BristolEcho
Well-Known Member
Don't worry we believe you did it. You don't need to tag everyone in to prove it.
Colleague- possible charity scammer
- Thread starter D'wards
- Start date
Don't worry we believe you did it. You don't need to tag everyone in to prove it.
For a time I wanted to do parachute jump for charity.* (Greenpeace)
But of course the whole thing is that
A - it would be for my fun. Not exactly a useful act, is it?
B - necessary to harass all friends and even work people for sponsorship
C - I didn't like B.
D - I don't even much like it when person of workplace comes along with a smile and a clipboard of paper asking me to sponsor young Janet or John to walk around or run around, by which interesting method we can help a school in Malawi or wherever. Of course I do give. Happily.
There is a vague tone of moral blackmail even with that. But not nearly as worrisome as when it comes to that "Children in Need" thing and "Red Nose" thing.
They are pretty horrendous. A shower of people who are quite rich demanding that everyone must give money, preferably right now, this very minute. Show a bit of video of people suffering, then do that "I am really VERY upset face "but you can help! You can help by phoning now! Give whatever you can! And you must do it NOW".
* Daft predictive text. When I typed "for charity", it didn't like it. It didn't seem to like "charity" and suggested "change" instead.
BristolEcho
Well-Known Member
Agree with everything you say there Celyn. It's really hard when you're feeling pretty skint to then give away more change. You don't want to say no as it makes you feel stingy.
Now I have a little bit more money I'm really happy to give a bit extra etc, but probably give more than I need too.
It's the same with collections for when someone is leaving. That subject is probably worth a thread of it's own though.
I never carry change on me now anyway as I'm fully subscribed to contactless payment.
Now I have a little bit more money I'm really happy to give a bit extra etc, but probably give more than I need too.
It's the same with collections for when someone is leaving. That subject is probably worth a thread of it's own though.
I never carry change on me now anyway as I'm fully subscribed to contactless payment.
farmerbarleymow
I'm Petee's spirit animal
4 May 2002. The Maths Tower was demolished a year or two afterwards. The pictures I took from the roof show a very different city skyline compared to today - none of the new towers are there.
Will try to upload photos when I get in tonight - except the one of me looking like a twat.
Last edited:
farmerbarleymow
I'm Petee's spirit animal
I hate both with a passion, and refuse to donate. People at work know not to ask me now. Anyway I'm more in need of money than children so they can fuck off.
danski
"vibey"
No, especially that one!
Baronage-Phase
Well-Known Member
Exactly.
I'm at the stage where I just say "sorry..I can't afford to give anything this month".
And it's usually 100% true
farmerbarleymow
I'm Petee's spirit animal
For a time I wanted to do parachute jump for charity.* (Greenpeace)
But of course the whole thing is that
A - it would be for my fun. Not exactly a useful act, is it?
B - necessary to harass all friends and even work people for sponsorship
C - I didn't like B.
D - I don't even much like it when person of workplace comes along with a smile and a clipboard of paper asking me to sponsor young Janet or John to walk around or run around, by which interesting method we can help a school in Malawi or wherever. Of course I do give. Happily.
There is a vague tone of moral blackmail even with that. But not nearly as worrisome as when it comes to that "Children in Need" thing and "Red Nose" thing.
They are pretty horrendous. A shower of people who are quite rich demanding that everyone must give money, preferably right now, this very minute. Show a bit of video of people suffering, then do that "I am really VERY upset face "but you can help! You can help by phoning now! Give whatever you can! And you must do it NOW".
* Daft predictive text. When I typed "for charity", it didn't like it. It didn't seem to like "charity" and suggested "change" instead.
Indeed. Fucking off is what they should do.
But if you're more in need of money than children, that could mean that you already have hundreds of children. That you have all the children ... LOTS of them. MANY of them.
That being the case, you would definitely be in more in need of money than a need of children, having more than an adequate bundle of children.
. Absolutely spot on.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
'mow doesn't have children, he has spawnIndeed. Fucking off is what they should do.
But if you're more in need of money than children, that could mean that you already have hundreds of children. That you have all the children ... LOTS of them. MANY of them.
That being the case, you would definitely be in more in need of money than a need of children, having more than an adequate bundle of children.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
I think a good place to start is what quimcunx said - "what do you actually want to have happen?".
From my reading of the situation, it comes down to two main possibilities, if we discount any kind of personal/revenge motive.
1. Finding out if all the money that's been donated in the past went to charity.
2. Making sure that future charitable donations DO go to charity.
As far as 2. goes, I think kebabking nailed it - IF she has been taking the money for herself, it's pretty serious. She's been using the names of charities to collect money from fellow employees, so she'd be screwing over her co-workers, her employers, and the charities. So from that point of view, your employers should certainly have a say in what happens, but I think you need to be pretty sure they'll handle it sensitively. If you're not up for a witch hunt, it'd be fairly shit if the company decided to make it into one.
If that all seems a bit heavy, then I think PippinTook's solution covers the bases nicely - focus on what happens from here on in. Get your employer to implement a policy that states than any collections on company premises/time are properly receipted and acknowledged.
If it means she "gets away" with the previous (potential) thefts, then that might be a reasonable price to pay for not being seen to be launching some kind of vendetta against her. It might be that if you go for the PippinTook Scenario someone else will go "hmm, so what's all this about?" and deal with matters themselves, but that may just be a risk you have to take.
If I were a manager in a company where someone was very actively collecting for charity, no matter if there were suspicions or not, I think I'd like to have some degree of oversight into what was going on - and maybe, as someone else suggested, I might even want to do a bit of donation-matching.
ETA: I should declare an interest. I get pretty fucked off with endless demands for money, especially when accompanied by heavy doses of moral blackmail, in the name of "charidee". So, the chances are I'd probably have demurred a long time ago if PudseyWoman had been a colleague of mine: "no thanks, I do my own donating privately."
From my reading of the situation, it comes down to two main possibilities, if we discount any kind of personal/revenge motive.
1. Finding out if all the money that's been donated in the past went to charity.
2. Making sure that future charitable donations DO go to charity.
As far as 2. goes, I think kebabking nailed it - IF she has been taking the money for herself, it's pretty serious. She's been using the names of charities to collect money from fellow employees, so she'd be screwing over her co-workers, her employers, and the charities. So from that point of view, your employers should certainly have a say in what happens, but I think you need to be pretty sure they'll handle it sensitively. If you're not up for a witch hunt, it'd be fairly shit if the company decided to make it into one.
If that all seems a bit heavy, then I think PippinTook's solution covers the bases nicely - focus on what happens from here on in. Get your employer to implement a policy that states than any collections on company premises/time are properly receipted and acknowledged.
If it means she "gets away" with the previous (potential) thefts, then that might be a reasonable price to pay for not being seen to be launching some kind of vendetta against her. It might be that if you go for the PippinTook Scenario someone else will go "hmm, so what's all this about?" and deal with matters themselves, but that may just be a risk you have to take.
If I were a manager in a company where someone was very actively collecting for charity, no matter if there were suspicions or not, I think I'd like to have some degree of oversight into what was going on - and maybe, as someone else suggested, I might even want to do a bit of donation-matching.
ETA: I should declare an interest. I get pretty fucked off with endless demands for money, especially when accompanied by heavy doses of moral blackmail, in the name of "charidee". So, the chances are I'd probably have demurred a long time ago if PudseyWoman had been a colleague of mine: "no thanks, I do my own donating privately."
Throbbing Angel
this is no longer a place of honour
farmerbarleymow
I'm Petee's spirit animal
Puddy_Tat
naturally fluffy
i'm sure most places would want to approve charity collections, and have some sort of limit on how much of work's time people are spending doing them. not sure i've encountered a formal policy for such things, but would have thought a general 'don't take the piss' rule would apply.
and has anyone suggested burning the witch yet?
and has anyone suggested burning the witch yet?
D'wards
IT'S YOUR DECISION DANIEL
My manager kind of shirked it, so me and a colleague got the address off the Children in need website to obtain the certificate and I emailed it to the team, saying we could display the certificate.
She replied, just to me, and I quote
"As I have already given the money in a lady at church and she has paid it with hers and two other person
I did not think I can get a certificate"
She replied, just to me, and I quote
"As I have already given the money in a lady at church and she has paid it with hers and two other person
I did not think I can get a certificate"
Ask her for the lady at church’s email. Then you can get a copy of the certificate from her.
Mrs Miggins
Eternal
This
And yes....it is very suspicious.
dervish
if you flibble when you wibble, don't wobble
That's a good idea but I'll bet she'll say she doesn't have one.
Mrs Miggins
Eternal
If she's saying it's been given in with other donations through this Lady at Church then there should be a certificate for the full amount which you and the Lady at Church will be able to divide appropriately.
Mrs Miggins
Eternal
Ask the phone her then. Or go to the damn church.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
She is a wrongun
Mrs Miggins
Eternal
I'd be quite interested to know why she gave it to this Lady at Church to pay anyway. At the very least that would make her guilty of not telling rhe charity where the money has come from which is a bit off in itself.
Similar threads
