On the front of this morning's Motoring in the DT is an advertisment for an organisation which offers people the chance to drive through parts of India in 50'ies style cars. Cost per person is £6995 all found and getting 100 people at a minimum the organisation promises to give £100k each to two worthy charities.
100 people gives the organisation £699500, so nearly half a million goes other than to the charities at an absolute minimum. To be fair to these people anything taken from over 100 people goes directly to the charities.
Still, £500,000 going in expenses for people to drive round bits of India perhaps better left alone sounds alot to me. If 2000 of us on here gave £100 each less tax, just for example, the charities would end up with their money and India wouldn't be polluted by 50 old motor cars and all the support vehicles.
The organisation wouldn't make its money but that doesn't concern me. The drivers wouldn't have their fun but that doesn't concern me either.
I find the bringing together of a sort of rally with charity a bit objectionable. Am I right or am I just becoming an old git?
Resist the easy answer, please.
|
My own opinion is that this is just plain silly. Why can't people give the money to charity without someone driving about India? The driving itself contributes nothing to the greater good, other than a few exhaust emissions.
I am equally cynical about people undertaking parachute jumps or trekking in the Himalayas or cycling from Land's End to John o'Groats to raise money for charity.
Sponsored events to raise money for charity are fine for kids, but anyone over 21 who goes in for them is just soft-headed. IMHO.
|
|
Tyro - think you are generalising a bit - what about all those people who run the London (and other) marathons? I raised £2,000 when I did it nearly 20 years ago, paid my entry fee, and my Dad gave me the trainers. 100% benefit to the charity, and I was one of 30,000 who ran. From the LM web site "Since 1981 it is estimated that over £200 million has been raised for charities world-wide"
|
AFAIK a good number of major manufacturing industries in this country are owned by Indian companies; the former British Steel for one. They also make Royal Enfield motorcycles and Hindustan Ambassador cars, just to give this post some motoring credibility!;)
This by definition means that India is not a poor country. They should spend more money on their own population instead of expecting other countries to fill their begging bowl.
Whatever the ins and outs of this project it hardly qualifies as environmentally friendly.
|
|
|
oldnotbold - would these people who sponsored you have given the money if you had only run 20 yards of the LM? If not, they are a pretty uncharitable bunch of people. And wouldn't they sponsor you to the same degree if you did a 100 yard walk?
I still take the view that this sponsorship thing is illogical and irrational, and only appropriate for kids.
|
|
|
|
|
There's a long tradition of people giving to charities in conjunction with spending lots of money on themselves: the charity ball is a very long-standing example, and this exotic holiday lark seems to be the one that has taken off in recent years.
Personally, I find the charity ball a nauseous affair in which rich folks flaunt their wealth while throwing a few crumbs to the less fortunate, but the organisers usually claim out that people who attend their events would not otherwise contribute to these causes. I expect that the same applies to the car-in-India larks.
If these events go ahead, the needy do at least get something. Personally, I'm a little wary of anyone who gives a definitive answer either way on whether that justifies the incongruous extravagance of the fundraising method; it's an ethical minefield.
|
The Americans (and even New Labour) have used such fund raising activities involving the rich for a considerable time - so why should it not be OK for charity purposes if you have fun or adventure at the same time?
Edited by Stuartli on 13/09/2008 at 22:30
|
|
That would be my take as well - for what its worth.
|
|
|
|
|
It's like how to Mongol rally is run. People even can use money raised to cover costs! I would never sponsor such a charity "event".
|
To slightly paraphrase tyro's post
"My own opinion is that this is just plain silly. The driving itself contributes nothing to the greater good, other than a lot of exhaust emissions."
An excellent description of F1 Motor racing!
|
If I was to sponsor someone £100 and that money goes straight to where it is needed, that's fine. If I sponsor someone the same amount, and £70 of the money is paying for them to have holiday, it's a very different matter.
People do these type of events because they want to and the "Charidy" ruse is just a way to get other people to pay for it.
|
|
|
|
rtj, as far as I am aware the participants in the Mongol Rally have to raise a minimum of £1,000 for the charities. If they cannot raise money for their costs, then only wealthy young people could participate!
The young women I know of did it in a £200 ebay Micra, which they paid for - their employer gave them the time off. They did basic maintenance courses in evening classes at their local colleges and got most of the equipment they needed from Freecycle appeals. Sponsors (ie Thule gave and fitted a roof box) gave stuff in return for stickers on the car.
Apart from what they actually saved and raised, they also found a school which was on their route and filled every spare corner of the car with puzzles, pens, sports stuff etc to give the school. At the end of the run you leave your car and equipment in Ulan Bator for the charity to use/raise money with and pay for your own fight home.
I thought it amazing that young people should embark on such a challenge, showing great initiative in some very hairy moments, much camaraderie when teams helped each other out and still raised, between them, £200,000 for charity.
I suspect their employer appreciates the skills they displayed.
As a Trustee of a charity, we would be more than happy to accept funds raised in this way if offered, just as we gladly accepted money from a group of musicians who played Carols last year (thank you Flautissimo!).
|
|
|
|
|
