Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Good points reeko.


US Save The Kids does not claim to be a registered charity. It is a grassroots, not for profit, organisation. One of the reasons I imagine it has not opted for charitable status is because of the way that status would restrict it's activities. For example one of the ways it engages with young people is by showing them how to make a difference by engaging with politics through nonviolent, creative, protest.


The OP asked if save the kids was a registered charity, she did not say that it was passing itself off as one. A number of conclusions have been arrived at on this thread without any evidence to back them up. I just don't find kangaroo courts helpful and it would be good to have some facts as opposed to conjecture before writing this group off.


I remain open minded.

Interesting Chick Pea that you seem to dismiss my point about the unhelpful focus on executive pay but endorse reeko's points including about "pay of senior executives". To say that relatively high salary costs for charities diverts funds from the needy to the greedy sounds like conjecture rather than a balanced assessment of the facts taking into account broader context and organisational objectives and impact.


But this reinforces my earlier point about the need to educate donors to the complexity of organisations and how they connect donors to beneficiaries, in my view. Some organisations are better at it than others and some donors get it more than others.

giggirl Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Chick Pea Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> >

> > Secondly the link posted is the only web

> presence

> > for Save the Kids - it is not beyond the realms

> of

> > possibility that collections were being made

> here

> > for an overseas organisation is it?

> >

>

> Yes Chick Pea it is completely beyond the realms

> of possibility that a charity which works with

> kids in Los Angeles, Chicago and New York and has

> no presence whatsoever outside of the USA is

> fundraising at East Dulwich Station. It really

> isn't enough to Google things and then randomly

> post links without engaging your brain first.

> Posting links to a website of a bona fide charity,

> as you did, gives credence where non is due.


Posting the link is perfectly reasonable as the discussion is about the supposed charity - and to date there is no absolute evidence that they are dodgy (although that is quite possible). Clam down pepes.

Here are some facts about the people collecting in East Dulwich this week.


The person associated with Save the Kids and who organised the collection is a member of this forum.


Last week, three separate threads appeared looking to recruit fundraisers to collect money. The wage being offered was ?7 per hour + bonus on top.


A number of questions were put to the OP, asking for clarification on the status of the charity and asking for some transparency regarding where the money was going to be spent. The OP declined to answer questions about where the money would be spent.


Admin removed all three of the recruitment threads for Save the Kids.


As the OP of the original threads is a member of the Forum, he or she could come on here and comment if they desired to do so. Certainly if I myself was running a charity and someone questioned the legitimacy of my charity I would have something to say.


The link posted to the American charity of the same name was misleading and pointless. A link to a website for Dogs for the Blind or Save the Tiger would have been no less relevant.

giggirl Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Here are some facts about the people collecting in

> East Dulwich this week.

>

> The person associated with Save the Kids and who

> organised the collection is a member of this

> forum.

>

> Last week, three separate threads appeared looking

> to recruit fundraisers to collect money. The wage

> being offered was ?7 per hour + bonus on top.

>

> A number of questions were put to the OP, asking

> for clarification on the status of the charity and

> asking for some transparency regarding where the

> money was going to be spent. The OP declined to

> answer questions about where the money would be

> spent.

>

> Admin removed all three of the recruitment threads

> for Save the Kids.

>

> As the OP of the original threads is a member of

> the Forum, he or she could come on here and

> comment if they desired to do so. Certainly if I

> myself was running a charity and someone

> questioned the legitimacy of my charity I would

> have something to say.

>

> The link posted to the American charity of the

> same name was misleading and pointless. A link to

> a website for Dogs for the Blind or Save the Tiger

> would have been no less relevant.


The extra information is helpful g-girl, wish you had posted it sooner.


Chick-pea's google search and link was perfectly reasonable as that is the group's chosen name - that's what 99% of us do when faced with something we know little about. He/she didn't say they were promoting the charity or that they believed the local collecters were kosher.

If a member if this forum was trying to pass a dodge organisation off as a charity I would imagine EDF would be the last they would advertise.


Giggirl has yet to provide a shred of evidence to prove that this group are not worth a donation. I find the tone of her posts hostile and arrogant and the use of insults weak.


Can anyone explain what this organisation is being accused of?

Chick Pea Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If a member if this forum was trying to pass a

> dodge organisation off as a charity I would

> imagine EDF would be the last they would

> advertise.

>

> Giggirl has yet to provide a shred of evidence to

> prove that this group are not worth a donation. I

> find the tone of her posts hostile and arrogant

> and the use of insults weak.

>

> Can anyone explain what this organisation is being

> accused of?



If you're going to use a public forum then you might like to grow broader shoulders before taking offence at someone's tone. You might also pay attention to your own arrogant tone.


I did not realise that I was tasked with proving or disproving whether this group is worth a donation, I merely responded to the OP.


On balance, I think the group is being accused of a lack of transparency. The EDF was used to recruit fundraisers at ?7 per hour plus bonus, and our community has been targeted by street collectors. If you stick a charity label on a bucket and people put money into that bucket then there should be transparency about where the money is going.


On the threads last week the OP did not respond to questions asking what the charity was about and did not seem to know much about the registration process of the Charities Commission. Those threads have now been removed. The organiser is a forum-user and could contribute to this thread.


Maybe the money will be put to good use. Who knows? Perhaps the organiser may find that if s/he is forthcoming about the aims and objectives, and transparent about use of funds collected, then local people may be inclined to give input and get on board.

GG you are quick to jump to assumptions. I said that the tone of your posts is hostile and arrogant, not that it offends me.


Thanks for setting out the background to this - I agree with your last point as I would like to know more about the work of this group, how it benefits young people and how to support it.

Chick Pea Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> GG you are quick to jump to assumptions. I said

> that the tone of your posts is hostile and

> arrogant, not that it offends me.

>


Pedantic and passive aggressive. I'm guessing people normally let you get away with that crap.

giggirl Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Chick Pea Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > GG you are quick to jump to assumptions. I said

> > that the tone of your posts is hostile and

> > arrogant, not that it offends me.

> >

>

> Pedantic and passive aggressive. I'm guessing

> people normally let you get away with that crap.



And you too. Your behaviour on this thread stinks.

I saw them there on Wednesday too. Think there were three of them, none had any kind of name badge or I.D, no uniform or anything, and their collection tins/buckets almost looked to me like they'd had stickers ripped off them and then something else stuck over the top. They were being enormously over-earnest to the point of verging on intimidating. As far as I'm concerned it would have been clear to anyone that these guys were not genuine charity collectors, so I didn't give them anything.

Chick Pea Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I would like to know more about the work of this group, how it benefits young people and how to support it.



http://www.gumtree.com/p/jobs/dedicated-sales-individuals-vacancies-available-stk-charity-apply-now-50-a-day-bonus/1029855918

Have to agree. No information on who they are or what they do. What exactly is a "charity based" organisation. No online presence outside Twitter. No way to track them down should they run off with the donations they seem to be working very hard to solicit. if this lot are legit, they are doing a really good job of appearing not to be.
Very useful links ianr - thanks for digging around for them. It is either a scam or it is being run by people who don't know what they are doing and need to get input from experienced charity workers. Either way, the lack of transparency about what is happening with the money is alarming. When the forum was being used to recruit fundraisers last week, questions were put and remained unanswered.

Yes thanks ianr. Curioser and curiouser. A charity based company would be registered with Companies House, did quick web check and found following:


http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//compdetails

http://companycheck.co.uk/director/903891607


The twitter account is new, started in July and has over 2,000 followers but there is no facebook. So no web presence other than a two month old twitter account and some adds on Gumtree, no valid company or charitable registration.


Stk appears to be operating under the radar - wonder if HMRC have heard of them.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...