It�s the generous wages (I've heard it can be upwards of �7.00 an hour plus a commission for every person they sucker in). 'How do the charities afford to pay all this?' I hear you ask. Well, you didn't think the ten quid a month you pledge goes to a Namibian village do you? No. The Africans are probably given about three pence and a pack of Uncle Bens and are beaten if they don't like it. The ten quid ordinary Joe Bloggs pledges goes to fund drinking habits of the 'clipboarders' and to buy them lots of lovely shoes and jeans manufactured in the sweatshops they are campaigning against. I mean when was the last time you saw them wearing a burlap sack outfit? Are you kidding? They're more likely to be sporting a pair of Levis or Adidas trousers (or any other leading brand of clothing � Pete) and similarly expensive footwear. The public are paying to fund their 'stylish wardrobe!'
If they're not being annoying running in front of you tripping you up, they're handing out free hugs (as I have genuinely told one of them 'I'd rather lick a cat than hug one of YOU PEOPLE!' ) it is a real issue that does make me very angry that the money that is supposed to go to cancer research, the national institute of the blind, Oxfam and Amnesty International, etc. But it does nothing but line the pockets of these eejits.
There was this one guy collecting for Amnesty International who harassed me, came into my work and belittled my relationship with Pete just because he thought he could abuse his power. Well, he got what he deserved - SACKED! They have to understand that if people want to give money to charities they shouldn't have to be enticed by magical ever so attractive clipboards that can cure diseases and stop poverty. I gave money and continue to give money to The National Canine Defence League to sponsor a dog in the Dogs Trust. This money goes to homing the dog and feeding it. I give �2.00 a week (hardly extortionate) but I'd rather sponsor a dog than give money to the poor in Africa � not because I�m cruel, but there is no guarantee they will actually get the money. Rather conveniently the 'clipboarders' suddenly have a new pair of trainers straight off the production line in Vietnam.
The Make Poverty History campaign complained that the wristbands were being made unethically in sweatshops. Although this is inherently wrong it's not what Make Poverty History is about. This was to drop the Third World debt. It's Amnesty International's job to quell sweatshops, but lets face it, it employs creepy letchy power-mad assholes!
Maybe if they were made to work in a sweatshop they would do their job properly, decline the commission and genuinely believe in what they're doing.
