Reflections on Giving

This week is the “yetanotherthon” extravaganza that is “Children in Need”. I’ll make it clear at the start; this is not a charity that I have ever felt the need to support. I’ve not given much thought to this, I just felt a mild distaste for the whole thing and left it at that.

Charitable giving is a personal thing. I give, as many do, to those causes with which I feel some empathy. The odd few quid as and when and give it no more thought. The rise of the charitable “thon” during the late eighties with extravagant displays of celebs urging us to give tended to put me off rather than encourage me to donate. Particularly when some raggedy Irishman is ranting at me to “give us your fucking money”. The response is; “If you can’t ask properly, then you can piss right off”. I didn’t give to that one, either.

The “thon” became synonymous with workmates blackmailing colleagues to give in response to some silly stunt, such as head shaving. I resisted this, despite subliminal reproof. You see, I have this quaint idea that philanthropy should be something entered into freely, without precondition, without coercion and without expectation of exchange. That I do, without entering into silly stunts, without blackmailing colleagues and friends and without making a fuss about it.

Then came the addition to the silly stunts for money; the charity auction. In the case of Children in Need; the “things money can’t buy”. Except, of course, money can buy them. An awful lot of money. On Terry Wogan’s show yesterday morning (I’m not listening today, once was enough), we had an evening with Raymond Blanc, a night at the theatre with some cleleb or other, a day at an airforce base and so on. Sure, nice enough purchases if that’s what you want to do and why not do it for charity? Why not indeed? Well, if the BBC put a realistic price on the purchases – say a couple of hundred quid – and then asked people to phone in, then I’d see nothing wrong with that. What they did, though, was brazenly play the auction fever card. Auctions can be as damaging as gambling as people become caught up in wanting to win so much that they bid more than they originally intend to. Stupid, you might say and I would agree with you. But deliberately encouraging it to raise money is deeply unethical as it plays on human weakness for gain. That the end use is for the good does not excuse the tactic. It is still repellent.

Then there’s the motivation of someone who is willing to spend thousands; nay tens of thousands; of pounds on something worth a fraction of that “for charidee”. It seems less philanthropy than grandstanding. Even the anonymous donors will not be anonymous to those with whom they share the purchase. They will, doubtless feel good about themselves. Philanthropists do, I suspect. But, this isn’t philanthropy. Why not just write a cheque and be done with it? Why get embroiled in a public auction and pay way over the odds for something in a tacky “thon”? Philanthropy is about the expectation of nothing in return. Charitable giving is about giving, not receiving and has nothing to do with thousands of pounds on a radio auction.

Yesterday evening, my thoughts on the matter crystallised. Where had I come across this before? Ah, yes, the widow’s mite.