to judge this cause by the photo?

[mumnosbest]

I know I abu and judgemental but it got me thinknig. There are often donation pots in local shops for local causes here, Not an official collection just a handwritten message and a photo stuck to them. Recently there have been a few cases of youngsters with cancer. I usually put my change in as they're local and that brings the issue home. Today I came across a collection for a young lad (20ish), white with a shaved head. He's stuck in a foreign hospital and needs help with medical care. I didn't put my change in. On my way home I was thinking about why? I had subconciously decided just from the photo that I didn't trust this cause and it could be a scam.

I know I abu but how ca you tell when a collection is for a genuine cause unless it's registered. Should I keep giving and hope most of it is genuine or only give to registered charities but neglect the local genuine cases? WWYD

Where I live, local causes are generally in the news, papers, tv, internet campaigns. Therefore if I see a local cause I know nothing about I tend not to give to it.

You give to the charities you feel comfortable with, I don't give to charities where it goes overseas and I don't give to animal ones either.

so shaven head = scam in your eyes?

Or am I reading this wrong?

I suppose you just go with your instinct, but I'm not entirely keen on your selection process tbf.

i dont put my money in any of these pots - you never know the money will end up where it says (but then i am generally mistrustful!)
I do hoever donate via regular Direct Debits to various charities of my choosing, and a few other personal ones from families with ill children that are local and have just giving pages and you can follow their story and treatment
You could always do some googling or something to see if there were any news articles locally about people fundraising for specific needs - that way you might see if something was a genuine cause

I'm not keen on it either. Like I sadid it was subconcious and I thought I was pretty non-judgemental. Past pictures have been of cherobic kiddies, pretty angelic teens etc but this one just looked like a sterotypical hoody type. I didn't think I was one to be swayed by sterotypes, hence my posting this. I can't think what else made me reluctant to give this time I am disappointed in myself!

These tend to be in local papers too but I don't always get one and haven't come across this one yet.

Like others, I only tend to give to charities that I recognise/can verify, as there are a fair few scams about.

Having said that, if I was going to set up a charity-collection scam, the photo I would use would be of a sweet little cherub, cute puppy or similar. Perhaps the shaven-headed hoodie is the one most likely to be genuine.

I like giving locally. Charity begins at home and all that.
I think I will go back later and empty my purse out of guilt.

Why did his skin colour affect your opinion too?

I once saw a punk begging on the street. He had faded denims on, a dirty tartan top and his Moheecan was all floppy because he obviously couldn't afford gel. It was the saddest state I had seen a person in and I gave him some money. I couldn't not do. I know a lot of people would have tutted and walked past.

Saying that, I tend to avoid the more popular charities except Dogs Trust.

Why did his skin colour affect your opinion too?

Because if he was black with a shaved head, everyone would say the OP is racist.

From what I can read, it might be the shaved head or lack of cherubic cheeks that put the OP off!

Like owls, if I was running a scam, I would use the angelic little wide eyed faces.

YouOldSlag what I meant really was why was skin colour even a factor. Could it not just have been 'young lad with a shaved head'

From reading your description my first thought was, "Young guy off to party in a foreign country who didn't bother to buy travel insurance and is now stuck because of drunken injury."

Obviously I could be completely wrong! But YANBU if you only want to give to charitable causes in which you understand the problem and how your money will help it.

Whitewidow- I think it's right that she described the photograph fully so we can form our own judgements. She was just stating the facts.

Paviaso- I think you've hit the nail on the head- I also thought drunken hooligan with no bloody travel insurance and no E111 card!

The registered charity thing makes things really difficult for small or newly formed charities.

The charities Comission expects charities to have had a turnover of £5000 before they will grant them a registered number, but it is very hard to raise that amount of money without having the number because people are distrustful and you can't apply for grants. It's like a vicious circle. Not enough money to get the reg number, but because you havent got the reg number you can't go after more money.

I understand why this rule exists, it just makes it hard to get a charity of the ground.

If you feel inclined, look after contact details and call them, then make a judgement on whether they are genuine.

I described him as a young white lad because he is a young white lad! I was just describing the picture.
My first thoughts (after) were thug-ish, american history x. I also thought about how he came to be stuck in hospital (it is in a poular holiday destination). Im pretty sure if it had been a young girl or floppy haired lad i might have been more charitable. Im just surprised at how i form opinions of people. I thought i was less judgemental.

£5000 is a lot for a charity to become registered, especially if its a one off case.

After lots of thought on this i dont think i made a decision not to give. I just think that usually i see the picture/read the message and it pulls at my heart strings. This one didnt. Maybe i just felt no empathy for him. He isnt a child like my dcs and not a young teen like my nieces. Maybe i just couldnt relate. I dont thi.k i have any race/youth/shaved head issues. Perhaps ive overthouht the whole thing which i tend to do.

The point about registered charities is that they are not intended to be formed for "one off" cases/ campaigns. They are akin to limited companies (in fact, the majority are also companies) and are intended to be ongoing concerns to support a given cause.

A registered charity is required to have a board of trustees, submit annual accounts and an annual return etc. to give funders some degree of comfort that the funds will not be misappropriated. Sadly, due to lack of audit trail, fraud in the charity sector, and especially the "unoffical" charity sector, is rife.

The Charities Commission is in a difficult place because there are literally thousands and thousands of small charities who don't do much/ are semi-dormant, but the administration of the governanace framework/ maintianing the register/ chasing paperwork, costs money, so you can understand why they want to make sure people are serious before they register them.

Agree with "outraged"that it makes it hard to get started. However, once you do, there are many forms of funding available to you that aren't available to everyone who thinks they have a cause, so on balance, I think the system is a good one.

Anyway, I dont think you should feel bad for not supporting every cause. As a funder, I spend my days saying no to good causes, especially very narrow ones, as it's not usually the most efficient way to solve the problem.

Whitewidow- in that case why are you called whitewidow instead of just widow? Why is the white important?

it may be her preferred smoke. ;)

Is it a smoke? I was a drum girl. Was.

Sorry op, YANBU. I would have thought uninsured drunken hol accident too in which case he wouldn't get my money over MSF I'm afraid (heroes.)

It's a pisstake of BlackWidow from the Avengers actually

Thanks kitty . Ive decided i wasnt umreasonable too. We all make judgements on instincts.

Un not umreasonable

Sorry, WhiteWidow, no insult intended.