Please read this and take into consideration before donating to CR.

I work for 2 major banks in the UK and one of our main processing companys who I will keep nameless but are based in Rotherham, process all the cancer research payments in-house.

I have it on good authority that 90% of your actual donation goes to this company
for their processing and data entry and only the 10% remaining goes to cancer research!

I am fairly disgusted by this- but it just shows you what goes on behind the scenes at a big charity.

Please keep donating to charities though- I dont want people to stop giving people the help they need in life.

I just wanted to let you all be aware of this though.

Well what is this 'good authority' because it sounds like cobblers to me.

My good friend who works in the lockbox department of this big processing company- who will still remain nameless.

I can quite believe your comments as other charities do exactly the same!....I have yet to see one true charity where all the money donated goes to the reciptients of that charity.

The Lottery is a good example of this and the only winners are the organisers not the charities.

If I could get some proof for you all I certainly would and would love to post it on here for all to see.. but at the minute were working in-between jobs for Barclays and Lloyds so I'll see if my mate can get me a staff memo or a monthly report on how the processing is going.

Summat like that.

why not just invest in places fighting getting cancer like neways than those finding a cure

Originally posted by ANGELUS
I work for 2 major banks in the UK and one of our main processing companys who I will keep nameless but are based in Rotherham, process all the cancer research payments in-house.

I have it on good authority that 90% of your actual donation goes to this company
for their processing and data entry and only the 10% remaining goes to cancer research!
1. I'll be passing on this forum reference to a area co-ordinator I know personally, who works for Cancer Research. I'm sure they will find it disturbing on a whole series of levels

2. I'll be looking forward to seeing you eat your bloody hat... have you any idea how damaging your unfounded and frankly ridiculous charges can be..?


No?!... let me explain a few simple facts of life regarding the way charities work... ESPECIALLY one as huge as Cancer Research... The charity commission will indepently review and act on any situations where a charity is not acting on its registered mandate.. which is this case is to research and explore possible causes and cures for cancer..

The media would be all over this story like a dose of salts if there was so much as a shred of evidence to support your so called friends accusation...

Research will undoubtedly involve a MASSIVE amount of data and careful storage of that data... and aside from anything else I very much doubt that your so called "authority" has any real access to a complete picture..


I'll be honest, your attitude on this forum with your constant naysaying and anti-this... pro-theft (oh ok, DVD copying, etc), etc... is just plain nuts... I've got no respect for your regular "on good authority" posts... they're often so much conjecture and twisted logic as to defy belief...

Now get your facts straight.

This post is stupid and damaging, can't it just be closed or deleted or something??? :rolleyes:

I work for a charity, you have no idea what goes into the running, or how much money it takes to do some good.

Get a life.

Originally posted by Snook
This post is stupid and damaging, can't it just be closed or deleted or something??? :rolleyes:

I work for a charity, you have no idea what goes into the running, or how much money it takes to do some good.

Get a life.

Instead of trying to shut down posts that you don't agree with, why not be more constructive and tell us exactly what percentage of the money we donate actually reaches the charity.

I'm sure we'd all be glad to hear that we're not simply lining the pockets of weathly professional collecting agencies.

Give us the figures

Originally posted by mojoworking
Instead of trying to shut down posts that you don't agree with, why not be more constructive and tell us exactly what percentage of the money we donate actually reaches the charity.

I'm sure we'd all be glad to hear that we're not simply lining the pockets of weathly professional collecting agencies.
Give us the figures
My sentiments exactly....It would be interesting to find out how much percentage of a pounds donation goes to administration costs.

I have noticed that a lot of these people that are part of major charities don't look as if they need any money and have nice homes with flash cars.

Bearing in mind that they work full time for these charities, I would love to find out exactly what the renumeration the directors award themselves out of the coffers.

and the bit that cancer research do get probably goes into animal testing making those people rich and back to government

Originally posted by mojoworking
Instead of trying to shut down posts that you don't agree with, why not be more constructive and tell us exactly what percentage of the money we donate actually reaches the charity.

I'm sure we'd all be glad to hear that we're not simply lining the pockets of weathly professional collecting agencies.

Give us the figures

Well, i wasn't really serious about deleting the thread, just seems a really stupid one.

Of course you have to pay wages and cover costs.

pay them 4.80 an hour then

You can view the audited accounts for Cancer Research here (http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/aboutus/publications/reportandaccounts/)

Nomme

if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

Originally posted by f_g
pay them 4.80 an hour then

I know.... let's get a bunch of volunteers in who can live off of income support and who wouldn't know one end of a microscope from another...

Surely then, if we've got enough of them, one of them will find the cure... Right?

Give me strength...

Well, from the consolidated accounts there are 2 headline figures that you need.

Income: £305,833,000
Monies available for charitable application: £191,065,000

Not quite the story portrayed in the original post eh?

With regard to the amount of money you pay the staff working for the big charities, if you want people who are good at what they do you need to pay a rate that at least comes somewhere near the 'business' or 'public sector' rate. Otherwise you're exploiting the workforce, even in the name of a good cause.

If you're recruiting a Chief Executive or CEO type role, you want soemone who has teh experience of running a large organisation, who's also got contacts and connections, who knows how the rest of teh world of business and commerce, the NHS, Government, etc. works, at least in principle. He'll have people around to fill in the details, but bottom line is you pay for the external connectivity and influence bought in to a charity at the top level.

With IT people - you want professionals who will build scalable systems the way that they'd build them for business. You don't want well meaning amateurs doing the job for low pay, because ultimately soemthing's going to go pear shaped and that will cost big money - the last thing you want is the Charities Commission starting looking at stuff.

From the audited figures quoted there, it looks like 60% of what's raised is available for doing charitable work. That's 200 million that's available for research that wouldn't have been had the charity not been working the way it is. OK...they might be able to do better, but we don't know what the internal costs are like.

Some comments here remind me of the guy at Ford, years ago, who was disgusted by the way in which the finance people of teh company were trying to 'save' the company by closing plants, and effectively reducing the number of cars made. When told that the cuts were working and the company was losing less money, he retorted that perhaps they should shut down the whole production side and then they'd REALLY make some savings. Common sense eventually prevailed - the board realised that you do have to spend money to make it, but you just have to spend it in the right way.

Joe

Originally posted by Tony
Well, from the consolidated accounts there are 2 headline figures that you need.

Income: £305,833,000
Monies available for charitable application: £191,065,000

Not quite the story portrayed in the original post eh?

So thats:

£114 Million or 38% spent on fundraising and salaries etc
£191 Million or 62% for funding research etc.

Angelus?

I'd be very surprised if any charity took more than 50% for the running of the organization. People who run charities need to be paid a wage if it is to be run well, and for jobs like that you can't pay minimum wage because nobody would do it. There is also advertising, and all the costs that come with running any business. It all adds up, but means that much more money can go to these good courses in the long run.

Originally posted by Martin_s
1. I'll be passing on this forum reference to a area co-ordinator I know personally, who works for Cancer Research. I'm sure they will find it disturbing on a whole series of levels

So does anyone think Angelus' comments are litigious? I'm no expert.

Originally posted by DerekH
I can quite believe your comments as other charities do exactly the same!....I have yet to see one true charity where all the money donated goes to the reciptients of that charity.

The Lottery is a good example of this and the only winners are the organisers not the charities.

I disagree. The lottery is an example of a national gambling game with a slender chunk of the profits going to charity and the bulk being divided up between government and the corporation that runs the whole affair. Also the allocation of funds from the lottery is wildly patchy and inconsistent.

Cancer Research on the other hand solicits contributions and legacies with a well defined remit (cancer research) and uses this money to

a)fund research that is not necessarily profitable in its own right (such as quality of life post op cancer patients) as well as research into fighting the 'disease'.

b)raise awareness of Cancer prevention and treatment, and in doing so, raise awareness of its own organisation.

c)pay the charity staff competitive rates in order to retain quality employees.

So it's not like the lottery

And as for this:
Originally posted by AngelusI have it on good authority that 90% of your actual donation goes to this company for their processing and data entry and only the 10% remaining goes to cancer research!

Unless Angelus is about to blow the whistle on a major fraud which will lead to Cancer Research having their charitable status revoked by the commission. I don't deny the possiblity of that , I would only say that the likelihood is remote.

I would like to hear what you have to add to this discussion so far Angelus. Do you believe their accounts are lies?

Of course, it does not remove the possibility that Angelus' friends company is stealing 90% of the money that it processes.

i doubt it's liable because of the way he presented it.

Although what his 'reliable' source told him sounds like slander as that was presented as fact.

What a load of bull crap!!! I agree with other fellow forumers that if they were taking 90% it would be all over the headlines!!!!! :rant:

The things some people do to get attention eh!!! :rolleyes:

Cancer Research is a very good charity. My gran died of cancer 2 years ago and she recieved help and support from them then after she passed away my Grandad got help from them as well.

Please dont let Angelus discourage you into making a donation to this charity.

xx

Originally posted by nomme
You can view the audited accounts for Cancer Research here (http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/aboutus/publications/reportandaccounts/)

Nomme
After looking through the years financial report it struck me that any company that publishes it's income and expenditure could easily publish works like Robert Maxwell had done and some of the major banks.....it doesn't realy give any proof of anything or disprove any wrong doing.

It does give an account that looks good......same as the annual report from the sheffield Council

Can someone please tell me how many years have they been researching cancers and apart from surgery or chemotherapy, What has been accoumplished over those years!

Cancer as we know it is a fact of life where you are born with cells that can turn nasty at any given time.

There are people that smoke and drink all their lives without ill effect and there are others that get cancer by inheritance that have lived healthy lifestyles.

The thing is that it is all in the Genes .
Take the common cold for instance.....it has been around for ever yet some people contract it and others seem to be immune same goes for flu.

If they can't cure the common cold I don't have much faith in anyone finding a cure for common cancers.

I may be shot down here but it is fact!

Originally posted by DerekH
After looking through the years financial report it struck me that any company that publishes it's income and expenditure could easily publish works like Robert Maxwell had done and some of the major banks.....it doesn't realy give any proof of anything or disprove any wrong doing.

It does give an account that looks good......same as the annual report from the sheffield Council

Yes you could say that for any organisation though, so it seems contrived to single out CR for no reason.

Originally posted by DerekH
Can someone please tell me how many years have they been researching cancers and apart from surgery or chemotherapy, What has been accoumplished over those years!

Cancer as we know it is a fact of life where you are born with cells that can turn nasty at any given time.

There are people that smoke and drink all their lives without ill effect and there are others that get cancer by inheritance that have lived healthy lifestyles.

The thing is that it is all in the Genes .
Take the common cold for instance.....it has been around for ever yet some people contract it and others seem to be immune same goes for flu.

If they can't cure the common cold I don't have much faith in anyone finding a cure for common cancers.

I may be shot down here but it is fact!

Well I've been successfully (fingers crossed) been treated for cancer (10 years ago), so Cancer Research gets the thumbs up from me.

Cancer treatment has come on a lot in the last 30 years, especially as new technology reveals new information.

Lots of cancers, if detected early (impossible without cancer research), are very treatable and respond well to surgery, drugs and radiotherapy. Scientific cancer research has established a broad body of knowledge without which many cancers would be untreatably fatal.

The reason a cure for the common cold is very difficult is because a)there is more than one kind of rhinovirus, and b)they are shifting antigens meaning that any immunity conferred by 'teaching' your lymphocytes with a vaccine doesn't work. So the chances of finding a 'cure' for either are not in any way connected.

Much cancer research being done at the moment is directed at genetics and predisposition as well as gene therapy possibilities. I find it quite difficult to fault the work or the aims of Cancer Research.

One in three of us will get it.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Yes you could say that for any organisation though, so it seems contrived to single out CR for no reason.



Well I've been successfully (fingers crossed) been treated for cancer (10 years ago), so Cancer Research gets the thumbs up from me.

Cancer treatment has come on a lot in the last 30 years, especially as new technology reveals new information.

Lots of cancers, if detected early (impossible without cancer research), are very treatable and respond well to surgery, drugs and radiotherapy. Scientific cancer research has established a broad body of knowledge without which many cancers would be untreatably fatal.

The reason a cure for the common cold is very difficult is because a)there is more than one kind of rhinovirus, and b)they are shifting antigens meaning that any immunity conferred by 'teaching' your lymphocytes with a vaccine doesn't work. So the chances of finding a 'cure' for either are not in any way connected.

Much cancer research being done at the moment is directed at genetics and predisposition as well as gene therapy possibilities. I find it quite difficult to fault the work or the aims of Cancer Research.

One in three of us will get it.

Firstly Phan I would like to say that I think the same about all charities as I have seen first hand where the money does go in some of them!

Your points as to the treatment etc of cancers is still the same as it was 30 years ago with the only difference being the early diagnosis of the cancer.

You must admit that because of the national health screenings that these diagnosis's have helped to lower the number of lethal cases however! without those screenings we would have the same number of lost cases that we had 30 years ago.

I do agree that some of the drugs developed have helped to aid in the treatments but why is it that a charity whose aim is to help those very people make it very expensive and hard to get?
In some areas of the UK depending on where you live, Some cancer drugs are not available due to cost.

As the cancer research developes drugs and cures with money provided from the general public in the form of grants, donations etc' why??? is it that the drugs developed are then sold at alarming prices to the very people that contribute!

i could be wrong, but i doubt that the charity holds the patents on any particular treatment, they are almost certainly owned by the pharmeceutical companies, hence the cost.

Even if we'd spent 30 years researching cancer and had so far developed nothing, is that an argument to give up? It doesn't sound like one to me.

Originally posted by DerekH
Firstly Phan I would like to say that I think the same about all charities as I have seen first hand where the money does go in some of them!

Its all very well to say that, but we have yet to see any evidence at all that CR is misleading the public on how it uses its funds. To try and make CR guilty by association is equally contrived as comparing it to the national lottery.

Your points as to the treatment etc of cancers is still the same as it was 30 years ago with the only difference being the early diagnosis of the cancer.

Well my point is that through research into cancer it is now possible to detect them much earlier than it was before. Also treatments of cancer have changed enormously from the "carpet bombing approach" to the "surgical strike" approach.

The mass of evidence collected over years of directed cancer reserach has not only improved the detection rates and the mortality rates, but has also contributed to the well being of cancer patients who cannot be cured.

Cancer research does not just reveal information about cancer. It also reveals a lot of information about people.

You must admit that because of the national health screenings that these diagnosis's have helped to lower the number of lethal cases however! without those screenings we would have the same number of lost cases that we had 30 years ago.
[b] No, I don't have to admit that because it isn't true. I'd ask you to substantiate that if you can.
[b]
I do agree that some of the drugs developed have helped to aid in the treatments but why is it that a charity whose aim is to help those very people make it very expensive and hard to get?
In some areas of the UK depending on where you live, Some cancer drugs are not available due to cost.
You can't blame that, if it is the case, on Cancer research.

As the cancer research developes drugs and cures with money provided from the general public in the form of grants, donations etc' why??? is it that the drugs developed are then sold at alarming prices to the very people that contribute!

Because its not just about developing drugs, its about understanding cancer and putting that knowledge into the public domain so that the world can benefit.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Its all very well to say that, but we have yet to see any evidence at all that CR is misleading the public on how it uses its funds. To try and make CR guilty by association is equally contrived as comparing it to the national lottery.

Well my point is that through research into cancer it is now possible to detect them much earlier than it was before. Also treatments of cancer have changed enormously from the "carpet bombing approach" to the "surgical strike" approach.

The mass of evidence collected over years of directed cancer reserach has not only improved the detection rates and the mortality rates, but has also contributed to the well being of cancer patients who cannot be cured.

Cancer research does not just reveal information about cancer. It also reveals a lot of information about people.

No, I don't have to admit that because it isn't true. I'd ask you to substantiate that if you can.
You can't blame that, if it is the case, on Cancer research.


Because its not just about developing drugs, its about understanding cancer and putting that knowledge into the public domain so that the world can benefit. [/B]

Ok If the screenings were not done by the NHS....Is cancer research doing the screenings?


As I said before...nothing has changed ! the treatment is surgical removal of the cancerouse tumour or chemotherapy....
Let me know if there has been a change in these proceedures over the past 30 years!

Your one statement contradicts the other statement.

[i]Well my point is that through research into cancer it is now possible to detect them much earlier than it was before. Also treatments of cancer have changed enormously from the "carpet bombing approach" to the "surgical strike" approach. [/B]

It has and still remains a surgical strike or whatever you want to call it....Fact is...over the years of multi million pounds of funding the results are the same.
[i]The mass of evidence collected over years of directed cancer reserach has not only improved the detection rates and the mortality rates, but has also contributed to the well being of cancer patients who cannot be cured.

Cancer research does not just reveal information about cancer. It also reveals a lot of information about people.[/B]

So what you are saying here is that there is a mass of evidence that has improved the mortality rates and detection for cancer.

Fair comment but looking at the figures that are in the accounting....which is in the millions for funding......Why! again have their been no gains in actual treatment of cancer?
It's ok to say that millions are spent on looking at the causes and early detection but what evidence do you have that over the past lets say 20 years of multi million pound investment/grants.
They have achieved anything regarding the cure of cancer!

As it is on a genetic level.....some people are more prone to getting cancer than others......So far all the evidence lies with whether it is hereditory or not.
Working conditions, lifestyles etc. but there is no concrete link to any of the cancers that plague mankind as it is a natural occurance that we do not understand.
WE can blame cancer on what we want but cannot prove it!

When your body turns against itself......which is what cancer is...it has baffled scientists and doctors alike and we..... call it cancer.

My point is that....billions are spent each year looking for a cure against what nature has had in place for thousands of years.
No matter how much money is spent and how many animals have to die in labs looking for a cure.....they will not find one!
If you can substantiate any claim that they can then I will give a full appology and eat my hat!
And please don't talk about remission! it means what it says...
If you look at the statistics. Deaths from cancer have increased over the past 30 years...not decreased.....

Originally posted by DerekH
Ok If the screenings were not done by the NHS....Is cancer research doing the screenings?


As I said before...nothing has changed ! the treatment is surgical removal of the cancerouse tumour or chemotherapy....
Let me know if there has been a change in these proceedures over the past 30 years!

Your one statement contradicts the other statement.



It has and still remains a surgical strike or whatever you want to call it....Fact is...over the years of multi million pounds of funding the results are the same.


So what you are saying here is that there is a mass of evidence that has improved the mortality rates and detection for cancer.

Fair comment but looking at the figures that are in the accounting....which is in the millions for funding......Why! again have their been no gains in actual treatment of cancer?
It's ok to say that millions are spent on looking at the causes and early detection but what evidence do you have that over the past lets say 20 years of multi million pound investment/grants.
They have achieved anything regarding the cure of cancer!

As it is on a genetic level.....some people are more prone to getting cancer than others......So far all the evidence lies with whether it is hereditory or not.
Working conditions, lifestyles etc. but there is no concrete link to any of the cancers that plague mankind as it is a natural occurance that we do not understand.
WE can blame cancer on what we want but cannot prove it!

When your body turns against itself......which is what cancer is...it has baffled scientists and doctors alike and we..... call it cancer.

My point is that....billions are spent each year looking for a cure against what nature has had in place for thousands of years.
No matter how much money is spent and how many animals have to die in labs looking for a cure.....they will not find one!
If you can substantiate any claim that they can then I will give a full appology and eat my hat!
And please don't talk about remission! it means what it says...
If you look at the statistics. Deaths from cancer have increased over the past 30 years...not decreased.....

I think you make some good points Derek, the way nature will adapt to try and kill us etc.. (yes, i'm shocked too). But that has nothing to do with the fact that the original post was a load of rubbish.

Originally posted by DerekH
If you can substantiate any claim that they can then I will give a full appology and eat my hat!
In the same vein as you have requested I'd like to see where you're getting your facts and figures from and substantiate those...

And please don't talk about remission! it means what it says...
If you look at the statistics. Deaths from cancer have increased over the past 30 years...not decreased.....
Again I'd like to see those figures you're referring to, and take into account population growth, types of cancer, the mean life expectancy and all those other relevant factors.

Why are people against charities anyway... are going to start kicking puppies next? :hihi:

Originally posted by Snook
I think you make some good points Derek, the way nature will adapt to try and kill us etc.. (yes, i'm shocked too). But that has nothing to do with the fact that the original post was a load of rubbish.

Sorry Snook we have drifted off the subject somewhat.

I cannot state that the original post is wrong or right as without actual proof of the alledged allegation it is just hear say.
I do know that aministration costs are very high and believe that when an organisation grows into a multimillion pound concern there will always be accusations of misapropriation of funds or mismanagement.

In some cases it is proved and in others not!

Originally posted by Martin_s
In the same vein as you have requested I'd like to see where you're getting your facts and figures from and substantiate those...


Again I'd like to see those figures you're referring to, and take into account population growth, types of cancer, the mean life expectancy and all those other relevant factors.

If you like reading into it here is the web site.
Please take notes regarding lung cancers.

www.statistics.gov.uk

There has been loads of new research about cancer that has come out recently.
Yes chemotherapy and radiotherapy are probably still the main treatments for cancer but look at all the info we are being given about how what we eat can PREVENT cancer, surely this is worthy of recognition, and in the long run so much cheaper than spending money on cures.

Just because no, one single miracle cure has been discovered does not mean that research has not moved on over the last 10 years.

The original post was blatantly just crap. As Martin said, most posts by the poster who started this thread are nothing but rubbish anyway, so take it all with a very large pinch of salt. I have a friend who works for Cancer Research, and if she knew how this person was slandering the charity she wouldnt be too pleased at all. In fact, I may email her the link to this thread and see if she has anything to say to this arsehole.

Originally posted by slh73
The original post was blatantly just crap. As Martin said, most posts by the poster who started this thread are nothing but rubbish anyway, so take it all with a very large pinch of salt. I have a friend who works for Cancer Research, and if she knew how this person was slandering the charity she wouldnt be too pleased at all. In fact, I may email her the link to this thread and see if she has anything to say to this arsehole.

you must admit ...the poster did get a good response.

I'm sorry DerekH... but you've sidestepped this request... You demanded figures and facts from others and then didn't provide any of your own.

So I repeat.

Originally posted by Martin_s
In the same vein as you have requested I'd like to see where you're getting your facts and figures from and substantiate those...


Again I'd like to see those figures you're referring to, and take into account population growth, types of cancer, the mean life expectancy and all those other relevant factors.

You cannot expect everyone else to defend against or disprove your accusations if you don't go beyond a few vague and unsubstantiated issues you've raised..

Originally posted by Martin_s
I'm sorry DerekH... but you've sidestepped this request... You demanded figures and facts from others and then didn't provide any of your own.

So I repeat.



You cannot expect everyone else to defend against or disprove your accusations if you don't go beyond a few vague and unsubstantiated issues you've raised..

I have given you the national statistics website...Is that not enough or do you have a problem reading it?

I have not made any accusations...only observations....As far as vague..issues..I have not seen anyone in here including you give any substantiated evidence of statistics or anything else.

I thought the whole idea of the forum was to put your observations forward and it is up to the ones who disagree to put forward theirs with proof if they so wish!

Originally posted by DerekH
I have given you the national statistics website...Is that not enough or do you have a problem reading it?
No, not really... those statistics can be interpreted in a whole slew of ways... What I'm curious to know is how you've drawn the conclusion that cancer research has amounted to a virtual null change and QED is a waste of time, money, etc...


I have not made any accusations...only observations....As far as vague..issues.. I have not seen anyone in here including you give any substantiated evidence of statistics or anything else.
You implied that the head of CR is being paid too much.. and as for any further information relating to CR specifically there's a link as provided by Phan that provides their financial records as required by the charity commission.

I thought the whole idea of the forum was to put your observations forward and it is up to the ones who disagree to put forward theirs with proof if they so wish!
I appreciate that you didn't start this thread but originally the sole purpose of this thread was to discredit the work of Cancer Research with absolutely no follow up... You seem to have taken up the issue so perhaps you're catching it more as a result...

there will always be some one making a living out of other peoples misery.notice how many refugee charities have sprung up in britain lately...i give what i can when i can to who i can.next one is poppy day they earned it...........

Originally posted by Martin_s
No, not really... those statistics can be interpreted in a whole slew of ways... What I'm curious to know is how you've drawn the conclusion that cancer research has amounted to a virtual null change and QED is a waste of time, money, etc...
You implied that the head of CR is being paid too much.. and as for any further information relating to CR specifically there's a link as provided by Phan that provides their financial records as required by the charity commission.


I appreciate that you didn't start this thread but originally the sole purpose of this thread was to discredit the work of Cancer Research with absolutely no follow up... You seem to have taken up the issue so perhaps you're catching it more as a result...

Martin I am now making a statement! you are an idiot!

First of all! Due to the official statistics there has been no change since 1950.
I have stated in my previous posts answers to your other questions.

If official statistics are no proof to you....please state where you get your info from!
sources higher than the rest of the world?

with all statistics......you hav'nt bothered to read them in their entirity or you just want to give your view!
I see the latter.

All your questions answered
I never implied anything as to what anyone was getting paid...I asked the question!...please read post properly before making an ass of yourself

Originally posted by DerekH
Martin I am now making a statement! you are an idiot!
Well, you're welcome to your opinion... I don't agree but that's not exactly a surprise is it.

Either way, as regard this particular thread I'm thinking the original point has more or less been debunked...

As for Cancer Research.. it's a charity I've actively supported now for a number of years (under the name ICRF). I'll have a word with my contact and see what figures I can get to prove what I would have thought was common sense by now... Arguing the toss over semantics because people still die eventually (which we all do) is pointless.

Anyway, I can't disprove your notion that I'm an idiot Derek but it's not an opinion I'm really bothered about.

Right... I've been back through this whole thread and ok, hand on heart I didn't read everything thoroughly and I've made a few mistakes in attributing a few comments to the wrong people. Fair do's guilty in part.


However... couple of things and I'm directing these to Derek as this is where most of the debate seems to be centered.

1. That statistics web site is one hell of a lot of data and Derek, you really didn't point to any one report that supported your assertion that cancer deaths are on the rise.


2. Likewise genetics are not the only cause of cancer. There are a large number of carconegic compounds and chemicals that by their very nature contribute or directly cause cancer... Cases in point asbestos, Coal dust, etc... These are not genetic conditions, they are environmental factors.


3. Looking at one of the statistical reports there was a rough average of 3% improvement in life expectency across most of the cancers. This included lung, breast and colon cancer...


Aside from all of that, if I've read your points correctly, your main thrust seems to be that Cancer Research hasn't nor ever will find a "cure" for cancer. I wouldn't disagree that there is not yet a "cure" for cancers but research into the causes has helped make people aware of issues such as exposure to sunlight, dust particles (asbestos, etc..) and resulted in more prevention...

If you want to argue the toss that this does nothing to help those with a genetic disposition to cancers.. Possibly true but we've also no evidence to say that a reduction in environmental triggers does not improve life expectancy.. We're never going to prove one way or another that smoking does/doesn't contribute to a genetic disposition unless you start some form of twins study or cloning...


Ultimately though, my opinion remains the same as it was from the start... That Cancer Research provides a valuable service that will ultimately, given the time and resources, provide an answer to prevention, reduction and improved treatments of cancer.. It could be gene therapy or some drastic changes in our lifestyles... Who knows..

In the mean time I see no reason to discount the work done, or the benefits realised to date... So on a personal note... I still support their work and will continue to do so...

Correct me if i'm wrong, but your main argument for stopping the funding of research into cancer is that it hasn't yet made a big breakthrough and found a cure to any specific cancer?

If that it is your assertion, what's the logic behind it?

Just because we haven't succeded at something so far, why the hell does that mean we should just give up? Maybe poverty and hunger are things we should give up on, write of the 3rd world and let them go to hell? How about research into genetics, maybe the breakthroughs haven't been big enough for you and we should quit that waste of time as well?

Angelus - you've read all this, what do you make of it in light of your original posting?

Originally posted by DerekH
you must admit ...the poster did get a good response.

Not quite the point, I find some of the opinions of certain posters quite disturbing and I am not easily shocked!

As for Martin being an idiot? have a word with yourself Derek.

This is a very sensitive thread, damaging and why is it still here?

I do not believe in censoring it, but rather think it should not have been discussed to such measure from such a ridiculous original post!

If what has been covered here by some people what they believe, then I suggest they seek professional help urgently!

But I will convince myself that some of you are using the subject as an instrument for reflecting your choice of virtua-friends.

Erm, what can I say?! I've read a few comments on this thread and wonder why the hell I bother!! I think I'll save my legs next time and not bother raising money for CR as they are obviously not making an impact with regards to prevention/treatment/cure. ;)

AHEM!

Right just to defend myself from all the crap that is flying round on this topic.

I happened to work for this processing company in Rotherham for 4 years and I do actually know what goes on in said department that does many charities donations and data entries them.

I am NOT saying to anyone DONT DONATE TO CANCER RESEARCH- WHY WOULD I SAY THIS TO ANYONE?

I GIVE to charities all the time.. I was just stating something that might be of interest to you all which is not unlawfull by the way.

If you want to donate to charities- I praise you very highly for your selfless act ... If you dont donate- please do so!

AND please - dont go slagging me off behind my ****ing back while Im away and not here to defend myself.

I posted about piracy- big whoop!
Thats what I believe in and stand for.

Other people dont - but I dont shoot you all down in flames.

And please stop it everyone with all the personal attacks.

People have the right to state what they feel on the internet.. dont stand in the way of free speech.

without our crystal balls (mine's gone in for repair) we have know way to know that you weren't around, so I hardly think you can accuse us of talking behind your back.
And the statement you made originally doesn't seem to tally up with the official accounts of cancer research. So if you're right, when will you be reporting this major fraud and talking to a tabloid?

Also I quite like the post of my 'friend' stealing some of the cash for themselves.

Not a good idea really considering the area they work in is very high security and CCTV recorded all over the surrounding area.

I am not in any way shape or form stealing from charities and I would not want to be associated with anyone that would thankyou very much.

Why is what I've found a 'major fraud'?

Its called processing and outsourcing costs...

Cancer Research need someone to key in all your donations for them- and the company does that for them-- at a cost!

I dont think its illegal- but the costs to CR are very high I believe.

The stats people have quoted..
are they UK based or is it a worldwide total??

Because the company who does the processing are only doing UK based donations.

because the accounts don't show the same story as the one you are telling. So either you are wrong, or the accounts are wrong. And if the accounts are wrong, then it's fraud.

If you were cancer research and a processing company was charging you 90p in the £1 to process a donation, don't you think you might take your business and go somewhere else... Maybe even bringing it in house as that would surely be a hell of a lot cheaper?

Originally posted by ANGELUS
Why is what I've found a 'major fraud'?

Its called processing and outsourcing costs...

Cancer Research need someone to key in all your donations for them- and the company does that for them-- at a cost!

I dont think its illegal- but the costs to CR are very high I believe.

Originally posted by ANGELUS
Cancer Research need someone to key in all your donations for them- and the company does that for them-- at a cost!
At what point would any charity or company (especially one that has recently rationalised by combining two existing charities and cutting back on admin costs) actually use any company that gave a 10% return on any contributions.

Common sense alone surely must have clued you in that your source was out to lunch... Either that or the service provider must be seriously misleading the charity treasurers as to what income is being received. No-one in their right mind would accept that amount.


I have to be honest I misread the original statement and assumed the processing and data entry was for research data not monetary contributions...

Like I said before-
I dont think its fraud- well I hope not anyway!

But the income going to charity after the processing fees is disgustingly low I have to admit.

Originally posted by ANGELUS
And please stop it everyone with all the personal attacks.

People have the right to state what they feel on the internet.. dont stand in the way of free speech.

Cowardly, personal attacks from the safety of a computer are par for the course on this forum ANGELUS.

I suspect that most of the people giving you a hard time would behave quite differently if they were discussing this topic face to face.

Not at all mojo - though 'pots and kettles' somes to mind. What's cowardly about posting on here?

Anyone with any common sense immediately realised that the original claim is cobblers. The subsequant evidence also shows that it is cobblers.

If ANGELUS can provide any evidence whatsoever then I will quite happily eat my words - and others might do too.

Just because ANGELUS is hanging onto his friends spurious claim it doesn't make it in the slightest bit more likely. The audited accounts are perfectly clear.

I have to agree that the claim seems VERY unrealistic to me... and I would say that 90% would really be pushing on breaking some laws or something on theft because theres no way it'd cost that much to process their incoming money... plus

arent a lot of donations done by direct debit now anyways? which is instant, straight to their account, skipping the middle men?

and plus, cancer research would know how much they're being conned anyways, for the fact that for this UN-NAMED company to make its charges it would have to first say how much money its dealt with, how much staff and time its took... etc?

why dont you name the company that doing this? I'm not asking to name your friend, but what harm could it do unless your lying to name the company?

My grandad died last year of stomach cancer... they tried pretty much everything to get rid of it but it didnt work, it was too big to remove and all treatments to shrink it didnt work well enough and made him far too ill...

he went from being extremly energetic and being my main father figure, to a frail old man within the space of a year... he was only 65 when he died :( I ended up spending the last 6 months living my gran and grandad because he needed so much help to do stuff in the house that my gran couldnt always help with...

My personal view on cancer is that I dont think we'll find a cure, cus I personally believe its part of our evolutionary cycle and that the abnormalities are part and parcel of our bodies adapting and changing to our world and also to become better...

evolution spans thousands and thousands of years... slowly the un-stable changes will kill those people off, leaving only the people that are adapting genetically correct...

but hey, maybe I just read too much into this? It'd be nice if they could find a cure, but personally I'd rather see a cure for AIDS/HIV first, as that disease is spreading like no other... and having visited South Africa this year it really opens your eyes when so many of them carry this disease...

if a cure for HIV and AIDS isnt found in the near future it will slowly turn places like the US and Europe into a similar situation as places like Africa!

Originally posted by xafier

My personal view on cancer is that I dont think we'll find a cure, cus I personally believe its part of our evolutionary cycle and that the abnormalities are part and parcel of our bodies adapting and changing to our world and also to become better...

I'd rather see a cure for AIDS/HIV first, as that disease is spreading like no other...



1 in 2 males

1 in 3 females

...will statistically develop a form of cancer in their lifetimes, I heard on BBC Radio 4 (I think it was anyway) only yesterday.

Many more people are surving the effects of cancer after treatment as time goes by.

What is your definition of a cure for cancer?

I've just contacted Cancer Research's regional charity coordinator about arranging a question and answers session. Anyone know I go about getting one of these set up so forum members can ask questions and the experts at cancer research can hopefully answer.

I think this would be a great idea what with the debate that's taken place here.

Originally posted by Dick Dastardly
Anyone know I go about getting one of these set up so forum members can ask questions and the experts at cancer research can hopefully answer.
I'm sure Geoff can set something up... certainly sounds like a good idea... :thumbsup:

Originally posted by venger
1 in 2 males

1 in 3 females

...will statistically develop a form of cancer in their lifetimes, I heard on BBC Radio 4 (I think it was anyway) only yesterday.

Many more people are surving the effects of cancer after treatment as time goes by.

What is your definition of a cure for cancer?

well I think we could cure most of the cancers by getting rid of a few things like....

stupid amounts of colourings, preservatives in foods, ban smoking, ban drinking, stop using fossil fuels that polute, stop messing with nuclear and other harmful products... in general... if we went back to being animal like species and stop ruining the planet and ourselves...

but thats not ever gonna happan now is it? :P I'm pretty sure most of the cancers are caused by all the crappyness in our environment and our daily lives

at the end of the day, there are reasons why we all die, if we found cures for everything the world would be even more over populated than it already is... disease is a natural way of keeping the numbers down, and genetic defects are a way of making sure only the fittest survive... unfortunatly we as humans spend crazy amounts of time trying to cure everything and deny the inevitable

while we've certainly increased the instances of cancer it's by no means a modern problem. There are many natural carcinogens, sources of ionising radiation and at the end of the day sometimes your body can just go plain wrong.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to find a way to cure it when it happens though, does it?

is the holy grail of medicine immortality, maybe another thread about how society would cope with that.