They have been charged with a rang of “ALLEGED” crimes, have they not?
But you have to be you…and put the boots in to anyone who doesn’t fit into your nice little world.
How do you feel about Israel knocking downs more people’s houses (entire villages) in Lebanon?
More war crimes?
You need to chill bro it’s exactly as it is. Exactly as I posted it. You’re arguing with me over something that I think we 100% agree with. It’s strange. Then you launch into a rant about Israel in the Australian news thread. Be better.
Being better is facing up to all the posts directed at you.
You come in here, only when you have (what you think is) a gotcha moment…usually against the government/Labor party and/or anyone who doesn’t think that Israel is the best thing around.
And then when you get questioned, you duck and weave, never answering any questions…in any thread…concerning Israel and it’s actions.
So when you throw out yopur favourite little “be better” phrase, apply it to yourself first.
Hopefully I don’t need to say this for a third time. You are arguing with me over something we agreed on. Relax and smile. We were in agreement- go back and take a look please - it’s exhausting. I said they’d been charged - or about to be charged. Then I said they allegedly committed those crimes - which is what you also said. Gee whiz. You do understand being charged is different to the innocence or guilt of a crime you have been accused of?
Has there been a civil verdict that gives us any indication of the likelihood that they committed the alleged crimes, ooorrrrrr…?
Charities should be audited more thorothan they are. Look at the salvos yearly reports, lots of “administrative expenses”
Should have a direct figure of how much is donated to them vs how much ends up in the places of those in need.
There was a clothing charity bin around the corner a while back.
It stated how much this bin hav made each year (about $10,000) and the % costs for administration…96%
Good on them for statin it, but just highlighted how most ‘charities’ are just to fund the owners and celebrities that create them.
WTF is this so important to you ?
The important part is surely that an Australian Mother, her two Daughters and their ten children are now safe in their homeland. The rest is just political BS.
I would add in those Not-For-Profit Groups that get lots of Government funding to support things like domestic violence, homeless and aged care. Most have Directors who get large salary packages including flag and expensive company cars.
Maybe you have somewhere specific in mind but, in my experience, that’s rubbish.
Directors were voluntary and only had minor expenses covered, Executive remuneration was at the lower end of market rates (as BS as those can still be).
It’s also a pretty poor claim that goes some way to also tarnish many of the other people working in those organisations/spaces. Many of which had their own lived experiences in the space and were now trying to help others, for very modest pay.
It depends on the size of charity and $$$…
local charities yeh directors are generally pro bono.
Regional or state wide charities, they can get compensated quite well plus FBT exemptions.
He’s got a point Bill, that is all you do these days
In my experience it depends, but as a general rule of thumb the longer a charity organisation exists, and the bigger and more high-profile it is, the more likely it is that it’s not run by the passionate weirdos who originally set it up on their loungeroom table because they deeply cared about its cause, but by a professionalised managerial group who see it as a job in just another company and a way to get a bit of moral polish on the resume. This doesn’t mean that every big or long-running charity is a gravy train for its higher-ups, but there certainly is a correlation. You end up getting staffed by people who answered a job ad, rather than by people who volunteered their time.
I’ve been involved in the wildlife rescue volunteer sector for many years now. One then-prominent TV personality who used to be the face of a major organisation was known for bragging about how successfully they’d played accounting tricks to redirect donations intended for rescue and rehab costs post Black Saturday into staff salaries - at a time when that organisation had six paid staff, all good mates, all on >$100k per year, while many thousands of overworked volunteers routinely reached into their own pockets for operating expenses. On the other hand I know several people running smaller organisations who work full time and devote significant proportions of their income into paying for the large amounts of extra volunteer work they do after hours. And I know at least one volunteer organisation that got in the ■■■■ after a major disaster, when they got some international publicity and millions of dollars of donations cascaded in and they just didn’t have the expertise or governance processes to handle it much less decide how to spent it wisely, because they WERE amateurs and didn’t have the financial or legal skills needed for the big leagues. They’re still, approaching a decade later, mired in court cases stemming from that.
A more nuanced take on the ‘Isis Brides’ story, from our national broadcaster that reports on stuff.
WTF? Charges are explicitly allegations. If you’re charged in Australia it means the DPP thinks they have a case, which you can then fight.
Everything he said was factual.
easiest way to check this before contributing is to go to the website, and if the board/staff profiles are easier to find than any specifics on what organisation actually does, then move on
Yep, it should be clear, really
Interesting timing, maybe before she was pushed?
I do have specific organisations in mind. None of the Directors are voluntary, and it is as much Not for Profit as any AFL Club which have the same corporate structure, except its Diectors do not get a big salary and a BMW.
The reporters non-use of noise cancelling headphones is offensive.