The Charity Sleuths

What the Intelligent Giving researchers are uncovering, and whose turn it is to make the tea

Friday, June 09, 2006

Cloak and Dagger

Reporting on charities is not half as boring as some may think. My investigations have uncovered a few juicy tidbits in these past few weeks - eat your heart out, News of the World.

But one thing that is driving me mad is dealing with charity press officers. If you think it's hard getting a straight answer out of politicians you should try charities. I admit I'm not always asking nice questions but people deserve honest answers, not weird PR doublespeak.

For instance, I asked Guide Dogs for the Blind if it's true that they are sitting on a big pile of cash because there aren't enough blind people to spend the money on. A bit indelicate, yes, but there was a serious point. They responded - not by answering the question, God forbid - but by yabbering on about "using giving websites proactively" or some such nonsense. Does this make you think they've got something to hide?

Sanchez

6 Comments:

Anonymous Michael said...

Can we see a list of the 1000 before the site goes live?

6:05 pm  
Blogger The Intelligent Giving Team said...

Och Michael, that's just too much to ask! Keep an eye on here and you'll be the first to know when we go live :)

7:13 pm  
Anonymous Michael said...

Yeah, I'm demanding. How about a list of questions asked, and to whom?

Perhaps once it is live...

2:42 am  
Anonymous Michael said...

I've just re-read that, and I meant "I'm a demanding person", not "I demand you tell me.."

7:08 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sanchez, perhaps you need to do some reading about reserves policies so you understand what it is you are 'sleuthing'.
it took me about 30 seconds on the guide dogs website to find an explanation of their researves and why the are held.
what credible research (even if you are paraphrasing here) would ask questions from such a biased angle?

3:37 pm  
Anonymous Dave said...

Sanchez was repeating a rumour that has been doing the rounds for about ten years now, to judge the response. We know the truth (ie, it is unfounded and based upon an investigation a decade ago). A few months ago Geraldine Peacock (who was Chief Exec when the issue arose) personally explained to me the genesis of the rumour. Interestingly their press team did not want to admit that there had ever been a controversy.

4:20 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home