The Joy of Giving

L

et's be candid here. The vast bulk of humanity (myself included) rarely experience the no doubt pleasant sensation of lightening our purse strings to help those less fortunate than ourselves. I confess that during the working week I have passed the Big Issue man outside 'Paradise' Circus, Birmingham for over a year now on my stagger to and my scuttle back from the office without ever crossing his palm with silver (I should say copper and nickel). On occasions I have felt a twinge of guilt about this; probably more than Jeremy Clarkson at any rate.

Not only do my uncharitable actions and those of my fellow man fail to alleviate the suffering of many (yes I know that despotic regimes, poor personal choices, the common agricultural policy, etc. are significant factors too), but they have spawned the celebrity love-in that is Comic Relief. I find it incredibly dispiriting to think that the only way of encouraging people to help the needy is for Christopher Moyles to do a 52-hour radio marathon (I can hear cries of 'what a lege*' reverberating around the United Kingdom) and Fearne Cotton wearing a peculiar bikini/swimsuit combination on television – oh er.

Now clearly Comic Relief – the promotion of celebrity aside – is not a wicked thing. The millions that it raises for charities improves the lives of many. What sticks in my gullet is that Comic Relief promotes the idea of conditional giving i.e I'll only give money to charity if Christopher Moyles deprives himself of some kip and Fearne Cotton leaves little to the imagination. To me, anyway, conditional giving is not particularly charitable. Could you imagine Mother Theresa agreeing to devote her life to helping the poor and sick of Calcutta (forgive me Kolkata) on the proviso that she completed the Manchester Half Marathon in under 2 hours. Doesn't seem quite right does it?

Unfortunately, this concept of conditional giving is everywhere and is particularly rife in the workplace when not a week goes by without some hearty individual sending you a link to justgiving.com informing you that they are embarking on a 'challenge' (almost invariably a half marathon) for charity. Generally the type of person, in my experience, who embarks upon a half marathon is someone who enjoys exercise anyway, which means that they are not really challenging themselves at all by doing a bit more exercise than usual. If this type of person really wanted to 'challenge' themselves then they should actually do something that they don't want to do: reading War and Peace, volunteering at an old folks' home or offering to clean the local school lavatories for example. Perhaps Ben Fogle should give this idea some serious thought the next time he embarks upon a jolly good jape in his 'gap' life?

I digress. I don't really want Ben Fogle to read War and Peace in exchange for my 'shrapnel'. What I would much prefer is for Ben, or Katherine from work, to come up to me with a bucket without offering anything in return and inform me that they are raising money for Oxfam saying for example “I should be grateful if you would be able to spare some change”. The problem with doing what I've suggested is that some would find this act a little too degrading, akin to begging, which most people are loathe to do. So instead we are left with a concept lacking in true benevolence, but ensures that Middle England's veneer of respectability is not remotely tainted.

* 'Lege' is a term used by people lacking mental alacrity. It is short for legend and confers the donor's admiration for the recipient. It does not connote that the recipient's existence is being called into question.