to stop sponsoring people unless they are doing it to actually raise money for a relevant cause?

[amidaiwish]

I am getting so fed up with the constant requests for sponsorship.
Most people are approaching 40, putting on weight they can't shift so sign up for the latest fun run to motivate them to lose a bit of weight.
So they decide/have to raise money to do it.
So they set up a sponsorship page and hound people for money.

Why don't they just pay themselves... or do some activities to raise money and donate it.

Don't get me wrong, for relevant causes to the person doing it or real challenges i am more than happy to sponsor. when i know they are doing it to actually raise needed funds.

the latest is a group of friends walking through london together one night. i mean, what kind of a challenge is that?

so, AIBU?

Absolutely agree, YANBU. and also, what's all this 'just giving' web thing about, when your sponsorship contribution is published in a list with everyone else. I'm sure the fund raiser would rather I donated a fiver, than nothing at all, but when I look at their 'just giving' page, it seems £20 is the minimum donation, so I often just pretend I didn't get the email in the first place.

Policywonk - that astonishes me (about lung cancer); I'd no idea. I raise money for Cancer Research because my sister-in-law died at a young age from breast cancer and, a well-supported cause or not, too many people are still dying from it.

I'm a lifelong non-smoker but I'd hope the money is going into research against all cancers, lung and otherwise.

Saying that, it did used to annoy me when people would come to fundraising events and want to smoke. Not because they didn't have a right to - of course they do - but because it upset so many of the other people attending. It would just be good manners to pop out to the carpark for a fag, not demand an ashtray at the do itself.

amida - I think the reason there are different charities for different cancers is that different cancers require different treatments; the investigations required to come up with a new treatment for, say, breast cancer will rarely have any relation to investigations required to come up with a new form of treatment for lung cancer. So all the different kinds of cancer research are fighting over a limited pot of funding.

OldestCat - I'm sorry to hear about your SIL. Of course it's absolutely admirable and understandable that you should want to raise money for breast cancer research, given your personal history. And of course, far too many people are still dying of breast cancer, and more research and new treatments are always needed.

I just don't believe that the pot of money is being fairly distributed at the moment, given how many people die from lung cancer (and other 'unmentionable' cancers like bowel cancer). Most funds that are given to lung cancer - as I understand it - go towards epidemiological research: trying to accurately predict who is at risk of developing it, so that they can be regularly screened to catch it early. (It's not quite as simple as 'smokers' being the at-risk group - we all know people who have smoked for decades and die of old age.)

The problem with this is that once you have advanced lung cancer, medicine effectively shrugs its shoulders and says 'oh dear. Better put your affairs in order.' This is a miserable state of affairs for a cancer that affects so many people.

My very best friend wanted to raise money through work about a year ago in memory of a colleage who passed away suddenly from a stroke. She was all pumped up and wanted to do something impressively self-sacrificial, and decided on a skydive. The only thing is that it costs a lot of money (I can't remember the exact amount, but it was about £100 even at 'fundraising' cost). I was set against it - that was £100 that could go straight to the charity, but she was convinced that she would get more than £100 above what she would otherwise raise if she did something less impressive.

So I'm not sure where I stand on this to be honest. The charity doesn't benefit from the activity you do to raise money for it, whether it's a one-hour silence or scaling Everest. And the amount I sponsor someone is usually related to how close I am to the person doing it and how passionate I am about the cause. So I think YAB a little U.

Policywonk - I'm sorry about your mum.

Is there a charity devoted to lung cancer apart from the Roy Castle one? I suppose you could argue that support for smokers to stop and thus massively decrease their risk of developing lung cancer is part of it all (I know it's not the only risk factor but it is a big one). But you're absolutely right that that leaving people to cope after a diagnosis without more support is dreadful. Your poor mum.

Thank you OC. It was very frightening when the realisation dawned that lung cancer treatments have barely advanced in the last 30 years or so. My mother was actually tremendously lucky in that she responded very well to the first-line lung cancer chemo mix; that, together with a lot of radiation and gamma knife surgery, meant that she survived for five years after the diagnosis. But most people diagnosed with metastasized lung cancer don't survive for more than six months.

I don't honestly know whether there are any other lung cancer charities - I haven't heard of any. The organisation that my mother's oncologist wanted to set up would have been partly aimed at lobbying governments and charities to provide more research funds, but as far as I know he hasn't done it yet. (He's a fairly busy guy .)

Maybe I should write to him to see whether he has done it yet, instead of being vexatious on here!

No, not vexatious - very interesting (I'm sorry that sounds cold). I've had a quick look at the Roy Castle site and there are some links for support, but no time to delve further as I'm meant to be working.

policywonk, do you have any understanding of why there are so many e.g. breast cancer charities? there are loads - all for the same cancer/cause? Seems so at odds with maximising the money sent to actually research/fight the disease or support those with it.

just popping in briefly, so apologies if I don't get involved in convo,as off again very soon,... but charities tend to be started up by small groups of people who are passionate about a particular cause (usually because they, or someone they care about, has been affected by the problem, but sometimes out of sheer altruism). Hence the oncologist that policywonk knows of may set up a particular charity specialising in lung cancer research.

If that charity does well, it may grow and grow. (Think of the Roy Castle charity). And in ten, twenty years people will be criticising it for being 'too marginalised'...not supporting people with curable lung cancer, or a particular type of cancer not covered in its remit, or lung disease per se, not campaigning for the right things, being 'too big', too top heavy, etc etc.

It is the idiosyncracies (sp) of charity work - charities don't emerge because of some grand plan, but due to the hard work and dedication of a small few. This grows to a larger staff, all set on campaigning for the particular cause that the charity holds dear. But it is an organic growth, and charities seek the funding where they can - hence building a 'brand' and focusing on key messages.

There is a growing voice within the sector for charities to merge and stop duplicating - age concern and help the aged have just done it, and Macmillan Cancer Support and Cancerbackup did it a few years ago.

You have to remember that many of these charities rely on the strength of their name within the public psyche to raise much of their funds. To merge with others is to risk a dip in this ability to raise funds. Many of them know that this is the way forward, but politics, fundraising and different agendas make it more difficult.

Stick with charities, be patient... remember they're not perfect, and they're not hard-nosed businesses - though they are often run well, with an eye on low 'admin-to-spend' costs. And get involved, add your voice, and help them to change by telling them what their supporters would like to see.

That's interesting, pombear. I'm interested in international development issues, and there certainly seems to be a ridiculous number of charities all campaigning for very similar things in that field. The differences between them probably feel very significant to the people who work in them, but to most outsiders they are indistinguishable, and the merger opportunities look limitless!

Hi policywonk. Yep, very true - internally everyone's focused on getting done what's in their remit. Like I said, if more people got involved and encouraged and convinced said charities that it would be a 'good thing' to merge, and that they wouldn't lose their residual and historical support, I think more would peer out from their own walls and feel comfortable about joining hands!

It is happening, more and more, but they just need a helpful and encouraging hand!