# Match for Michaela - do we need yet another charity?



## shesells (4 Nov 2012)

Have been listening to coverage of tonight's match all week on the news channels/radio - it was pretty much impossible to avoid hearing about the match and the foundation. To be honest, I don't see why it merited so much coverage.

The murder of Michael McAreevy was a tragedy for her family and friends. And she seems to have been a good and popular person. I doubt very much that her name and face will be forgotten by many who have lived through the murder and trial, it's been in the news regularly. Is that not enough to keep her memory alive?

Fair play to those who gave up their time to play the game as a tribute to her. I guess what got my back up is that there is yet another personal charity/foundation www.themichaelafoundation.com which will benefit from the game. At a time when charity incomes have gone into freefall, do we really need yet another charity to dilute the pool further? Surely there was a charity Michaela supported, why does she need her own?


----------



## truthseeker (4 Nov 2012)

Yes I agree, yet another charity means another pot of money lost in administration costs.


----------



## blueband (5 Nov 2012)

well i suppose if we can give millions to african countries when we havent got a pot to pee in ourselves, why not give a little support to the McAreevy family, charity begins at home.


----------



## SarahMc (5 Nov 2012)

blueband said:


> well i suppose if we can give millions to african countries when we havent got a pot to pee in ourselves, why not give a little support to the McAreevy family, charity begins at home.



I don't think the idea is that funds go to the family. I can totally understand the motivation behind setting up su h a foundation or charity in the victims name. But I do think it is misguided, and would be much more efficiently spent as a donation to an existing charity. 

I might have missed it, but this foundation does not mention being registered with the charity commission.


----------



## shesells (5 Nov 2012)

I actually was quite disturbed by the foundation website, it's a bit creepy, the emphasis on her faith and not poisoning her body with artificial substances. Even the summer camps for girls that focus on faith and fashion...reminds me of another f...undamentalist.


----------



## Leper (6 Nov 2012)

I take it that many on here are not great GAA fans. Michaela's father is a larger-than-life figure. Michaela was always by his side at big matches. She was a Rose of Tralee contestant. In short Michaela was a very popular person. So what if she took her religion more seriously than some latterday agnostics on the forum? So what if she was against pounding your body with artificial substances? What does "creepy" mean on your description of the Michaela website. "Fundamentalist" ? 

GAA people by their nature are decent and when times get tough you need such people. The Michaela Foundation is just dipping into that well.


----------



## MrMan (6 Nov 2012)

Whatever about the religion, but I have to agree that it is unneccessary to start up another charity. GAA people might be decent (as opposed to people not interested??) but being pretty and popular in her short life isn't a reason to start something in her name.


----------



## truthseeker (6 Nov 2012)

MrMan said:


> Whatever about the religion, but I have to agree that it is unneccessary to start up another charity. GAA people might be decent (as opposed to people not interested??) but* being pretty and popular in her short life isn't a reason to start something in her name.*



+1

Very well put MrMan - I totally agree. I dont really see what the GAA connection has to do with it tbh.


----------



## truthseeker (6 Nov 2012)

shesells said:


> I actually was quite disturbed by the foundation website, it's a bit creepy, the emphasis on her faith and *not poisoning her body with artificial substances.* Even the summer camps for girls that focus on faith and fashion...reminds me of another f...undamentalist.



Is this not just that she doesnt drink or do drugs? Big deal, lots of people dont drink or do drugs - I barely do the former and never do the latter myself. If she drank tea or coffee or ever took modern medicine then its a hypocritical statement anyway.  

Any kind of summer camp focussing on faith is a bad plan to my mind, however, for those who are into it, they are entitled to indoctrinate their children in whatever manner they choose under current laws.


----------



## DerKaiser (6 Nov 2012)

truthseeker said:


> +1
> 
> I dont really see what the GAA connection has to do with it tbh.


 
Beat me to it. "GAA People" are half the country or more (and growing) - every time I get a Nigerian taxi, I end up having a conversation about his kids playing Gaelic Football or Camogie. 

So if some high profile GAA person supports Sean Quinn or sets up a foundation for virtuous girls, it's pretty lazy to infer that anyone with any connection to our national games believes in all that stuff as well!!!

Back to the main point though, it doesn't strike me that promoting a certain way for young girls to live is the worthiest cause, but that's just my opinion and the reason I won't contribute to it.


----------



## birdy (6 Nov 2012)

This is something which bugs me slightly as well. We have had the likes of Ronan Keating setting up the cancer charity in memory of his mother - why does he not direct his efforts towards the Irish Cancer Society, would ensure more money going where its needed not on Admin. Keith Duffy on the other hand focus's his efforts towards Irish Autism. 
Saw this race http://markpollocktrust.org/ recently - to raise funds to help Mark Pollack walk again. Not for me


----------



## shesells (6 Nov 2012)

Precisely - the amount of duplication between the various cancer charities as an example must be massive. I would imagine there are hundreds of charities set up to raise funds for different people with cancer or who have died from cancer. If all the money they raised went to a central charity like the Irish Cancer Society surely that would maximise the potential of the funds? 

The individual charity thing buts me but why was this charity so much more important than so many others? Michaela's widower was interviewed in all the papers and on RTE and Newstalk (and probably the other national broadcasters too) to promote the match and the foundation. That's media exposure that other charities don't get, and couldn't afford to buy. Like so much in this country, it's all about who your connections are.


----------



## T McGibney (7 Nov 2012)

shesells said:


> The individual charity thing buts me but why was this charity so much more important than so many others? Michaela's widower was interviewed in all the papers and on RTE and Newstalk (and probably the other national broadcasters too) to promote the match and the foundation. *That's media exposure that other charities don't get*, and couldn't afford to buy. Like so much in this country, it's all about who your connections are.



Really? Charities, by and large, get saturation coverage in the Irish media.It sounds to me that you begrudge poor John McAreavey the interviews he got last week.


----------



## blueband (7 Nov 2012)

thats true, the likes of newstalk ect often have people from various charities on air.


----------



## Betsy Og (7 Nov 2012)

I've long thought that all charity giving should go to a single administrative pool, if you're a charity you apply to become an eligible member of that pool.

Donor, donating to the central pool, then nominates where the cash goes in what proportions. Strict rules on how cash is used, salary caps etc  to be let join the pool, rigorous continuous monitoring.

There's a charity industry out there thats doing as much for itself as for others.

Illegal to charity fundraise for any organisation that pays staff (to keep local voluntary organisations out of the net). I would exclude amateur sports from this regulation as, typically, the vast majority of administrators are unpaid.

Re Michaela - there are probably more worthy causes than showing girls the right way to live, but of itself its no harm. Good people all round.


----------



## Knuttell (7 Nov 2012)

Betsy Og said:


> I've long thought that all charity giving should go to a single administrative pool, if you're a charity you apply to become an eligible member of that pool.
> 
> Donor, donating to the central pool, then nominates where the cash goes in what proportions. Strict rules on how cash is used, salary caps etc  to be let join the pool, rigorous continuous monitoring.
> 
> There's a charity industry out there thats doing as much for itself as for others.



That is one of the best ideas I have read on this site,the one thing that annoys me most is the thought that my hard earned donation is going to pay the salary/expenses of an individual on over 100k a year before expenses.

As with all vested interests,those that make a handsome living living off others charitable donations,they will lobby hard and throw all sorts of tantrums to ensure such an excellent idea is never put in to play.


----------



## liaconn (7 Nov 2012)

I agree that it would be better if money was not going to several different charities all supporting the same cause but to one charity who could utilise it more effectively and take a more 'joined up' approach to where the money is needed.

On the other hand, though, people are more likely in a lot of cases to give to something that they connect sentimentally with, is very current or -dare I say it - 'fashionable'. People who would contribute to the Michaela fund might not necessarily contribute to a similar charity instead.

ETA Actually I have just read the website and, while I've no objection to initiatives to help young people to practise their faith, stay off drink and drugs etc, it seems to be really just girl guides cum summer camp for older kids. Not really sure if its that worthwhile a cause. The money would be better going to drugs awareness campaigns, local community initiatives (including parish run activities in line with Michaela's strong faith - which I don't find the least bit 'creepy-) etc It seems to be well meaning but a bit vague and airy fairy.


----------



## delgirl (7 Nov 2012)

Knuttell said:


> ... the one thing that annoys me most is the thought that my hard earned donation is going to pay the salary/expenses of an individual on over 100k a year before expenses.


100k is peanuts - this was in the Indo on Monday - [broken link removed].


----------



## Knuttell (7 Nov 2012)

Incredible simply incredible.


----------



## Protocol (7 Nov 2012)

I had a look at the Mark Pollack trust.

The funds raised are to pay for:

"The Mark Pollock Trust hopes to raise significant funds to assist with the capital and ongoing costs specifically associated with his spinal injury - including a team of rehabilitation specialists, physiotherapy equipment, visits to specialised spinal injury activity-based recovery centres and mobility solutions. You can help Mark to break through the barriers that paralysis and blindness have placed around him"


Note - if this person lives in Ireland, healthcare is provided free by the State, except for GP fees, A&E fees, drugs up to 132 pm.

So if he is living in Ireland, rehabilitation is free, or paid by the taxpayer.

But he expects people to donate for his healthcare?? 

What about his health insurance??

Or claim against the place where he fell??


----------



## truthseeker (8 Nov 2012)

Protocol said:


> Note - if this person lives in Ireland, healthcare is provided free by the State, except for GP fees, A&E fees, drugs up to 132 pm.



It is, but Id imagine the public system wouldnt have nearly the same level of accessible specialised physios/equipment etc that private rehab centres would. A lack of continuity is also a big issue, you never see the consultant himself but one of his underlings so you have to re-explain the same things each time etc...

I had a big knee surgery in my teens and everything went through the public system, a number of years later I still had problems and saw a physio privately and they couldnt believe the limitations under which I had been rehabbed, I was discharged entirely from the system while still unable to weight bear on the operated limb, and lots of issues were totally ignored. Now thats just one experience, but Id rather not be depending on the public system if I was trying to rehab from anything that required specialisation.


----------



## MrMan (8 Nov 2012)

T McGibney said:


> Really? Charities, by and large, get saturation coverage in the Irish media.It sounds to me that you begrudge poor John McAreavey the interviews he got last week.


 
That response is part of the problem for me, 'poor John McAreavey' needs to grieve like any other person, but tugging on peoples heartstrings just to hand over more money for another charity is wrong imo. If her father wasn't well known then we wouldn't even be talking about this.


----------



## T McGibney (8 Nov 2012)

MrMan said:


> That response is part of the problem for me, 'poor John McAreavey' needs to grieve like any other person, but tugging on peoples heartstrings just to hand over more money for another charity is wrong imo. If her father wasn't well known then we wouldn't even be talking about this.



But why begrudge him airtime as the other poster did? If, like Melanie Verwoerd_,_ he had written a book about his tragic experience, the media would be over him like a rash and nobody would be complaining.

For what its worth, I haven't heard John McAreavey ask anybody for money. An attractive fundraising match was organised and played in Casement Park, with 18,000+ people attending. This would have raised a decent sum, but nobody was forced to go and nobody had collection buckets or chugger debit mandates waved in their faces.


----------



## shesells (8 Nov 2012)

T McGibney said:


> But why begrudge him airtime as the other poster did? If, like Melanie Verwoerd_,_ he had written a book about his tragic experience, the media would be over him like a rash and nobody would be complaining.
> 
> For what its worth, I haven't heard John McAreavey ask anybody for money. An attractive fundraising match was organised and played in Casement Park, with 18,000+ people attending. This would have raised a decent sum, but nobody was forced to go and nobody had collection buckets or chugger debit mandates waved in their faces.



I "begrudge" him the airtime because it's not available to other small or new charities. Some is available to the larger charities but rarely the small ones. Have a look at this list [broken link removed] - when was the last time you heard Wells for Zoe getting widespread media coverage, or The Leprosy Mission Ireland, or Health Care on the Margins?

The sole purpose of the John McAreavey interviews last week was to promote the match and therefore the foundation. Maybe it was packaged a little more tactfully than a hard sell but the foundation and the match were widely referenced.


----------



## T McGibney (9 Nov 2012)

shesells said:


> I "begrudge" him the airtime because it's not available to other small or new charities. Some is available to the larger charities but rarely the small ones. Have a look at this list [broken link removed] - when was the last time you heard Wells for Zoe getting widespread media coverage, or The Leprosy Mission Ireland, or Health Care on the Margins?



So you *do* begrudge him the airtime? Thanks for confirming that.

What makes you so sure that this airtime would have gone instead to [broken link removed] or [broken link removed], neither of whom appear to have had any problems in the past, getting on Pat Kenny's show?


----------



## shesells (9 Nov 2012)

T McGibney said:


> So you *do* begrudge him the airtime? Thanks for confirming that.
> 
> What makes you so sure that this airtime would have gone instead to [broken link removed] or [broken link removed], neither of whom appear to have had any problems in the past, getting on Pat Kenny's show?



I do when it's not a nationally registered charity AND the media coverage is disproportionate. An insert on one radio show was everything, extended and repeat coverage is what this match & foundation got.


----------



## Delboy (9 Nov 2012)

shesells said:


> I do when it's not a nationally registered charity AND the media coverage is disproportionate. An insert on one radio show was everything, extended and repeat coverage is what this match & foundation got.



The media would'nt be giving airtime to something they did'nt feel there was no demand for.
It's not as though this fundraiser stole the thunder from another...the media would have had some other story on which most likely would'nt have been charity related


----------



## Leper (10 Nov 2012)

There are people who get hot-and-bothered over anything.  That's OK, but there are others who look on Michaela's foundation like a welcoming light.  Somebody earlier mooted the need for a "Central" Charity Distribution Centre.  We can already have that, it's called the Lotto.  Do we need another government agency? We can argue, but the Lotto is a Charity Central.

Let's get back to Michaela's football match.  Nobody was pressganged into attending or contributing.  It was an injection of cash into a charity.  Let's forget about whether the charity was registered or not; I bet that is being looked after while we speak.  Nobody will rip off a cent.  There are some registered charities which have been ripped off (don't mention the war!). But, that is another matter.


----------



## MrMan (10 Nov 2012)

I'm not hot and bothered about it though, I actually feel uneasy about making someone a celebrity post mortem.


----------



## Leper (10 Nov 2012)

MrMan said:


> I'm not hot and bothered about it though, I actually feel uneasy about making someone a celebrity post mortem.


 
This does not deserve a reply


----------



## MrMan (10 Nov 2012)

It was meant to be offensive, but as you said yourself, some people can get hot and bothered over anything.


----------



## Leper (10 Nov 2012)

MrMan said:


> It was meant to be offensive, but as you said yourself, some people can get hot and bothered over anything.


 
I presume you meant:- It was not meant to be offensive . . 

Yes, I did get hot and bothered.


----------



## MrMan (10 Nov 2012)

You presume right, one word makes a big difference!


----------



## T McGibney (10 Nov 2012)

shesells said:


> it's not a nationally registered charity



Please explain?


----------



## T McGibney (10 Nov 2012)

MrMan said:


> I'm not hot and bothered about it though, I actually feel uneasy about making someone a celebrity post mortem.



Michaela Harte was a celebrity for years before her death. That's why she was mentioned by name on the news reports the day she died.


----------



## truthseeker (10 Nov 2012)

T McGibney said:


> Michaela Harte was a celebrity for years before her death. That's why she was mentioned by name on the news reports the day she died.



Really? I can only remember the news reports reporting it as the daughter of Mickey Harte (didnt know who he was either btw). Even now, in recent reports, she is always mentioned as his daughter. 

She may have been known locally but its a bit of a stretch to suggest she was a celebrity.


----------



## T McGibney (10 Nov 2012)

Defining celebrity is a subjective business but a fortnight before she died, photos of her wedding had appeared in the Irish national newspapers and on UTV and BBC NI. Draw your own conclusions.


----------



## MrMan (11 Nov 2012)

I don't really want to get into why she wasn't a celebrity, as it also feels a little strange to be arguing this point, but I would have to agree with Truthseeker on this. I knew of Mickey Harte through watching and reading about GAA, but she was just his daughter to me and anyone I know. I found out more about her from the extensive coverage of her trial.


----------



## T McGibney (11 Nov 2012)

Of course when someone well-known or reasonably well-known dies, we learn more about them, as we did for example with Bill Tarmey this week. And if someone dies violently we hear even more again from coverage of any subsequent inquest or trial. This is hardly rocket science.


----------



## MrMan (11 Nov 2012)

I didn't know of her at all though, and an analogy that includes a former rose of tralee, with a popular soap character that was watched by millions for the guts of 30 years, hardly makes sense now does it?


----------



## T McGibney (11 Nov 2012)

MrMan said:


> I didn't know of her at all though, and an analogy that includes a former rose of tralee, with a popular soap character that was watched by millions for the guts of 30 years, hardly makes sense now does it?



Isn't the purpose of an analogy to draw parallels between two different stories? I never said Michaela Harte was on a par with Bill Tarmey. I just said that we learned more about both of them after their respective deaths. Hardly an earth shattering conclusion?


----------



## MrMan (12 Nov 2012)

T McGibney said:


> Isn't the purpose of an analogy to draw parallels between two different stories? I never said Michaela Harte was on a par with Bill Tarmey. I just said that we learned more about both of them after their respective deaths. Hardly an earth shattering conclusion?



I understand the purpose of an analogy, but learning more about a famous  actor after they die is customary, because they always had fame, and  learning more about a murder victim is customary because of the nature  of death, not because she was a celebrity, which is what I'm arguing; she wasn't a 'celeb' before her death, and the level of coverage would most likely not have been as extensive had she not been Mickey Hartes daughter.


----------



## T McGibney (12 Nov 2012)

MrMan said:


> and the level of coverage would most likely not have been as extensive had she not been Mickey Hartes daughter.



Obviously not, but I still don't see how this is relevant to anything. The late Marie Keating wouldn't have been famous but for her son Ronan's massive success but does this impact on the usefulness of the Foundation named after her?

And how many non-celebrity murder victims have had their weddings covered by national media before their deaths?

Finally, what were we discussing again? I'm starting to forget...


----------



## ajapale (12 Nov 2012)

T McGibney said:


> Finally, what were we discussing again? I'm starting to forget...



Thats the last word on the matter.
Thread Closed.


----------

