4 ms·

If this sort of thing bothers you, please support the Open Rights Group: http://www.openrightsgroup.org/ http://www.openrightsgroup.org/

by rlpb 12y ago

davb 12y ago
I admire the work of the Open Rights Group, but it bothers me that they try to funnel you towards making Direct Debit (recurring, straight from your bank account) contributions and make it difficult to find the one-off donation button. Six links to recurring payments on https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join/ https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join/ and only one to one-off donations. And even after clicking on that, I have to scroll past more Direct Debit links to get to the one-off payment section. Perhaps I'm just cynical, but I never give charitable donations on a recurring basis. What if I don't support their actions in the future? Or I deem another cause more worthy, at a point in time, of my donations? I have to take action to cancel the Direct Debit. I know it's probably cheaper for them, and it encourages people to sign up and forget that they're contributing, but it feels too much like their website is pushing you towards that and your one-off contribution isn't good enough.
- Already__Taken 12y ago
  On the other side, if I were running a business on donations I'd sleep far happier at night and concentrate on my goals a lot more with smaller steady recurring donations. As opposed to being on a constant funding drive.
- ElliotH 12y ago
  Just for historical context, ORG itself was started by pledges of recurring donations of £5 a month. I'd guess that's why the notion of 'Join' is still front and centre.
- ajb 12y ago
  I normally don't either, but in this case the value is that ORG gets more political clout as a membership organisation than it would as a pure donation funded one. They get to say, 'we represent X000 members, of whom x00 vote in your constituency'. As you note, this does mean you have to check whether what they are saying continues to represent you ,and resign if not. But this hassle does buy you something. Perhaps the web site should make that pitch rather than making the donate option more obscure, though.
PaulKeeble 12y ago
I used to donate to the Open Rights Group but you soon realise that all you are funding is for the guy in charge to do as he pleases, regardless of what the majority of members want. You fund his ever increasing life style and he complains on your behalf. I think a lot of the members would much prefer some input into the campaign, especially since the campaign is ineffective. Having found the founders position untenable in a number of ways I realised I couldn't support that position and that the detonators opinions (despite having a discussion) didn't matter. I can't recommend donating to the ORG really, its a bit of a scam and it is definitely not a Charity.
- rlpb 12y ago
  > ...but you soon realise that all you are funding is for the guy in charge to do as he pleases, regardless of what the majority of members want. Can you support this claim, please? As far as I can see, they publish everything that they do. The way I see it, a political organisation needs strong leadership, because a unified voice is what gives it clout. If members want something else, then they should organise elsewhere and get it done. I don't want to donate to an organisation that dilutes its impact by being pulled in fifty directions by its members. I want it to do one thing well. To me, what's most important is that the ORG openly (and accurately) states what it is doing with members' money. Are you claiming that they are corrupt in some way, that they aren't doing what they say they're doing, or that they are accurately reporting what they're doing but you disagree with it? > You fund his ever increasing life style and he complains on your behalf. Please quantify this. ORG publishes annual financial reports. Is this not enough for you to state exactly how the founder's lifestyle is inappropriate?

If this sort of thing bothers you, please support the Open Rights Group: http://www.openrightsgroup.org/ http://www.openrightsgroup.org/

by rlpb 12y ago

If this sort of thing bothers you, please support the Open Rights Group: http://www.openrightsgroup.org/ http://www.openrightsgroup.org/

davb 12y ago

I admire the work of the Open Rights Group, but it bothers me that they try to funnel you towards making Direct Debit (recurring, straight from your bank account) contributions and make it difficult to find the one-off donation button. Six links to recurring payments on https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join/ https://www.openrightsgroup.org/join/ and only one to one-off donations. And even after clicking on that, I have to scroll past more Direct Debit links to get to the one-off payment section. Perhaps I'm just cynical, but I never give charitable donations on a recurring basis. What if I don't support their actions in the future? Or I deem another cause more worthy, at a point in time, of my donations? I have to take action to cancel the Direct Debit. I know it's probably cheaper for them, and it encourages people to sign up and forget that they're contributing, but it feels too much like their website is pushing you towards that and your one-off contribution isn't good enough.

Already__Taken 12y ago
On the other side, if I were running a business on donations I'd sleep far happier at night and concentrate on my goals a lot more with smaller steady recurring donations. As opposed to being on a constant funding drive.
ElliotH 12y ago
Just for historical context, ORG itself was started by pledges of recurring donations of £5 a month. I'd guess that's why the notion of 'Join' is still front and centre.
ajb 12y ago
I normally don't either, but in this case the value is that ORG gets more political clout as a membership organisation than it would as a pure donation funded one. They get to say, 'we represent X000 members, of whom x00 vote in your constituency'. As you note, this does mean you have to check whether what they are saying continues to represent you ,and resign if not. But this hassle does buy you something. Perhaps the web site should make that pitch rather than making the donate option more obscure, though.

PaulKeeble 12y ago

I used to donate to the Open Rights Group but you soon realise that all you are funding is for the guy in charge to do as he pleases, regardless of what the majority of members want. You fund his ever increasing life style and he complains on your behalf. I think a lot of the members would much prefer some input into the campaign, especially since the campaign is ineffective. Having found the founders position untenable in a number of ways I realised I couldn't support that position and that the detonators opinions (despite having a discussion) didn't matter. I can't recommend donating to the ORG really, its a bit of a scam and it is definitely not a Charity.

rlpb 12y ago
> ...but you soon realise that all you are funding is for the guy in charge to do as he pleases, regardless of what the majority of members want. Can you support this claim, please? As far as I can see, they publish everything that they do. The way I see it, a political organisation needs strong leadership, because a unified voice is what gives it clout. If members want something else, then they should organise elsewhere and get it done. I don't want to donate to an organisation that dilutes its impact by being pulled in fifty directions by its members. I want it to do one thing well. To me, what's most important is that the ORG openly (and accurately) states what it is doing with members' money. Are you claiming that they are corrupt in some way, that they aren't doing what they say they're doing, or that they are accurately reporting what they're doing but you disagree with it? > You fund his ever increasing life style and he complains on your behalf. Please quantify this. ORG publishes annual financial reports. Is this not enough for you to state exactly how the founder's lifestyle is inappropriate?