poin thats is so not true at all...I gave to the Wesley chapel charity and they badgered me and badgered me it went on for about 2 years even though I wrote to their head office..take me off your mailing list.... yes we will... but it didnt happen..so in the end I sent them back RTS.. but it doesnt stop me buying the poppies and anzac badges.. and supporting the local schools.. not much by your standards...I am sure.. but I do wish you would judge all by your observations... which are not that accurate... schu told you where he donates..thats should be enough for someone who lives on such a high moral ground. :o

methinks you protesteth too much,

my observation remains generally accurate.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 1:25pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16th, 2014 at 12:41pm: My observation and experience continues to demonstrate that as a rule, people who complain about the past history of salvos or the like and carry on about failures and weakness of such groups DONT give at all to anyone. There ar ea few like yourself, but you are a rarity. John Smith proves the point. Your observations and experience suck. I used to give to many organisations, but now with the help of the internet I can find out where the money is really going, so I have crossed most of the benefactors off my list. I give directly to the needy these days, no middle man, advertising company or CEO getting my hard earned, charity is big business.

is the amount the same still?  excuse my cynicsm but Ive heard it all before.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 3:28pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 16th, 2014 at 1:25pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16th, 2014 at 12:41pm: My observation and experience continues to demonstrate that as a rule, people who complain about the past history of salvos or the like and carry on about failures and weakness of such groups DONT give at all to anyone. There ar ea few like yourself, but you are a rarity. John Smith proves the point. Your observations and experience suck. I used to give to many organisations, but now with the help of the internet I can find out where the money is really going, so I have crossed most of the benefactors off my list. I give directly to the needy these days, no middle man, advertising company or CEO getting my hard earned, charity is big business. is the amount the same still?  excuse my cynicsm but Ive heard it all before.

I just pointed out that people who stop giving to charities that protect crime and corruption still give.

What on earth has the amount got to do with anything?

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 15^th, 2014 at 1:15pm:

... out of all the charitable organisations, The Salvation Army was the one that could be most trusted to do the right thing.

SIMON LAUDER: The Salvation Army's stance against homosexuality has been the subject of some bad headlines lately. The Salvation Army responded by placing its position statement on sexuality under review.

But the man responsible for Salvation Army media statements in Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory made matters worse with an interview with Melbourne radio station Joy FM late last week.

The interviewer Serena Ryan had been reading the Salvation Army's handbook and wanted to know whether Major Craib endorses it.

SERENA RYAN: That says, according to the Salvation Army, that I deserve death. How do you respond to that as part of your doctrine?

ANDREW CRAIB: Well that's a part of our belief system.

SERENA RYAN: So we should die?

ANDREW CRAIB: You know, we have an alignment to the scriptures, but that's our belief.


http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3532177.htm

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 3:43pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16th, 2014 at 3:28pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 16th, 2014 at 1:25pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16th, 2014 at 12:41pm: My observation and experience continues to demonstrate that as a rule, people who complain about the past history of salvos or the like and carry on about failures and weakness of such groups DONT give at all to anyone. There ar ea few like yourself, but you are a rarity. John Smith proves the point. Your observations and experience suck. I used to give to many organisations, but now with the help of the internet I can find out where the money is really going, so I have crossed most of the benefactors off my list. I give directly to the needy these days, no middle man, advertising company or CEO getting my hard earned, charity is big business. is the amount the same still?  excuse my cynicsm but Ive heard it all before. I just pointed out that people who stop giving to charities that protect crime and corruption still give. What on earth has the amount got to do with anything?

EVERYTHING.

John Smith wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 12:51pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16th, 2014 at 12:41pm: John Smith proves the point. what point do I prove and how do I prove it?  :D :D :D run away while you can little man ....

still waiting longdopeyone ......

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 3:27pm:

methinks you protesteth too much, my observation remains generally accurat

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 3:28pm:

is the amount the same still?  excuse my cynicsm but Ive heard it all before.

well I will tell you this you dont observe well..
and as for making the claim about how much they give..what about YOU...tell us your fav charity.. or is it yourself??>.

you are so judgemental..if you had trod the path that schu and his family have trodden.. I would say you are just being honest.. but this sounds like you dont give a damn just quietly..

I have argued with you in the past about your support of paedophiles..and this is the same thing..these kids were prayed upon by people who everyone thought was caring for them..and all you want to know is..

why would you stop giving your charity dollar to them... what happened was ages ago move on..

schu isnt asking you to stop giving to them..

I do not believe you have children.. or any close relatives with children..your attitude towards them/children  is not healthy.

if something awful happens to you as a child it just doesnt go away.its not like a bandaid on a scratch

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 4:35pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 16th, 2014 at 3:43pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16th, 2014 at 3:28pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 16th, 2014 at 1:25pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16th, 2014 at 12:41pm: My observation and experience continues to demonstrate that as a rule, people who complain about the past history of salvos or the like and carry on about failures and weakness of such groups DONT give at all to anyone. There ar ea few like yourself, but you are a rarity. John Smith proves the point. Your observations and experience suck. I used to give to many organisations, but now with the help of the internet I can find out where the money is really going, so I have crossed most of the benefactors off my list. I give directly to the needy these days, no middle man, advertising company or CEO getting my hard earned, charity is big business. is the amount the same still?  excuse my cynicsm but Ive heard it all before. I just pointed out that people who stop giving to charities that protect crime and corruption still give. What on earth has the amount got to do with anything? EVERYTHING.

WHY??????

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 3:43pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16th, 2014 at 3:28pm: I just pointed out that people who stop giving to charities that protect crime and corruption still give. What on earth has the amount got to do with anything? EVERYTHING.

I wouldn't have a clue how much I give, unlike you I don't put a set amount in the tythe bag, I give a lot, care packages for the orphanages, and food packages directly to the poor when I'm overseas so it's not tax deductible, beggars don't give receipts.  I often give food to homeless locals which would be the equivalent of $50 to a NGO where $30 would be eaten up by admin costs. Besides, Aussie charities aren't happy to take five dollars cash now, they want you to commit to monthly direct debits, so they miss out on all that loose change by being greedy.

It's all swings and roundabouts, just a different delivery method. No cash to NGO'S, anywhere. I know exactly where my donations go and that's how I like it.

If you're fishing for a monetary figure, bad luck you won't get it from me.

HAPPY?

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16^th, 2014 at 3:26pm:

Schu wrote on Apr 16th, 2014 at 12:52pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 16th, 2014 at 12:41pm: My observation and experience continues to demonstrate that as a rule, people who complain about the past history of salvos or the like and carry on about failures and weakness of such groups DONT give at all to anyone. There ar ea few like yourself, but you are a rarity. John Smith proves the point. Which assumes two things. First, that there's something wrong with not giving. There isn't. Second, that those reasons are unjustified excuses for not giving. They aren't. The only way it could be determined if those were merely excuses rather than reasons would be if all the various organisations cleaned up their act and changed some of their systems. and to be fair, that is EXACTLY the reasons people use for not giving. When you talk about the salvos etc you are after all referring to incidents many decades past. When I was about 10 I overhead two teachers referring to a girl in my year whose 'father visited her in her bedroom many nights a week'.  At the time I had no idea what they meant.  But they did nothing about it.  and why was that? Because society - ALL OF SOCIETY - essentially tolerated and excused it.  but it was decades ago as well.  I don't still say that teachers are evil.

You seem to think that people are obliged to give to charities. They aren't. That's why it's charity not tax. A person can say, "I don't donate because I don't want to" and they're perfectly entitled to that. It's also disingenuous to assume that everyone who has a reason is merely using that as an unjustified excuse. Many people don't like the ideology, operations and dissemination of money of many charities and that is their prerogative. That so many people baulk at donating to charities may be because of the way the charities behave and say nothing about the people.

As for your example, just because the acts happened years ago doesn't mean that the structures that existed to enable them have been changed. It is only in the last few years that many organisations have been forced to admit, begrudgingly, that they protected abusers. Some senior members of various organisations still deny it. So it's hardly in the past and it will take a long time before I, for one, have any faith that they've changed.

Yes, many people turned a blind eye in the past. But there were people who spoke up about it and they were punished for doing so.

Is anyone surprised at this?

It's been a no-brainer ever since Muslim Australians and naive Useful Idiots were sent to the Detention Centres as ... 'interpreters'.

5th Columnists.

And then the Salvos ...

A Christmas Island resident has expressed disgust to The Pickering Post at how Salvation Army employees, supported by Iranian and Afghani interpreters, have been instructing arrivals on how to cheat the system.

“It’s beyond belief how we are paying them to actually coach the illegal arrivals to circumvent Australian regulations”, he said.

The Left wing Guardian On-line has dishonestly reported how distressed Iranian “asylum seekers” had made the journey without sanitation and arrived covered in faeces.

“That’s simply not true said the resident”, who asked not to be named. “I’ve seen every boat arrive here and it seemed like most had been shopping at Harrods.

“Many women had bandages on their noses (see pics supplied) which we later found to have been nose jobs undergone en route in Malaysia. Some women had recent breast augmentations and had demanded mirrors so they could see how they looked.”

link

They don't look like your run of the mill queue jumping Middle easterners, their women are usually dressed from head to toe,,,, they look white & Polynesian.