An ethical issue, or not?

G,

Bags, whenever I join a new group I intend to be very quiet and ladylike - somehow it never lasts!

Yes indeed.

I'd agree bags

Thanks, peeps. I like all your reasoning, and can feel my 'open-minded' attitude is OK. I thought it was, in my guts so to speak, but I'm a newbie at the meetings in question and don't want to shock them too much before I'm properly accepted . I just felt that the water carriers being 'moved on' was not really a problem and not a reason for stopping supplying them.

I think some charities tend to send what they would like to receive themselves, rather than what the recipients actually need. We have some members who have actually been out to Africa - perhaps they could give us their insights into what is really useful.
Bags - I agree that it was up to the individuals concerned to decide whether they needed the water carrier or the money most.

I agree with your post, too POGS. I saw a similar programme about a charity giving goats to families who couldn't even feed themselves and had no land where the animals could graze.

Jess, I think you're right, the 'shock' Bags refers to was probably due to the perceived ingratitude of the recipients. I've been over-thinking again...
In reply to your question, Bags, I'd say that an open mind on such issues is indeed a good thing. Otherwise one could end up consumed by moral indignation over examples such as the one you give without allowing for the possibility that the recipients of charity know what's best for themselves.

Bags

If they had sold the water carrier it begs the question 'how much was it needed in the first place'?. Please don't get me wrong, it's simply I would have thought the ability to carry water was a priority for the family. Maybe it was O.K. to sell the water carrier because the family knew it could collect water, how had they been surviving before the charity stepped in. At least 2 families may have benefitted, one with cash, the other with a water carrier, good result. Does that make sense, sorry if not.

I am not being arguementative I just feel sometimes charities provide items without placing them where needed. I was watching a news report that showed a tractor that had been given to a village but when it broke down it became useless as nobody could obtain a replacement part not obviously fit it. I think the initial giving of the tractor was fantastic but charities can be a little gung ho where, what and the follow up they provide with charity money.

if the water carriers were given as part of a charitable initiative, and if those receiving them needed money more than the water carrier, the who are we to judge. maybe they were thought to be not properly grateful?

Bags I think we've got our wires crossed a bit here! I agree about the individuals selling their water carriers to raise desperately-needed money, I was concerned about who was buying them. If it was a needy family, fine, but not fine if it was a profit-making scam.

But the water carrier would be meant for the benefit of the family, not just the one carrying the water. Not good, but what can you do?

Sometimes I don't think I have a contorted enough mind!

Perhaps that's where the shock came in. The someone who was shocked thought I meant something else.

Isn't gransnet useful?

I agree, nag, but I wasn't thinking it was an organisation that sold the water carriers, just individuals who urgently needed some cash perhaps and had only that to sell.

I suppose so, but I wouldn't be happy with the thought that someone might be exploiting these people, paying them very little and then selling the water carriers on at a profit!