George Snodgrass
Interested Outsider
11 Jul 2011

As an American, I chanced upon this site and discussion while reviewing the story of the latest Murdoch scandal.

Former American media mogul Ted Turner has variously accused Murdoch of being a "Warmonger", "Controlling Britain" and "The most dangerous man in the world". No doubt, these comments were made with good cause.

Having said all that, and following the actions of the NOTW, one would presuppose that all this is true. Or so one may believe notwithstanding the presumption of innocence until proven guilty as the law would have it.

Be that as it may, the opportunity for a charitable organization to obtain something for nothing that potentially may benefit the community to which it ascribes should not be dismissed or overlooked or treated with contempt and disdain provided it is within the ambit of the law.

Certainly, one's personal morals and ethics should not be sanctimoniously dumped upon the general populace who are hopefully quite capable of drawing their own conclusions as to the right or wrong of advertising in a free publication no matter its predisposition.

Mr Edward-Few appears to be of this mien and expresses his feelings accordingly without giving the benefit to the potential charitable givers to draw their own conclusions.

So I say to you sir, while you are fully entitled to your opinion, so too is Mr Gower. And while you two may well be diametrically opposed on this issue and putting all personal references aside, I must concur with Mr Gower and chastise you as the CEO of a charity for permitting your personal feelings to attempt to override the goodwill of the contributors.

Well done Mr Gower. You have clearly made the case.

[Reply]

Nigel Edward-Few
CEO
Jubilee Action
28 Jul 2011
Response to [George Snodgrass]

In further response to Mr Gower and Mr Snodgrass, I would like to make the following points:

1. It is precisely my point that charities should not have to fund health care or health research. It is not good enough to say "that is what charities do". Charites exist because of the deficiencies of provision elsewhere in the system, from government or wherever. They fill the gaps. Charities should never be seen as a legitimate and permanent substitute for proper provision or action, nor there for their own interest in perpituity.

Government should be working towards making charities redundant. What charities so often do is not optional or a luxury, but is what is necessary because it otherwise would not happen, but that does not make it right. Proper provision of research, help or services should not be dependent on the variable and fluctuating goodwill and charitable contributions of individuals and other donors.

2. For the record, my daughter also has a very complicated form of diabetes caused by her CF and I therefore sincerely empathise with Mr Gower and his daughter in this regard.

3. I am afraid that Mr Snodgrass has got it wrong. If he were to have read publications for charities and other such organisations here in the UK, he would have seen that the public were overwhelmingly against the possibility of charities advertising in the NOTW for free. I believe that those who did may in the short term at least, suffer a backlash from some supporters.

My decision not to apply, while concurring with my PERSONAL opinion, was taken OBJECTIVELY AND PROFESSIONALLY based on a knowledge of our supporters and those of many other charities after more than 20 years of having been in the charitable sector.

Especially given the field in which our charity works, that of rescuing and rehabilitating children at extreme risk worldwide, those at risk through child exploitation, through being abducted as child soldiers, through drug abuse and muling, trafficking, prostitution, and unlawful imprisonment and incarceration of children as young as eight in some countries, I KNOW that our supporters would have been up in arms.

I therefore say to Mr Gower, I resent and reject your patronising statement " ... at the end of the day, it would not have been the NotW that would have been remembered for this campaign and the success that it brought to all Cystic Fibrosis sufferers, it would Mr. and Miss. Edward-Few." I do what I do because I have a passion for working for others, especially children; I am not interested in self glorification nor is my daughter.

While she has raised tens or even hundreds of thousands of pounds directly and indirectly through her involvement as a 'patient ambassador' for Great Ormond Street (where she was treated and cared for for most of her first 18 years)and from street collecting for the CF Trust, she isn't either; she does it because she wants to help and to give back what little she can do in recognition of all those who have helped her and to enable them to help others.

To Mr Snodgrass I would say, chastise away from the other side of the pond! Sticks and stones ...

I still believe I made the right decision and I stand by it.

[Reply]

Carl Allen
16 Jul 2011
Response to [George Snodgrass]

I hesitate to prioritise the objectives of one charity over another or what donors should suport.

But in the circumstances charity begins at home and NotW should have done an impact assessment before it disburses funds i.e. NotW should use its funds to repair the damage it has caused and this probably includes helping charities which deal with bullying in the workplace.

[Reply]

Bill Major
9 Jul 2011

what is more embarrassing is the fact that people actualy READ the toilet paper News of the World? What is equally sad is that these companies and charities advertised in the past in NOW. As for the "...Heroes..." charities who have been happy to exploit the NOW who in turn were happy to exploit "our boys" -shame on you.

[Reply]

Peter Storey
Director of Marketing
Kidney Research UK
8 Jul 2011

A charity's brand is its greatest asset. By protecting and developing our brands in the public's eye, we ensure sustainability for the future and increase our ability to help more and more of the beneficiaries you cite. Decisions about who to associate your brand with are critical and transcend short-term opportunities to generate limited income at any cost.

[Reply]

Peter Storey
Director of Marketing
Kidney Research UK
8 Jul 2011

Too right our sector is not an 'image rehabilitation service'. Irrespective of the alleged phone hacking scandal, the move to close the NOTW, and the consequent loss of jobs for the innocent rank and file, could be seen as a cynical attempt to smooth the way for the far more lucrative BSkyB takeover. To then offer free i.e. unsellable ad space, to charities is equally cynical. Major commercial brands have distanced themselves from the NOTW. Why would a charity then wish to positively associate its brand with the paper? There is a moral issue at stake here.

[Reply]