I'm a big believer in giving to charity, and all are worthy, i know that, but i'm not sure how i feel about Crisis being the only charity of choice for the donated outage refunds. I think giffgaff could've distributed it differently (and fairer)
Hear me out. For the payback nominations, Crisis weren't eligible because they won and received donations in December '16. But somehow they'll still end up with more money than the top two charities that won this time around, and a whole £387k better off than the other three charities in the top five that lost out.
Here's what was said in the nominations thread;
"The following charities are not eligible for donations in this Payback period.
- Macmillan Cancer Support (received donations June 2018)
- Children with Cancer UK (received donations June 2018)
- British Heart Foundation (received donations December 2017)
- Save the Children (received donations December 2017)
- Cancer Research UK (received donations June 2017)
- Bluebell Children's Hospice (received donations June 2017)
- Crisis (received donations December 2016)
- Great Ormond Street Hospital (received donations December 2016)"
So would it have been better/fairer to split that £387k between the three charities that didn't get into the top two, plus Crisis? A four way split, nearly £100k each, surely that would've been a fairer/kinder way of doing it?
Huawei P20 Pro | 9.0.0 | Data Plan: 80GB