CRUK and the effect on fundrasing

[kibbster]

One of my workmates is raising money for charity, unfortunately it happens to be for CRUK.
I can't donate to CRUK because of their stance on E-cigs and their wish to see them banned or rendered ineffective because of their Pharma funding.

I don't feel good using someones well intentioned fundraiser to make a stance on charity ethics but I had to do it.

I will tweet CRUK tonight to let them know why I refused to donate to them today.
If enough people tweet them when they have to turn down fundraising maybe it's the only way CRUK (and their Pharma puppetmasters) might notice.

Still feel a bit wrong, but I felt I had to do it.

[markm]

Well they are the ones allowing funding to determine their views,
So I guess they need to decide who's money they want the most.
It's going to be a tough decision for them, I hope!

[Ron]

Dec 3, 2013 14:44:03 GMT kibbster said:

One of my workmates is raising money for charity, unfortunately it happens to be for CRUK.
I can't donate to CRUK because of their stance on E-cigs and their wish to see them banned or rendered ineffective because of their Pharma funding.

I don't feel good using someones well intentioned fundraiser to make a stance on charity ethics but I had to do it.

I will tweet CRUK tonight to let them know why I refused to donate to them today.
If enough people tweet them when they have to turn down fundraising maybe it's the only way CRUK (and their Pharma puppetmasters) might notice.

Still feel a bit wrong, but I felt I had to do it.

Don't feel bad about it just drop a donation in any of the many worthy charity boxes and you have cleared your concience and helped a good cause

[Karma]

Dec 3, 2013 14:44:03 GMT kibbster said:

One of my workmates is raising money for charity, unfortunately it happens to be for CRUK.
I can't donate to CRUK because of their stance on E-cigs and their wish to see them banned or rendered ineffective because of their Pharma funding.

I don't feel good using someones well intentioned fundraiser to make a stance on charity ethics but I had to do it.

I will tweet CRUK tonight to let them know why I refused to donate to them today.
If enough people tweet them when they have to turn down fundraising maybe it's the only way CRUK (and their Pharma puppetmasters) might notice.

Still feel a bit wrong, but I felt I had to do it.

Don't feel bad about it Kibbs 

if you want to support a very worthy Cancer Charity donate to MacMillan!

[kibbster]

Dec 3, 2013 15:19:20 GMT Karma said:

Dec 3, 2013 14:44:03 GMT kibbster said:

One of my workmates is raising money for charity, unfortunately it happens to be for CRUK.
I can't donate to CRUK because of their stance on E-cigs and their wish to see them banned or rendered ineffective because of their Pharma funding.

I don't feel good using someones well intentioned fundraiser to make a stance on charity ethics but I had to do it.

I will tweet CRUK tonight to let them know why I refused to donate to them today.
If enough people tweet them when they have to turn down fundraising maybe it's the only way CRUK (and their Pharma puppetmasters) might notice.

Still feel a bit wrong, but I felt I had to do it.

Don't feel bad about it Kibbs 

if you want to support a very worthy Cancer Charity donate to MacMillan!

Thanks, I think I will.

[geordie]

Standing by your principles is sometimes quite hard - I admire what you did and I hope your workmate understands why you did it. Well done.

[james]

I've had the same concerns in the past. And it's not just ecigs, a lot of these charities are seen as cash cows. One journalist told me she was switching to charity work because there was so much money in it (surely the wrong reason to do charity work). My mother also told me the story of a business man whose business went under. When she asked him how he was doing, he said fine - he had switched to charity work (think it was CRUK) and was earning more money than ever before.

Then you hear of all the things people have done to raise money for them (for example in my local pub nearly everyone shaved their hair to raise money for cruk after a local got cancer) and it seems terribly wrong.

Dec 3, 2013 14:44:03 GMT kibbster said:

One of my workmates is raising money for charity, unfortunately it happens to be for CRUK.
I can't donate to CRUK because of their stance on E-cigs and their wish to see them banned or rendered ineffective because of their Pharma funding.

I don't feel good using someones well intentioned fundraiser to make a stance on charity ethics but I had to do it.

I will tweet CRUK tonight to let them know why I refused to donate to them today.
If enough people tweet them when they have to turn down fundraising maybe it's the only way CRUK (and their Pharma puppetmasters) might notice.

Still feel a bit wrong, but I felt I had to do it.

[djs]

Maybe CRUK should re-think the whole idea. Unless the evil puppets of doom have their own way, e-cig use is going to keep growing.

People who have taken up vaping and quit smoking are exactly the sort of folk likely to give money either regularly or on occasion to help find answers/cures for cancer.

If they continue to sit on the side of the fence that wants e-cigs banned, they need to accept their actions.

The question I ask is...

Which is liable to bring in more money? Would donors stop giving if they softened their attitude?