When I first started writing this blog my intention was to keep it controversy and debate material free. It was going to be a nice happy parenting blog following our adventures at home. Pah! Who was I kidding?
The more I write, the more I want to write about. I’ve thought it over and decided that if something inspires me to write then I ought to take that opportunity and where better to put it than here?
So with that in mind I thought I’d share with you a conversation I witnessed the other day about charity, that quite frankly left me infuriated! At the time I didn’t enter into debate over it as I didn’t deem a children’s playground an appropriate place to do so .
The conversation concerned two forces charities. I won’t name them, but it isn’t difficult to guess which they are. One very new and extremely popular, the other much older but equally as well known. All I will say is I am a huge supporter of both.
The ladies were of the opinion that the newer charity was much less worthy of the support it receives than the older. They believed that the newer charity is only supportive of victims of more recent conflicts and didn’t recognise vets from older conflicts, whereas the other charity does not discriminate. They also claimed the newer was only interested in attractive cases that would gain them publicity and exposure.
The part that annoyed me more than anything else was their implication that the newer charity’s supporters are of limited intelligence, from lower classes and only follow what the tabloids tell them to. Apparently these people do not possess the cognitive skills to know that there were conflicts before Iraq and Afghanistan! I honestly could not believe what I was hearing by this point.
Now, please, correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t the purpose of a charity to gain publicity and exposure in order to raise money and awareness to support their cause? How can it be a bad thing for a charity to be popular? And as far as I am aware the older of the two charities is no less popular, let alone suffering as a result of the newer ones popularity.
As a forces family we know many forces personnel who have benefitted from both charities. And these people are not just those injured in Afghanistan and Iraq. I personally am aware of several cases of the newer charity aiding veterans from conflicts such as The Falklands and Northern Ireland.
When all is said and done, isn’t the charity (forces or otherwise) you decide to support down to personal choice? A decision made based on your own experiences and beliefs? Or even if you choose to support a charity at all.
But to belittle the supporters of a charity just because you don’t support it, is downright childish and smacks of bitterness in my opinion. Particularly when your husband is a member of the armed forces and likely to be one of those “tabloid readers”. 😉
Have we really come to the point where choosing which charity to support is a potential minefield or am I just being idealistic in believing otherwise? Answers on a postcard please…..
As always I welcome comments.