to wonder why some charities are seen as more compulsory than others?

[SparklingExplosionGoldBrass]

There are, after all, shitloads of charities, all needing donations, and no one has enough spare income to support them all. Yet it seems like some are so extra special that unless you're visibly supporting them, you can get harassed for it.
OK this is partly inspired by this thread, but I was also remembering a fuss a few years back when some or other TV presenter was seen on TV in early November NOT WEARING A POPPY and you'd think he'd shat on a box of babies or something... About the only other charity I can think of that triggers this level of near-bullying among the stupid is Comic Relief - anyone else got any candidates?

Top ten charities

Agree about the sky divers (who are always described as 'being so brave, as they suffer from vertigo' in the the local rag), and those people going to Machu Pichu [sp], or walking the Great Wall of China. Pay for your own holiday, and raise funds by doing something less sexy, like a sponsored litter pick.

just on the point about chidlren with CP

The British Legion website says

"Can we help?
Around 9.5 million people in the UK are eligible for our support and we receive thousands of calls for help every year. If you served in the Forces for at least 7 days or are the dependant of someone who has served, The Royal British Legion's extensive range of services is available to help you.
"

So it's dependants as well as those who served.

People tend to donate to/help charities which mean something to them.
I support several animal charities because they don't have a voice to speak up when humans are being vile towards them, and are often the bottom of the list of priorities for the majority of people. I'm not going to apologise for supporting them over some of the human ones, because honestly I see the animal ones as a more worthy cause in some cases, and they are far less likely to get the money than the majority of human ones (excluding the RSPCA which I have issues with and won't donate to).
Also I support Birmingham Childrens hospital and Acorns childrens hospice in the midlands, because there services have directly effected both me and a few of my friends. People are far more likely to donate if there is a personal connection.

Its no one elses business what charities (if any) someone else supports, and none should be seen as more "compulsary" than another because inevitably people are going to be more moved by different ones.

*Oh and for the record I wear a poppy because for me it signifys remembering the millions who died to protect the freedoms we enjoy today, and I support wear the money goes to. But this thread really shouldn't turn into a poppy vs no poppy thread as the question is much more general than that and there are loads of poppy threads already!

What loopyloops and Noel said about animal charities. The abuse of animals is this country is vile and sickening, and I'm afraid I judge people according to whether they care about that or not. We are not cave people, I don't see why it's OK for animals to be hanged, scalded and have fireworks tied to them just because they can't speak or are of a different species.

And I hope the people who are laid back about animal cruelty aren't sending the same message to their children.

The charity I alsways give to is GOSH. Thankfully never had need of their services but several friend's children have.

It REALLY REALLY annoys me when I see people trying to put on their own versions of plays of Peter Pan. GOSH own the rights to Peter Pan, there is a special act of parliament which means it will never expire and you have drama groups trying to avoid paying for the rights.

GOSH has more money then it knows what to do with though - they've been in trouble with the charities commission before for stockpiling wedge loads of cash.

I can't stand being forced by public opinion to be obligated to give to any charity. Charity is just that - an act of someone conciously choosing to give something of their own free will, otherwise it's just a bloody invoice of tax.

I give to the charities I choose to give to - I'll buy a poppy, but I won't be wearing it from November the first because it gets tatty, it irritates the life out of me and it invariably gets lost by about November the 5th - my choice, my business, none of yours so mind yer own berluddy parsnip.

As for this "I can't stand people who give to animal charities instead of just those for children" - bollocks to you to be honest. If I make a choice that I want to give some of my spare cash to a cause that's dear to MY heart - and give it to Cats Protection or whatever, that's my choice, based on my background and life which was made substantially brighter and more fun by falling into a decade of servitude to a 3 legged tyrant that I rehomed from there. I happen to care about animals and they've brought a lot of joy to my life - so I'd like to make some of their lives easier if they're down on their luck. You don't know which other collecting tins I chuck money into - so, again, keep your complaining about what I do with my money to yourself. Hell, I give so much of my own time, energy, effort and own resources to children's work in other ways - life's more than what you chuck in a collecting tin.

I won't give to the ones who do the endless TV ads, I won't give to the RSPCA for the reasons other people have mentioned, and I won't give to organizations that employ chuggers. My personal choice - other people might have different criteria for what they give to - that's between them, the charity in question and their own moral code.

It's no one else's business.

That suggestion that charities should be ranked according to the 'social good' they do was appalling - by whose criteria are they to be assessed?
OK charities which, for example, work with prisoners or ex-prisoners in need of rehabilitation probably do a lot of good (in reducing reoffending) but the fuckwit majority are never going to prioritize donating to them ('Give money to help thieves nd nonces when there's puppies starving/kids in hospital? You're having a laugh!')

Is it true or an urban myth that skydivers cost the NHS more in mending fractures than they ever raise for scanners etc?

A 'social good' index is suspect - one person would rate a religious charity highly, I (and I suspect SGB, somehow) would kick them off the list if there was a whiff of prozletising about them. But is there anywhere one simple index of efficiency - how much actually gets spent on the recipients rather than admin, fundraising etc? I know some orgs publish theses stats, do they all and are they compiled somewhere?

It should all be compiled by the Charities Commission, I know that you have to send them a full copy of your accounts every year as a charity.