headlines

“extinct: how willy the panda fell victim to the red tape poachers” screams the sunday mail headline
.
the world wide fund for nature (so the sunday mail calls them, i always thought it was the world wildlife fund – but go to their site and pretty much all they call themselves is the wwf, and after defeating vince mcmahon for the initials it is good to see them using them) is giving up using the panda collection boxes.
why?
it is because of the “pen-pushing predators” that have imposed uneconomic red tape on charity collection boxes.
those perfidious bastards, how could they? just what are they thinking when they add needless red tape and bureaucracy to charity collecting? basically it seems that the institute of fundraising (boo hiss boo) have said that collection boxes should have individual numbers, that the monies in them should be counted and sent to head offices at regular intervals. additionally boxes should be tamper proof.
how can anyone disagree with nigel evans (tory mp for ribble valley) when he says: "willy is iconic. for some piffling bureaucrats to interfere with this is just daft.
"the culture secretary should slap a preservation order on the boxes. we should save the panda in more ways than one."
hear hear.
except.
and lets be fair you knew there was going to be an except..
private eye does a little piece each week about how journalism works and this is one of those types of stories. while the headline and soundbites are juicy the evidence in the story does not necessarily back them up.
the wwf are going to be withdrawing nearly 400 of these collection boxes. by their own admission the amount collected each year has declined from £27,000 to £7000 in the last 3 years, or approximately £17 a box. so in the cold light of day not a particularly cost effective way of collecting the cash.
they also go on to ask members of the public to let them know if they see any stray panda boxes around as they say: "sometimes boxes are passed from one collector to another and they forget to tell us about the change.” ah right so a well regulated scheme then. i can see no reason why the institute of fundraisers might be interested in bringing a code of conduct.
so we have a system that doesn’t generate a lot of money and is very loosely organized yet it is an outrage that changes are being made.
still it is nice to know that some tories will call for state intervention, but only on the really important stuff.