And the Greatest of These - -
The Communist doesn’t believe in charity. “The Government should do it,” he says. He thinks that all such events as Band Aid are just done for the self-aggrandisement of those taking part: that, if there is a famine elsewhere in the world, then we are a rich enough country to help them without having to have a street collection or whatever.
Further, he says, the more we have street collections or Children in Need or Band Aid then the less the Government will feel it has to do anything.
I think he’s partly right, as a matter of fact - - but then, sometimes being right doesn’t help. It’s hard to look at a starving African child and say sorry, I’m going to let you starve because if I give you this bag of food it sets a really bad precedent.
I’ve worked out (with some help from Ailbhe’s comment, and some enjoyment from John’s) what I think was wrong with Emily’s school selling off the school grounds as a car park for Robbie Williams fans, whilst closing the school for the day. The school made £5000 if you remember, and will use it to pay for trips for disadvantaged children.
If there are disadvantaged children who need trips – and, oh boy, I know there are – then paying for those trips by flogging the school fields as a car park for Robbie suggests that we, as a society, are taking the need for those trips rather less than seriously. I’m not blaming the school – they just saw the opportunity and went for it.
The trouble is, if we think that funding things by charity is the way to go about it, - and we seem to - then some charities will always do better than others. The Royal National Lifeboat Institution, for example. Brave men risking their lives to save brave seamen caught in storms! We like to think of ourselves as a country with a big seafaring tradition, and giving money to the RNLI is never going to be controversial (and don’t get me wrong, I think they are vital and should be properly funded).
But unglamorous charities such as those concerned with mental health issues are never going to do as well.
I’ve always been intrigued by the old suggestion of funding the Army entirely by charity, inviting the British people to have jumble sales to pay for soldiers and weapons, just like they currently do for children’s hospices.
“Well, done, Mrs. Norton-Scott! Your butterfly buns will pay for three pairs of boots for our boys!”
If it’s necessary, then the Government should pay for it. And, of course, that means us, through our taxes. Perhaps we should be given a choice of what our taxes go to. “I’ll give a hundred pounds to hospitals, another hundred to fund the schools, two thousand for abandoned dogs, three thousand to the RNLI - - “
It would never work. The Communist is right. The Government should do it. But we must make sure we tell the Government what’s important. If we care about disadvantaged children, we should make sure the Government knows that.
Further, he says, the more we have street collections or Children in Need or Band Aid then the less the Government will feel it has to do anything.
I think he’s partly right, as a matter of fact - - but then, sometimes being right doesn’t help. It’s hard to look at a starving African child and say sorry, I’m going to let you starve because if I give you this bag of food it sets a really bad precedent.
I’ve worked out (with some help from Ailbhe’s comment, and some enjoyment from John’s) what I think was wrong with Emily’s school selling off the school grounds as a car park for Robbie Williams fans, whilst closing the school for the day. The school made £5000 if you remember, and will use it to pay for trips for disadvantaged children.
If there are disadvantaged children who need trips – and, oh boy, I know there are – then paying for those trips by flogging the school fields as a car park for Robbie suggests that we, as a society, are taking the need for those trips rather less than seriously. I’m not blaming the school – they just saw the opportunity and went for it.
The trouble is, if we think that funding things by charity is the way to go about it, - and we seem to - then some charities will always do better than others. The Royal National Lifeboat Institution, for example. Brave men risking their lives to save brave seamen caught in storms! We like to think of ourselves as a country with a big seafaring tradition, and giving money to the RNLI is never going to be controversial (and don’t get me wrong, I think they are vital and should be properly funded).
But unglamorous charities such as those concerned with mental health issues are never going to do as well.
I’ve always been intrigued by the old suggestion of funding the Army entirely by charity, inviting the British people to have jumble sales to pay for soldiers and weapons, just like they currently do for children’s hospices.
“Well, done, Mrs. Norton-Scott! Your butterfly buns will pay for three pairs of boots for our boys!”
If it’s necessary, then the Government should pay for it. And, of course, that means us, through our taxes. Perhaps we should be given a choice of what our taxes go to. “I’ll give a hundred pounds to hospitals, another hundred to fund the schools, two thousand for abandoned dogs, three thousand to the RNLI - - “
It would never work. The Communist is right. The Government should do it. But we must make sure we tell the Government what’s important. If we care about disadvantaged children, we should make sure the Government knows that.
posted by Daphne at 7:30 pm
7 Comments:
Ohh. Think rather "I should do it!" Perhaps in this case "it" means "make sure the government spends more on feeding people than on killing people" (call me wacky, go on) but I really hate hearing people say that the govt ought to be doing it. It's so often a total copout.
Another useful copout is "they waste all the money on administration anyway" which is a good reason not to give anything to either charities or the government, in case you need one.
The school should go to the press as "so underfunded that they have to use Robbie Williams to get disadvantaged kids what they deserve" and your dad should look into what Band Aid actually achieved first time around, and in record sales since. I have no idea what it achieved second time around.
It is a copout if you use it as an excuse NOT to give money.
but it does seem sensible that the RSPCA (just for example) should be paid for by everyone, (including those who are actually abusing the animals) and not just the people that go all gooey over the sight of a puppy.
So that in essence Everybody HAS to give to these causes. In the meantime the best thing that we can do is buy cakes, have coffee mornings, and fill collection tins.
If money goes towards administration then obviously the charity needs properly administrating so that it can help people. It may "Waste" money on advertising, but the money should be given so that they can advertise and get more money to spend on people. Charitable workers, even the big administrators don't get paid what they would doing the job for a non charitable orgainisation to do the job if they didn't acually care about the cause.
my 2 cents
Charity is a symptom of civilisation - discuss
Charity is a symptom of inadequately developed civilisation. (It ought not be necessary).
How do you suppose that it ought not to be necessary.
If a country has no natural resources, surely they cannot survive without charity. The civilization doesn't mean anything if they have nothing to base an economy on. The country is still going to get nowhere without charity from other countries, be it by individuals or by government donations.
On the other hand, if we were properly civilized then maybe the RSPCA and NSPCC (to name but two) wouldn't need to exist. The RNLI and Cancer Research would get government funding, but does that count as charity still?
Is the NHS a form of such of charity as it is available to everyone and not everone pays for it?
Gareth: International charity may be unavoidable - but certainly the RSPCA, the NSPCC, Macmillan, Cancer Research, all the battered women charities, RNIB and, er, everything else providing essential services... none of those should be charities depending on random donations.
And no, the NHS isn't a charity, though it looks awfully like it sometimes when it's trying to raise money.
I think I didn't make it clear in my original post - I do think we should give to charity because of all those charities which do such invaluable work. BUT at the same time, I think we should campaign for Government funding for them.
Post a Comment
<< Home