The ThunderDragon

There’s really only been one story in the news this week.

However, there’s more than enough bad news going round, so let’s look at something good instead. Parachuting Archbishops.

Not a phrase you’re likely to ever hear again, it must be said, but - as was well documented - The Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, completed his parachute jump with the Red Devils (how did he cope with that analogy?) at the end of last week.

His target - raising at least £50,000 through sponsorship for the Afghanistan Trust that supports injured soldiers from Arghanistan.

A worthy cause, and I hope that he proves successful.

However, I heard a comment about the story asking quite an interesting question. Why did the Archbishop feel that he needed to jump out of a plan at 12,500ft to fundraise in this way?

Have you ever heard a conversation along the lines of:
“Would you like to donate to [charity]?”
“Sorry, no”
“How about if I jump out of plane? Sit in a bath-tub full of baked beans perhaps? What about if I run several miles?”
“Oh, of course I will - I didn’t think they were a worthy cause originally, but if you’re going to sit in a bath of baked beans, of course I’ll donate!”

We are quite a giving nation in the UK. We all like to give to charity where we can. This sometimes gets problematic - you can’t give to every charity that has a box in a shop, sends you a letter, or appeals on TV. Otherwise, you’d need to launch your own appeal as you’re starving and homeless. Different people can give different amounts - some that can’t give monetarily are prepared to give their time instead. See the recent volunteers week.

But, it’s so much easier to say “no” to a letter or an advert than it is to a fellow human being. Which is the flaw in sponsorship - if a friend wanders up to you with a sponsorship form asking you if you’ll donate to their sponsored walk, you almost feel obliged to give something - even if you can’t afford it.

I understand that in some offices things are getting too stupid. An “All Staff” e-mail is sent from Beryl in accounts. Beryl is taking part in a “wear a silly hat” day for the Tooting Bec Performing Farts Foundation [sic]. You’ve never met Beryl, as you work in sales, and have never heard of a Performing Farts Foundation. However, Beryl is asking if people will sponsor her, and a sponsorship form is available in the kitchen. You don’t really want to give - but what will other people think if your name isn’t on the list? Tight arse. Best give something then…

And then there’s the cost of putting some of these events on. In some cases, the costs come out of sponsorship fund - in other cases, they come out of the organisers own pocket. The latter case is preferable, of course, but how many more [whatevers] could have been saved if that money went directly to the charity?

I might be sounding like a mean old miser now, but I’m not against sponsorship. These occasional ideas do work well in promoting a charity and getting much needed publicity in many cases. The costs of running a sponsored whatever are often overwhelmed by the extra monies that come in as a result. Obviously, I do give to charity. But it’s a case of what I can, when I can.

I just get the feeling that sometimes these things are getting to overkill. So, don’t be offended if I ignore your e-mail asking me to go to a justgiving page. It’s just I’m being selective.

~ Asp

This week is Volunteers Week.

Volunteering is massively important, both to society and to individuals. Society as a whole benefits from it because those in need can be helped without government and taxes getting involved. Individuals - both those who receive and give - benefit from the contact and experiences.

Just think what we could accomplish if everyone gave up just a few hours of their time every now and then. We could leave this world a far better place. Don’t think that money is the answer. It’s not. Most charities don’t need monmey anywhere near as much as people - especially Scouting, which has thousands of young people across the country on waiting lists due to a lack of adults.

Of course, no volunteering is completely selfless - and I’m definitely speaking from experience here. Anyone who claims to do so is a liar. Volunteers benefit from volunteering their time very nearly as much as anyone they help. The benfeits are just in a different way - they are seldom obvious, but far more internal and personal. The personal satisfaction you can get from volunteering and a job well done can outweigh pretty much anything that has been sacrificed to achieve it.

I fully support the idea of workers getting time off to volunteer, as it encourages those who wouldn’t otherwise volunteer to do so. Though the idea of regarding volunteering as a “proper job-seeking activity” is ridiculous, as anyone and everyone could find the time to do some volunteering if they wanted to.

My employer gives me and every other employee half a day every month time off to do volunteering activities. This volunteering can be done on internally organised schemes, such as helping children in schools to read, or externally like me, with Scouting. I used my last month’s half-day to enable me to ensure that everything was ready for my camp on time.

This is the sort of model that all companies should seek to emulate. It provides for a more motivated workforce, and one who knows that the firm is making an effort to put something back into the community.

I volunteer as a Scout Leader because I enjoy it. I gain so much from the time I spend with my Scouts that the hours I spend doing it - and preparing for, and clearing up after - are way more than worth it to me.

If everyone can just put a few hours every now and then in to volunteering, then everyone benefits. Just a small amount can help so much. Just a little bit of your time can mean so much to other people in so many ways.

So volunteer, and let’s leave this world a better place than when we found it.

One last thing to say - just do-it.

Idiocy of the day:

Imposing a tax to foster a more giving culture? WTF? On what planet is he living where you can impose a tax to foster a culture of giving? That makes bugger-all sense. You can’t force someone to do something and then expect them to do choose to do it.

The reason that the relationship between the Edwardian philanthropists and charity has become “fractured” is because the State has taken on so many of those tasks and is just having the same people pay for it, just through coercive taxes rather than by charitable giving. It’s a pretty simple equation: the more you take by force in taxes, the less they give by choice as charity.
More taxes = Less charity. So get that through your thick head, Frank.

Of course Mike Ion thinks it “has real merit”. But then, he would.

Image: Frank Field MP

Click to enlarge

Recently, whenever there is a high profile “worthy cause” that wants or needs money, the first thing they think of and want to do is to hold a concert. This is making use of the inclinations of music stars willingness, desire, and need to be seen as helping out charitable organisations and events.

Finally, for once, there is a concert for a cause that is actually worthwhile, and should serve to do more than just make music stars look good in the media. A concert is to be held to raise money to help rebuild the Cutty Sark, after the fire that caused a lot of damage [right], but luckily none that is not repairable, especially considering that so much of the tea clipper had been removed during the restoration. No names of artists who would appear have been released, but there is said to be some “major support” on it.

Fund-raising since the fire has very nearly reached the £500,000 mark, and is expected to breach that point by the end of today. Hopefully the concert proposed to be held in London over the summer will raise enough money to fully restore the Cutty Sark to her former glory, even if six to nine months later than expected prior to the blaze.

Sources: BBC, Virgin Media