The Splosh UK Forum

You can bid to get a girl gunged for charity at:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/WAM-Splosh-Gunge- ... dZViewItem

Tori worked with gungegirls, and it looks as though this does look a little to good to be true
I'm always sceptical with this

Jonny wrote:...... it looks as though this does look a little to good to be true
I'm always sceptical with this

The "Missionfish" guarantee is genuine, and their involvement ensures that the agreed proportion goes to the correct charity. But, having said that, the seller is giving only 10% of the auction price to charity. (Not criticising, just observing ).

Etonman wrote:The "Missionfish" guarantee is genuine, and their involvement ensures that the agreed proportion goes to the correct charity. But, having said that, the seller is giving only 10% of the auction price to charity. (Not criticising, just observing ).

I agree that 10 per cent sounds a bit mean!

10% is lame for something with pretensions of being primarily a charity gig. At the current bid (£16), the worthy cause stands to make a whopping £1.60 from the deal. I had to look twice to find the 10% bit too tucked away in the frames, compared to the paragraph of righteous text implying the whole thing was just being done for charity.

Even if it's not the intention, this does make it appear like the charity is being used as a Holy-Joe excuse to disguise this from being a straight up paid WAM session (possibly to skirt eBay's listing rules). I sort of get that this sort of thing has always relied on euphemisms, but using a serious and important charity in this way and not giving them a decent cut of the proceeds is in rather poor taste and undermines other more serious efforts of a similar kind.

With you all the way, Miss Helen.

It is the way it is billed as a charity event that annoys me when it is clearly a professional paid-for session. Shouldn't there be some rule about the percentage of takings the charity gets if you are allowed to use their name? I think there should.

If I ran that charity I would definitely be in touch with the organisers...

Hayley

Just looked again at the listing, and someone has asked for clarification of the "10%" issue:-

"Q: If it's a charity gig, why is the donation level only 10%? Does the Missionfish figure represent the entire donation, or just part of it? 18-Sep-07
A: 10% is going to Brest Cancer campaign in London. The other 90% to other areas of the UK. On some of my other items it is just 10% donation."

I find that answer very ambiguous......

I understand that the Missionfish guarantee just assists someone who wants to give a proportion of an auction price to charity, e.g. if I sell my car on Ebay and want to give a percentage to a good cause. Encourages bidders to pay a better price, so I and the charity both benefit.
But I think there's a big difference between that and this particular event, especially as the seller says "all for a good cause".

why pay im sure there are girls who'd be gunged for nothing ! and donate to charity

Beatrice wrote:why pay im sure there are girls who'd be gunged for nothing ! and donate to charity

do you mean like urself dafty

I recognise her... and I may even recognise that pic!

Miss T wrote:I recognise her...

maybe miss t it's because she modelled for noise

There's more replies to questions on the listing now, which seem to indicate that "100%" is now going to charity.

Can't say I feel totally comfortable with this one even now, though....it may be entirely genuine, but, if you're going to use the name of an important and worthwhile charity, I think that everything should be very clear and unambiguous.

I contribute to charities myself, but I make damn sure that the money goes straight from my account into the charity's bank, no third parties, agents or collectors. I might be an old cynic, and it's not a nice thought, but money can leak away sometimes....I've seen it happen.

Perhaps all that's needed in this case is for the seller to rewrite the listing more clearly, if only to cover themselves.

(Sorry if this is a bit off-topic, I'll shut up now I've made my point).

Looks a bit dubious too me!

Should us genuine Sploshers do it for real?

It looks dead iffy to me

Form a line behind Bill please folks.

This may be a genuine idea misunderstood or a pro shoot desperately trying to get some backing. I can't say which. But why does there need to be any ambiguity? If you want to shoot a gunge scene, shoot one. If you then want to give some of the proceeds to charity, go ahead. But don't, in my view, confuse the two and expect people to pay upfront with some "charity" tag attached. There are plenty of ways to give money for a good cause (here's an idea, send a cheque!). To try and combine the two looks tacky in my opinion.

I say that as someone perfectly happy to give money to good causes (and to be gunged) but only concerned when one has to justify the other.

Hayley