pumpkinstrokemarrow

What might have been thought right a few months ago is starting to look a bit dodgy to me. We are backing the eastern half in a civil war between the western and eastern halves of the country and doing a good deal of damage to the western half - which despite the best efforts of our gallant air crews does not appear to be about to cave in. Are we sure that it would be a good thing if it did? How would we feel about the eastern half running amok over the western half? Dressed as Malays? Rape, pillage & the full works?

Is it right to collect money for charity for pay?

This thought prompted by a polite young man who knocked on the door yesterday wanting me to sign some sort of a mandate in favour of an entirely worthy looking outfit called World Vision (http://www.worldvision.org.uk/). He would not accept a donation and he would not give me a leaflet. All he would do was have me fill out one of his mandates on the spot, which I was not prepared to do. I supposed that he was on commission, but whether he was or not does not materially affect the point. There are people out there who do collect money for charity for commission, for pay.

First thought is that if you are knocking on doors collecting my money for charity, you should be setting a good example by giving your time to charity. Now while charities might be more effective when run as a business with commission for the foot soldiers and fancy salaries for those at the top of the heap, charities of that sort seem a long way away from the original idea of charity, back say in the Middle Ages. Be the idea Muslim or Christian - they are both religions which promote charity.

So second thought is that that you are going to have to pay engineering companies (say) to dig wells because they are not charities. It is just about OK to run your charity shops as businesses; maybe even to pay some of the staff in them. But the people out there soliciting cash on the streets should be doing it for love. Charities should keep some connection with their roots; the business of freely giving help and support to those in need of it, where the giving is a person to person thing, like Christ washing the feet of his disciples or the Lord Mandelson washing the feet of the beggars at his door. Good for the soul. Maybe they should take a peek at the origin of the word every Monday morning and ruminate on the fact that the root includes the meanings love and expensive. Perhaps there is a connection with the French 'cher' which also means both dear beloved and dear expensive. As, indeed, does our dear.

Third thought is just a bit of old-Etonian bashing. It is not OK to have some fancy ball at the Dorchester, costing perhaps £333,333, of which £3,333 is given to charity, and then to call the thing a charity ball. Get lots of plaudits for your great generosity.

Lastly, is it right to speak for my neighbour rather than for myself?

This one is more obscure, but I give it a go anyway. It is the sort of thing that might crop up when deciding whether to put the letter box at the western end of the street or the eastern end. This is something that various corporate entities might have a view on: the Post Office, the Council, the Chamber of Commerce or the Police. It is also something that the people living in the street might have a view on. Maybe we would admit the views of people living in nearby streets. Let us suppose that the drill is that there is a public meeting, chaired by some public inspector from OffBox. More or less everybody gets a chance to make their pitch. There might be some voting. One could spend happy hours dreaming up the appropriate rules and regulations. Then the public inspector goes away and comes to a decision.

The thing that I am uncomfortable about in this context, is one person speaking for another. While I might fully understand that Mr. Sykes is a bit ancient, has lots of letters to post and would in consequence like the letter box near his house, it is for Mr. Sykes to make his pitch and cast his vote. It is not up to me to make his pitch for him, or to make the pitch I think he should be making; I should pitch for what I want. If we all express our own views and desires, rather than making guesses about other peoples', the lucky old public inspector has some chance of coming up with a good compromise. We should not try and do his work for him.

Furthermore, it is not my place to explain to the public at large that poor old Mr. Sykes has an unmentionable disease and so does not like to be seen in the street much and so would like the letter box outside his front door. I should mind my own business. If he wants to declare his unmentionable disease, that is his business.

Against that, it does seem reasonable for me to say that Sykes's need is greater than my need and cast my vote with him. A judgement that I am perhaps better placed to make than the public inspector. It it also seems reasonable for Sykes to appoint a proxy if he does not feel able to make his own pitch, perhaps to hire an expensive lawyer, although I guess the appropriate rules and regulations would have to have their say on that one. And in an extreme case, it would be reasonable for the Court of Protection (if it is still called that) to appoint one. But at least that is a civil servant minding someone else's business, not a private citizen. Until they get privatised...

At which point I have rather lost myself. Have to have another go another day.