NOTES FROM THE. UNDERGROUND..
TONY PALMER
In Great Britain today there are nearly 262,000 registered charities. Eton is one of the oldest. Number 261699 is one of the newest. Called 'Outset', it's been in existence for about six months and is the baby of two young Cambridge graduates, Nicholas Blake and Andrew Scadding. A third, fain Kingsbury, is a one-time school friend of Blake. Their aim is simply to raise money for the care of drug addicts, alcoholics and those others who find they cannot cope with the stresses of organised society. They admit that existing organisations are already hard at work helping these people, but maintain that social work of this kind is so fragmented and usually so over burdened that the problem of getting the hard cash essential for the con- tinuance of such projects, is neglected. Often, those directly involved in the day to day task of reform are their own worst ad- vocates when it comes to appealing for sup- port. For example, one of Caroline Coon's undoubted difficulties in raising money for Release was that she had so frequently at- tacked the very people from whom she subsequently begged assistance. But as Kingsbury told me, 'we think we're smooth enough to keep our tongues still.' They are also intelligent enough to realise that we live in a society where it is only those who have a flair for publicity and a consequent ability to manipulate the media, who are likely to 'suc- ceed' in any acceptable sense of the word. Thus someone like Des Wilson with his glib tongue and quick although facile mind is able to focus public sympathy on a particular cause to such an extent that the cause actually seems to benefit. Often by ap- pearing 'so much like a knight in shining armour, the feeling goes around that maybe there's no need to worry about the homeless after all because good old Uncle Des has got them all under his wing—with the result that in the long term, less money and certainly less goodwill is contributed than was earlier the case. The personality cult, so essential to the media and their understanding of human problems, appears to be a necessary ingre- dient for the 'successful' charity.
But for Scadding, Blake and Kingsbury the problems are so far quite different. Without offending existing charities, they are trying to persuade social workers that the business of caring for those in need can he done more efficiently if the fund rais- ing is effected by a separate orgatiisation which although committed is not directly in- volved. You would have thought, they point out, that no one doubted that there are great numbers of people in need of help. Every year about 3,000 people in Great Britain die from drug poisoning. There are more people attending mental hospitals than there are university students. Around 31,000 spend every night in some sort of hostel and nearly 1,000 are known to sleep rough. In spite of, and often because of, the welfare state, these numbers are increasing. Outset's main con- cern, therefore, is to help the solitary person,
who has nowhere to live and whose situation has been exacerbated by alcoholism, drugs or psychological disorders. The Salvation Army estimates that there are probably about 400,000 such people. Without care, many turn to petty crime. Others become in- curable. All contribute nothing and most would like to, if given the chance. Their isolation militates against their recovery. Homelessness encourages isolation. Given the enormity of the problem, Outset's solu- tions appear naïve. They are selling book- tokens at two shillings a bash; they are organising 'sponsored social work' which means in effect that eight hours of social work is paid for by friends or a local firm which can also contribute raw materials; they are also encouraging sponsored swims and sponsored dog walks. It's not the kind of campaign that thrills you to the mar- row--walk a doggie for Jesus is not going to save many alcoholics, but it's a beginning.
Anyway, arousing the public conscience in yet another good cause which is less personally identifiable than that of the homeless is no easy matter. Two press releases distributed by Outset were ignored—their activities just weren't news. Apart from waving fashionable political slogans such as 'and, of course, we'll take care of the old-aged pensioners even if the rest of you do starve to death' and the oc- casional genuflection from the Minister for the Environment, in reality society cares lit- tle for those who ultimately are unable to conform to its more obvious codes of ac- ceptable behaviour. like parents who send their children to Sunday school and forget to go to church themselves, we often pretend that we've done our good works for the year when' we slip sixpence into the poppy day collecting box. But on the other hand, it's difficult to know how the collection of money for charity can be organised so that everyone does contribute a proportion of their_ income to those less fortunate. Who decides who is in need? How is the money to be distributed? Is it only money that is needed? Wouldn't the enforced collection of money for charity become dan- gerously like a communistic system? Do we really believe that we have responsibilities to all our fellow men? And if so where do we draw the line? At Dover? At the bottom of the garden? And what are tax- es for? And social welfare? Why should we have to pay twice? I think the answer to many of these questions lies in the word charity itself. It has never quite escaped its paternalistic connotations, the idea of doing good having become inseparable from do- gooding.
It is an absurdity that in a highly indus- trialised, heavily taxed community, we are still content to leave so many misfits un- cared for. The danger of a competitive society is that such people will go to the \van and often do. The danger of a socialistic society is that we assume that these people will automatically get cared for whereaS they are often too proud or too stubborn to receive 'charity'. But if we are prepared to live in a democratic society and thereby ac- cept its rules which we suppose have been established for the common good, then we must mobilise authority to acknowledge those who have fallen by the wayside. Otherwise it is we ourselves who have 'drop- ped-out', because it is we who have in- cl.– 'd that we have no wish to live as a full member of that society. Thus people such as Blake, Scudding and Kingsbury serve as a reminder of our corporate and continuing responsibilities
Previous page
