Conquer Club

So the BBC got you to donate money to "children in need" charity. And you would have automatically assumed that this money would all be going to children. Well you would be wrong.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/53390752

The ram wrote:So the BBC got you to donate money to "children in need" charity. And you would have automatically assumed that this money would all be going to children. Well you would be wrong.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/53390752

Black children aren't children?

Also... I'm 100% certain you never donated to this charity, stop being fake outraged.

mookiemcgee wrote:

The ram wrote:So the BBC got you to donate money to "children in need" charity. And you would have automatically assumed that this money would all be going to children. Well you would be wrong.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/53390752

Black children aren't children?

Also... I'm 100% certain you never donated to this charity, stop being fake outraged.

Did you actually read the link?

How many children do you know that run a business or work in the media?

Why would anyone fake being outraged? However, if you're 100% certain, you have obviously made your mind up without any actual facts. Learn to think with your mind and not emotions.

recreational outrage is indeed a thing, rammy... .

The ram wrote:

mookiemcgee wrote:

The ram wrote:So the BBC got you to donate money to "children in need" charity. And you would have automatically assumed that this money would all be going to children. Well you would be wrong.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/53390752

Black children aren't children?

Also... I'm 100% certain you never donated to this charity, stop being fake outraged.

Did you actually read the link?

How many children do you know that run a business or work in the media?

Why would anyone fake being outraged? However, if you're 100% certain, you have obviously made your mind up without any actual facts. Learn to think with your mind and not emotions.

It's going to donate the money over the next 10 years and it'll be working with Radio 1Xtra to black people working in the media industry develop.

The money will also be used to help young black business owners and help people from the black community learn more skills to improve their chances of getting jobs.

Children in Need, which currently provides funding to 3000 charities and projects across the UK, said a panel of "young people and volunteers with direct experience of the Black British experience" will help decide who gets funding from this new scheme.

You don't think helping people get jobs will help their communities develop?

The ram wrote:

mookiemcgee wrote:

The ram wrote:So the BBC got you to donate money to "children in need" charity. And you would have automatically assumed that this money would all be going to children. Well you would be wrong.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/53390752

Black children aren't children?

Also... I'm 100% certain you never donated to this charity, stop being fake outraged.

Did you actually read the link?

How many children do you know that run a business or work in the media?

Why would anyone fake being outraged? However, if you're 100% certain, you have obviously made your mind up without any actual facts. Learn to think with your mind and not emotions.

I know alot of people who started companies before 18 years old, and that just my personal experience. I think alot of students (aka children), would love if there was an internship opportunity at a local radio station that was funded by this charity.

By your logic, you can't donate to a children's hospital if you expect it to help children because the hospital will get the money and not the children directly. Children's charities in general aren't about giving cash to kids, it's about funding programs that help kids. So yes the money goes to the business to pay for a childs program/intership whatever. How many more posts before you say it's a marxist conspiracy?

mookiemcgee wrote:

The ram wrote:

mookiemcgee wrote:

The ram wrote:So the BBC got you to donate money to "children in need" charity. And you would have automatically assumed that this money would all be going to children. Well you would be wrong.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/53390752

Black children aren't children?

Also... I'm 100% certain you never donated to this charity, stop being fake outraged.

Did you actually read the link?

How many children do you know that run a business or work in the media?

Why would anyone fake being outraged? However, if you're 100% certain, you have obviously made your mind up without any actual facts. Learn to think with your mind and not emotions.

I know alot of people who started companies before 18 years old, and that just my personal experience. I think alot of students (aka children), would love if there was an internship opportunity at a local radio station that was funded by this charity.

By your logic, you can't donate to a children's hospital if you expect it to help children because the hospital will get the money and not the children directly. Children's charities in general aren't about giving cash to kids, it's about funding programs that help kids. So yes the money goes to the business to pay for a childs program/intership whatever. How many more posts before you say it's a marxist conspiracy?

riskllama wrote:recreational outrage is indeed a thing, rammy... .

Looks like you're right llama. And it's quite apparent that mookie is indulging himself. So much so that he's got himself so fake flustered that he's spouting gibberish.

Children's hospital, children's sports, children's youth clubs, children's activity centres, children's welfare. All would be expected recipients of charitable donations from 'children in need'. Black only run business is not.

Though generally improving the situations in ‘communities of color’ would have some ancillary affects on the lives of children in those communities, I have to (unfortunately) agree with THE RAM here...

Helping black owned businesses helps the owners of those businesses andt their children proportionally more than it helps ‘the community’ and the lives of other children in the community. Furthermore, the individuals who have gotten to the point of opening their own businesses are (in those communities and elsewhere) are already better-off than most of the other people in their communities and therefore need less help then the rest of the people in said communities.

Though you (and I) may think it’s a worthy goal to help raise the community by improving the situation of black-owned businesses... and though this idea of ‘teaching a man to fish’ versus just giving him fish is a good idea, and should be something we CONSIDER, I would say that a charity that labels itself as specifically designed to help ‘children’ should not be using its’ funds to help small businesses.

I have a serious problem with businesses, charities, advocacy organizations, etc. that misrepresent their goals and activities especially by mislabeling themselves.

Also, I have experience with “MWE Empowerment” (Minority Women Enterprise) programs. Though these sound great on their face I know that they are abused by many.... either the purported owners have 51% ownership, just enough to qualify, and receive minimal benefits for the use of their identities... or yeah minorities own them but they don’t go out of their way to employ or benefit the community further.

how hard do you think it would be to start a dodgy charity? asking for a friend...

riskllama wrote:how hard do you think it would be to start a dodgy charity? asking for a friend...

What country? If you'd consider moving to Nigeria...

Yeah, I suspect mook is on the right track, the hard part would be avoiding fraud charges if you made decent money.

2dimes wrote:Yeah, I suspect mook is on the right track, the hard part would be avoiding fraud charges if you made decent money.

Then again US president(s) have been accused of this so? I think your political influence has a direct correlation to your ability to pull it off in a given locale

I am not saying it can't be done ala the Clinton foundation. It would just be more difficult. I bet in Nigeria in leu of jail it would be a manageable fine.

So you all agree I’m right here?

jimboston wrote:So you all agree I’m right here?

About what? You think the BBC charity in the OP is a fraud too?

mookiemcgee wrote:

jimboston wrote:So you all agree I’m right here?

About what? You think the BBC charity in the OP is a fraud too?

The point that I gather is that the charity is meant specifically for children and not for business. Meaning, the donations that were received were not given to the intended target. One could make the argument it was fraudulent, intent aside.

Jdsizzleslice wrote:

mookiemcgee wrote:

jimboston wrote:So you all agree I’m right here?

About what? You think the BBC charity in the OP is a fraud too?

The point that I gather is that the charity is meant specifically for children and not for business. Meaning, the donations that were received were not given to the intended target. One could make the argument it was fraudulent, intent aside.

What about business that help children lol. Like say for example ... A business receives a grant from this charity with the direction that the funds would be used to create an internship program for kids in high school.

The article is poorly written and vague doesn't get into any specifics at all about conditions of donations and even said it's something they are considering but they have not yet committed funds to any specific business. Y'all are operating in the pre-crime division of the charity busters police force. just stop with the fake outrage!

mookiemcgee wrote:What about business that help children lol. Like say for example ... A business receives a grant from this charity with the direction that the funds would be used to create an internship program for kids in high school.

The article is poorly written and vague doesn't get into any specifics at all about conditions of donations and even said it's something they are considering but they have not yet committed funds to any specific business. Y'all are operating in the pre-crime division of the charity busters police force. just stop with the fake outrage!

I agree, money donated to a business that will help high school students get internships is a good thing. That is not what was indicated, though.

I agree, the article was poorly written. However, what is gathered is that the money is going to any business. This is where I have the problem. If the charity came out and said they were donating to 10 business that help with children (for example, saying 3 are related to internship programs, 2 are for neighborhood parks for kids, etc.) then there would be no issue. The article generalizes, and therefore the way it is written now seems to indicate that there is a component of fraud that could be involved.

Jdsizzleslice wrote:

mookiemcgee wrote:What about business that help children lol. Like say for example ... A business receives a grant from this charity with the direction that the funds would be used to create an internship program for kids in high school.

The article is poorly written and vague doesn't get into any specifics at all about conditions of donations and even said it's something they are considering but they have not yet committed funds to any specific business. Y'all are operating in the pre-crime division of the charity busters police force. just stop with the fake outrage!

However, what is gathered is that the money is going to any business.

Do you have any confirmation this is what is happening? Outside of a poorly written article, where you could make the assumption either way? Have any of you gone to the charity website or have other sources saying this particular charity has actually donated money to business NOT putting any restrictions on how they spend it?

Fake outrage.

mookiemcgee wrote:Do you have any confirmation this is what is happening? Outside of a poorly written article, where you could make the assumption either way? Have any of you gone to the charity website or have other sources saying this particular charity has actually donated money to business NOT putting any restrictions on how they spend it?

Fake outrage.

I'm not outraged, lol.

BBC Children in Need is the charity, so I would assume that the BBC is the source for where to get information and a valid authority for their own charity. Hence, the article written.

Apparently they matched the donation for racial injustice, not a donation for children. This is why people think it's fraudulent. I'm not saying it is, I'm just saying I understand why some people think it is. The viewpoint I see from those like ram is that people donated to this charity thinking that the money would specifically go to children in need, but now some of the money will be given to a cause they did not initially agree to when donating.

I wasn't claiming you specifically were fake outraged, but the OP = fake outrage

To me this clearly reads = the money goes to help young people (who are black).

"It's going to donate the money over the next 10 years and it'll be working with Radio 1Xtra to black people working in the media industry develop.

The money will also be used to help young black business owners and help people from the black community learn more skills to improve their chances of getting jobs.

Stormzy has said that the money will help "in supporting and strengthening the young black community" in the UK. "

I make two big assumptions: young = children, and people who need to develop in an industry are often young.

others are clearly making other assumptions, I'm just suggesting maybe we could get some clarification before we suggest a charity is committing fraud. which is what the title of this thread says.

mookiemcgee wrote:To me this clearly reads = the money goes to help young people (who are black).

"It's going to donate the money over the next 10 years and it'll be working with Radio 1Xtra to black people working in the media industry develop.

The money will also be used to help young black business owners and help people from the black community learn more skills to improve their chances of getting jobs.

Stormzy has said that the money will help "in supporting and strengthening the young black community" in the UK. "

I make two big assumptions: young = children, and people who need to develop in an industry are often young.

others are clearly making other assumptions, I'm just suggesting maybe we could get some clarification before we suggest a charity is committing fraud. which is what the title of this thread says.

I understand your viewpoint, to a degree.

Young can mean children, but in this case, is the money going to actual children? Is it synonymous to say the money is going to "black children business owners?" The implication here is that there are black children who own businesses. Possible? Sure. What percentage of black children own business? My guess would be an extreme minority.

Let's nail down what the definition (at least informally) is of a child, or a non-adult in this case. Would you agree that a child is someone who is still in high school, and that the transition of child to adult happens when an individual leaves the education system (either by getting their GED or dropping out)?

Jdsizzleslice wrote:

mookiemcgee wrote:To me this clearly reads = the money goes to help young people (who are black).

"It's going to donate the money over the next 10 years and it'll be working with Radio 1Xtra to black people working in the media industry develop.

The money will also be used to help young black business owners and help people from the black community learn more skills to improve their chances of getting jobs.

Stormzy has said that the money will help "in supporting and strengthening the young black community" in the UK. "

I make two big assumptions: young = children, and people who need to develop in an industry are often young.

others are clearly making other assumptions, I'm just suggesting maybe we could get some clarification before we suggest a charity is committing fraud. which is what the title of this thread says.

I understand your viewpoint, to a degree.

Young can mean children, but in this case, is the money going to actual children? Is it synonymous to say the money is going to "black children business owners?" The implication here is that there are black children who own businesses. Possible? Sure. What percentage of black children own business? My guess would be an extreme minority.

Let's nail down what the definition (at least informally) is of a child, or a non-adult in this case. Would you agree that a child is someone who is still in high school, and that the transition of child to adult happens when an individual leaves the education system (either by getting their GED or dropping out)?

Why are we defining terms? It's a fucking press release, it isn't evidence of anything. Let's see where they donate money when they actually do, and keep are outrage bottled until you can show me fraud occurred.

jimboston wrote:So you all agree I’m right here?

Nope, just can't be bothered arguing about this one. Helping develop communities and sponsor employment opportunities is a legitimate activity for charities. I did a quick search for their mission statement and couldn't find it, but I suspect an organization this high-profile is not going to do something which its own rules don't allow. If you're motivated enough to find their mission statement and see if there's a conflict, knock yourself out. I'm satisfied with giving them the benefit of the doubt.