Match for Michaela - do we need yet another charity?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

shesells

Registered User
Messages
2,207
Have been listening to coverage of tonight's match all week on the news channels/radio - it was pretty much impossible to avoid hearing about the match and the foundation. To be honest, I don't see why it merited so much coverage.

The murder of Michael McAreevy was a tragedy for her family and friends. And she seems to have been a good and popular person. I doubt very much that her name and face will be forgotten by many who have lived through the murder and trial, it's been in the news regularly. Is that not enough to keep her memory alive?

Fair play to those who gave up their time to play the game as a tribute to her. I guess what got my back up is that there is yet another personal charity/foundation www.themichaelafoundation.com which will benefit from the game. At a time when charity incomes have gone into freefall, do we really need yet another charity to dilute the pool further? Surely there was a charity Michaela supported, why does she need her own?
 
well i suppose if we can give millions to african countries when we havent got a pot to pee in ourselves, why not give a little support to the McAreevy family, charity begins at home.
 
blueband said:
well i suppose if we can give millions to african countries when we havent got a pot to pee in ourselves, why not give a little support to the McAreevy family, charity begins at home.
Click to expand...

I don't think the idea is that funds go to the family. I can totally understand the motivation behind setting up su h a foundation or charity in the victims name. But I do think it is misguided, and would be much more efficiently spent as a donation to an existing charity.

I might have missed it, but this foundation does not mention being registered with the charity commission.
 
I actually was quite disturbed by the foundation website, it's a bit creepy, the emphasis on her faith and not poisoning her body with artificial substances. Even the summer camps for girls that focus on faith and fashion...reminds me of another f...undamentalist.
 
I take it that many on here are not great GAA fans. Michaela's father is a larger-than-life figure. Michaela was always by his side at big matches. She was a Rose of Tralee contestant. In short Michaela was a very popular person. So what if she took her religion more seriously than some latterday agnostics on the forum? So what if she was against pounding your body with artificial substances? What does "creepy" mean on your description of the Michaela website. "Fundamentalist" ?

GAA people by their nature are decent and when times get tough you need such people. The Michaela Foundation is just dipping into that well.
 
Whatever about the religion, but I have to agree that it is unneccessary to start up another charity. GAA people might be decent (as opposed to people not interested??) but being pretty and popular in her short life isn't a reason to start something in her name.
 
MrMan said:
Whatever about the religion, but I have to agree that it is unneccessary to start up another charity. GAA people might be decent (as opposed to people not interested??) but being pretty and popular in her short life isn't a reason to start something in her name.
Click to expand...

+1

Very well put MrMan - I totally agree. I dont really see what the GAA connection has to do with it tbh.
 
shesells said:
I actually was quite disturbed by the foundation website, it's a bit creepy, the emphasis on her faith and not poisoning her body with artificial substances. Even the summer camps for girls that focus on faith and fashion...reminds me of another f...undamentalist.
Click to expand...

Is this not just that she doesnt drink or do drugs? Big deal, lots of people dont drink or do drugs - I barely do the former and never do the latter myself. If she drank tea or coffee or ever took modern medicine then its a hypocritical statement anyway.

Any kind of summer camp focussing on faith is a bad plan to my mind, however, for those who are into it, they are entitled to indoctrinate their children in whatever manner they choose under current laws.
 
truthseeker said:
+1

I dont really see what the GAA connection has to do with it tbh.
Click to expand...

Beat me to it. "GAA People" are half the country or more (and growing) - every time I get a Nigerian taxi, I end up having a conversation about his kids playing Gaelic Football or Camogie.

So if some high profile GAA person supports Sean Quinn or sets up a foundation for virtuous girls, it's pretty lazy to infer that anyone with any connection to our national games believes in all that stuff as well!!!

Back to the main point though, it doesn't strike me that promoting a certain way for young girls to live is the worthiest cause, but that's just my opinion and the reason I won't contribute to it.
 
This is something which bugs me slightly as well. We have had the likes of Ronan Keating setting up the cancer charity in memory of his mother - why does he not direct his efforts towards the Irish Cancer Society, would ensure more money going where its needed not on Admin. Keith Duffy on the other hand focus's his efforts towards Irish Autism.
Saw this race http://markpollocktrust.org/ recently - to raise funds to help Mark Pollack walk again. Not for me
 
Precisely - the amount of duplication between the various cancer charities as an example must be massive. I would imagine there are hundreds of charities set up to raise funds for different people with cancer or who have died from cancer. If all the money they raised went to a central charity like the Irish Cancer Society surely that would maximise the potential of the funds?

The individual charity thing buts me but why was this charity so much more important than so many others? Michaela's widower was interviewed in all the papers and on RTE and Newstalk (and probably the other national broadcasters too) to promote the match and the foundation. That's media exposure that other charities don't get, and couldn't afford to buy. Like so much in this country, it's all about who your connections are.
 
shesells said:
The individual charity thing buts me but why was this charity so much more important than so many others? Michaela's widower was interviewed in all the papers and on RTE and Newstalk (and probably the other national broadcasters too) to promote the match and the foundation. That's media exposure that other charities don't get, and couldn't afford to buy. Like so much in this country, it's all about who your connections are.
Click to expand...

Really? Charities, by and large, get saturation coverage in the Irish media.It sounds to me that you begrudge poor John McAreavey the interviews he got last week.
 
thats true, the likes of newstalk ect often have people from various charities on air.
 
I've long thought that all charity giving should go to a single administrative pool, if you're a charity you apply to become an eligible member of that pool.

Donor, donating to the central pool, then nominates where the cash goes in what proportions. Strict rules on how cash is used, salary caps etc to be let join the pool, rigorous continuous monitoring.

There's a charity industry out there thats doing as much for itself as for others.

Illegal to charity fundraise for any organisation that pays staff (to keep local voluntary organisations out of the net). I would exclude amateur sports from this regulation as, typically, the vast majority of administrators are unpaid.

Re Michaela - there are probably more worthy causes than showing girls the right way to live, but of itself its no harm. Good people all round.
 
Betsy Og said:
I've long thought that all charity giving should go to a single administrative pool, if you're a charity you apply to become an eligible member of that pool.

Donor, donating to the central pool, then nominates where the cash goes in what proportions. Strict rules on how cash is used, salary caps etc to be let join the pool, rigorous continuous monitoring.

There's a charity industry out there thats doing as much for itself as for others.
Click to expand...

That is one of the best ideas I have read on this site,the one thing that annoys me most is the thought that my hard earned donation is going to pay the salary/expenses of an individual on over 100k a year before expenses.

As with all vested interests,those that make a handsome living living off others charitable donations,they will lobby hard and throw all sorts of tantrums to ensure such an excellent idea is never put in to play.
 
I agree that it would be better if money was not going to several different charities all supporting the same cause but to one charity who could utilise it more effectively and take a more 'joined up' approach to where the money is needed.

On the other hand, though, people are more likely in a lot of cases to give to something that they connect sentimentally with, is very current or -dare I say it - 'fashionable'. People who would contribute to the Michaela fund might not necessarily contribute to a similar charity instead.

ETA Actually I have just read the website and, while I've no objection to initiatives to help young people to practise their faith, stay off drink and drugs etc, it seems to be really just girl guides cum summer camp for older kids. Not really sure if its that worthwhile a cause. The money would be better going to drugs awareness campaigns, local community initiatives (including parish run activities in line with Michaela's strong faith - which I don't find the least bit 'creepy-) etc It seems to be well meaning but a bit vague and airy fairy.
 
Knuttell said:
... the one thing that annoys me most is the thought that my hard earned donation is going to pay the salary/expenses of an individual on over 100k a year before expenses.
Click to expand...
100k is peanuts - this was in the Indo on Monday - [broken link removed].
 
I had a look at the Mark Pollack trust.

The funds raised are to pay for:

"The Mark Pollock Trust hopes to raise significant funds to assist with the capital and ongoing costs specifically associated with his spinal injury - including a team of rehabilitation specialists, physiotherapy equipment, visits to specialised spinal injury activity-based recovery centres and mobility solutions. You can help Mark to break through the barriers that paralysis and blindness have placed around him"


Note - if this person lives in Ireland, healthcare is provided free by the State, except for GP fees, A&E fees, drugs up to 132 pm.

So if he is living in Ireland, rehabilitation is free, or paid by the taxpayer.

But he expects people to donate for his healthcare??

What about his health insurance??

Or claim against the place where he fell??
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top