Peter Singer: [evaluator; accost; badge; consensus;] I think they boosted them. I think they are up to half a dozen or so now, but it's a very small slice. Yes. Givewell, and which you can find at Givewell.org, is a very rigorous evaluator and would, I guess, say you shouldn't be giving to people who just accost you on the street, you should be researching the charities, checking them and unless they are on their list of ones that they have said that have demonstrated their effectiveness, not that the others necessarily aren't effective, but just they haven't been transparent enough or produced the information to show that they are effective. This charity that I'm wearing badge for today thelifeyoucansave.org, that I've been involved with is a little bit broader, so if we feel that Givewell is so tough that it misses out things that are good but can't be evaluated. So, if you go there that will give you another list of organizations you can support and it's also you can get involved with it and help us to promote these ideas that we've been talking about and I'm pleased to say we've had a lot of consensus on about trying to live a more ethical life.
Tony Jones: [guide-dog] So, you make quite strong value judgements on different types of charities, don't you and I saw, for example, you make the case that it's not an effective charity to give to the group which creates or which train guide dogs for the blind which surprised me enormously. So perhaps you should explain how you came to that conclusion.
agreement among all the people involved.
a dog trained to guide a blind person.