Feeling guilty about not donating? Some people do, actually, many people do. That is why those “telethons” work so well, and that is why they are being put on time and again, even though it is a well-established fact that only about 20 percent (sometimes less and at times none) of the donated money gets to the advertised victims.
There is one other thing about those fund-raisers. It seems that the victims they depict (as tools for emotional appeals via which to collect their money) are suffering women, children and cuddly pets. At times, endangered wildlife is also a popular, powerful motivator.
When it comes to the promotion of victim status, pets and wildlife serve well, but men need not apply, even though, world-wide, men live on average five fewer years than women do. Generally, the more socialistic the country, the more likely it is that its women outlive its men by more and even far more than five years.
Certainly, many of the causes and victim groups those telethons collect money for are worthy of donations, however, as Angry Harry explains in one of his brilliant analytical commentaries, such fund-raisers serve primarily the organizations that organize and sponsor them.
Charity or Self-Interest? The point of this piece is simply to demonstrate one example of how it is that socially-destructive organisations such as the NSPCC can become so powerful by providing self-enriching mechanisms for people whose main aim is to feather their own nests. — By Angry Harry
NSPCC stands for National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, an all-powerful organization in the U.K. that apparently is accountable to no one and grew so enormously powerful that it no longer can be controlled by anyone.
- The NSPCC is the only UK charity which has been granted statutory powers under the Children Act 1989, allowing it to apply for care and supervision orders for children at risk.  As of June 2007, the NSPCC operated ten teams of child protection social workers. (Wikipedia)
Wikipedia has a peculiar characteristic that prevents it from being considered a good source of the truth. The contents for many of its entries change over time, apparently to adjust on demand for political correctness. Unfortunately, one cannot determine from any particular entry in Wikipedia whether the current edition exaggerates or downplays specific concerns, or even whether a given entry is as complete as it should be. For example, here are links to archived Wikipedia entries for NSPCC:
2004 09 05 contained the following information:
The NSPCC employs 1,800 people
In 2002/2003 it had an income of £100.3 million and expenditure of £90.6 million.
On 2005 12 15, that information was changed to the following:
It employs over 2000 people and in 2005 spent £84,500,000 (or 79%) of its income http://www.nspcc.org.uk/documents/reportAccounts05.pdf on activities to end cruelty to children compared to £42M in 1997/98, a pattern of growth that indicates either that the N[S]PCC is becoming increasingly effective at discovering cruelty to children, or that levels of cruelty are themselves on the increase (which the NSPCC has evidently been powerless to prevent), or simply that people have become a lot more generous, and the money has to be given away somehow.
On 2006 09 13, that information was changed to read:
It employs over 2000 people, and has a budget for 2006-2007 of £138 million. Of this £138 million, the NSPCC plans to spend £60 million (43%) on services for children and young people.
On 2006 10 20, that information still was included in the entry, but in the entry that was accessible today, 2008 05 10, the information pertaining to the administrative headquarters and to figures on employment and on budget and income had vanished.
It appears that the information was removed for the obvious reason that it is not good for the NSPCC’s reputation and cash-flow projections to publicize how lucrative a business the NSPCC really is. Aside from that, there were other changes to the various editions of Wikipedia’s entries for NSPCC over time. The most notable of those changes, on the other hand, is the addition of information on the NSPCC’s role in Campaigning and controversy and in the Satanic ritual abuse scandal.
It seems that Wikipedia has no qualms about identifying that the NSPCC is socially destructive but now shies away from identifying how much money is being earned by the NSPCC. Perhaps that is done for no other reason than to prevent such information from coming into play in wage negotiations by its more than 2,000 employees, but I doubt that is the only or major reason for hiding how lucrative an enterprise the promotion of social destruction is for the NSPCC.