I am not against charity. I am not even against the obvious fact that to get goodwill (in whatever form) from donor's pocket to beneficiary takes an inevitable amount of wheel greasing and admin.
But I am starting to think things have gone too far and, typically, 'management' (today's buzzword) has decided on the obvious solution: throw money at a campaign. In my various ad and marketing e-wsletters there were several accounts changing hands in the sector just today.
Trouble is, while some brilliantly conceived and executed award-winner will sail over my head, the following will resonate in my mind for much longer: I should never have offered farm aid to Africa Along with my own experiences offering free resources at the time of the tsunami to a shower of yahoos more keen to get to the free pop concert being held 'to help' than actually work on the problem.
I just wonder who will suffer first.. the executive salaries, bonuses and pensions, or the poor they exist to help?
3 comments:
This is one of the pieces that you read now and again which, you are right, will resonate in the mind for a considerable time.
It leaves you feeling sad, disgusted, amazed, ashamed and disbelieving in equal measures.
Whether or not the supermarkets are the 'bad boys', is open for anyone to argue; it all depends on your point of view. But this is supposed to be charity for goodness sake!!!
Accept a considerable donation or stand by what appears to be seen as a politically correct management principle? Surprise surprise, the latter wins hands down.
Shame on them - they have been crossed off my donation list - again!!
Dave.
Interesting that Oxfam would have refused the cash, there must have been some devil in the detail I suspect if the story is true.
Actually a quick google shows that isn't the first or only mention of oxfam and oliver walston together. It appears he might be a little miffed about oxfam querying farm subsidies perhaps?
From less than pleasant previous experience, and potential confusion with multiples, I am usually not so keen in Anon posts, but you have offered some valid food for thought and interesting commentary.
First up, it is worth noting that we are all more attuned to attribution.
I of course read and relied upon what was served up via a national newspaper, and not a tabloid or one more prone to raised eyebrows on such areas of societal contribution. Your google follow-up is of course worthy of note, and highlights a danger of this open-to-(if media selected)-all 'commentary'-style online section to a major medium, going out without the same standards of reporting, editorial or rights of reply.
Yet here I am, passing it on, without any more invetigation. Sorry, I just don't have the resources and time. In this case I will try what you have done and see what the devilish details may be that have caused you to cast some doubt, as for now all I can go on are the facts of what I read... if true. A revisit to the piece may be in order to see if Oxfam have made, and been moderated successfully, a reply. But without oversight by a trusted commentator the value of any of these exchanges to 'us' must remain of reduced value.
As to your final comment, yes, possibly. So? And how does that affect the facts of what he wrote?
Does that mean if we are already not happy with someone or something and have a history of debate with them, no further public commentary is to be allowed?
I'm afaid such allusions are not that helpful in such discussions. As with any enviro debate, the first words from the activist and denier extremes are to point at big oil or treehugging affiliations as opposed to anything tangible. If it makes sense I will pay heed to the views of the CEO of Exxon or the CEO of Greenpeace or OXFAM (at least they sahre corporate titles now) if I am prrsented with them.
All I can say is that this chap seems to have been trying to do something good, for good reasons, and got stymied by yet another example of process over product. And as I suffered the same with my attempt I can only have sympathy, and see merit in raising such issues with a view to improving them to benefit those who need help most.
Post a Comment