I know I
am in the minority here, but I'm not happy with 'Children in Need'.
I never
am.
I have
many reasons.
One is
that we live in an affluent country in comparison to many, and we
simply shouldn't have any children in need at all.
Yet no
one seems to be asking why we do.
We are
donating money to solve a problem that shouldn't exist in the first
place.
Similarly
we shouldn't have homeless people, mentally ill individuals
contemplating suicide due to benefit cuts, abused teenagers slipping
through a safety net, elderly folk freezing to death in winter, and
much much more.
Should
the solution to these issues really be voluntary funded from our
individually tightly squeezed incomes?
Haven't
we already contributed enough?
When we
consider what our tax contributions are used for, are there any of us
that wouldn't look at one expenditure and think 'Oh, that would keep
a hospice open?'
We
already putting cash into a pot that should be used to fund these
supports?
Isn't
children in need just a second dip into out pockets?
It's a
con that we are supporting. It seems to be that we are in fact the
mugs that are born every second.
This year
a record breaking thirty one million was donated - and while we
should take some collective pride in how this has been managed in
such a horrible economic climate for a huge swathe of our society -
there is a bit of me that thinks that someone is sitting right now at
a large table in an office in London and laughing at us.
Meanwhile
the same sort of wanker will take our generosity as proof that we
have more money that we are letting on.
'Over
sixteen million for those in the Philipines, another thirty odd
million for this and you say you are skint?'
That will
be the angle taken and lets not pretend that it wont.
The truth
is that many of us don't have the money.
I didn't
have the £10 that I feel was guilt tripped out of me from my
daughters school, but they got it.
That's
£10 of food, or gas, or electricity gone out of my monthly income.
Now I
appreciate that some may say it's only a tenner, and I will freely
accept that I am not going to starve or freeze now that it is gone,
but others are having a harder time than myself and my heart goes out
to those who couldn't find that money and had a kid attending school
who was excluded from the entertainment that their peers were
providing.
I also
feel heart sick that there will be someone somewhere who has put
their own children in need to support other children in need.
It's
messed up.
What we
should be aiming for is Children in Need as a concept to become
obsolete, and to do that we need to look at where our money goes and
demand that it is spent on what we as a society require.
I am well
aware that some will consider that I am a curmudgeon, and a sick one
at that.
I mean
how dare I tilt at this windmill.
I can
already hear the horrified cries of 'think of the children', but I
am.
That is
exactly what I am thinking of.
I want
them to be supported, loved, cared for and nurtured.
I want
every single vulnerable person in this country to be looked after.
It's just
that when I think about how much cash is running towards the
government I also think we can afford to bankroll a caring society.
The
system is benefiting a minority.
It's
lining the pockets of those who least need it.
Our
increasing participation in supporting charities isn't solving
anything.
It's just
allowing those at the top of the tree to absolve themselves from the
responsibility of looking after us all.
(Here's something to think about. If a union calls a one day strike we are told that the impact can be devastating for the company. Yet once a year many companies allow the workforce to down tools to participate in Children in Need. What's the difference in the income loss?)
No comments:
Post a Comment