Registered user login:

ADifferentWayOfThinking

A Different Way Of Thinking

How society approaches disability from the perspective of someone with autism.

A Different Way Of Thinking Homepage

Charities are hamstrung by the law

  • Posted by James Medhurst
  • 24 July 2007

One would have thought in a liberal democracy the promotion of debate and free speech is inherently beneficial, whether one agrees with its content or not

My last blog entry about carers received an unprecedented response, some of which was rather heated. One of the issues was whether charities set up on behalf of carers reflect the interests of carers themselves.

This is a familiar debate for many groups and, among disabled people, it can be particularly severe, because, rather than the two main charities which exist for carers, there appear to be hundreds.

Many disabled people object to the fact that these charities have historically been run exclusively by non-disabled people and we have been given little say about how their money is spent until recent years.

We are also very uncomfortable with the way in which we can be portrayed in advertisements, as being as pathetic as possible, in order to persuade potential donors to part with their cash.

This may all seem to be rather ungrateful but, really, it is not. In a week in which Comic Relief and Children in Need were caught up in the BBC phone in scandal, it is very clear that there are limits to the tactics which should be considered to be acceptable for raising money.

It is a short step from saying that fake competitions are inappropriate to acknowledging that charities must not deceive the public as to how their money will be spent, or perpetuate damaging stereotypes, however profitable it may be to do so.

Ironically, a former competitor of Children in Need was the thankfully short-lived ITV Telethon, a mind-numbing twenty seven hours of inanity. This became the target of a direct action campaign by disabled people, who were credited with its eventual demise.

However, lest it be thought that I am taking sides, I wish to say a few words in defence of charities as well. It would be difficult for them to do as much as we would like them to do to spread the word of equality because they are hamstrung by the law itself.

Charities are required to provide a public benefit and the courts have refused to rule upon the question of whether a political campaign provides a public benefit or not.

This is rather a bizarre conclusion because one would have thought that, in a liberal democracy, the promotion of debate and free speech is inherently beneficial, whether one agrees with its content or not.

In any case, the upshot is that a charity can only be political in as much as it supports the law as it stands, rather than seeking to change it, hence another recent controversy at the BBC about its coverage of Live 8. However, it is difficult to determine where charity ends and politics begins. How a desire to reduce poverty can be apolitical is beyond me.

There is evidence that some disability charities are starting to take a campaigning stance, with Scope and the Down’s Syndrome Association running recent campaigns in support of employment rights.

Partly this is because of a change of attitude within the charities themselves but it also reflects a wider social trend.

Anti-discrimination legislation means that such campaigns are now within their charitable remit and are no longer seen as being political.

For the large charities in particular, it must surely have a positive effect if they direct their large resources towards this type of work, although taking part in the political process has its disadvantages as well.

It will doubtless be necessary to make compromises which individual campaigners would be in a position to avoid. They should be forgiven for this although it can be difficult for people who fall on the wrong end of a compromise to do. Charities and political groups have different roles to play and both are important.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • NowPublic
  • Reddit

10 comments from readers

wildthing
24 July 2007 at 23:55

Charities cannot or will not fight for what carers want because if carers get it then there is no need for the charity to exist any more

John
25 July 2007 at 08:05

Charities will never represent everyone, but it is possible for them to push certain issues that are important to the forefeont.

Wildthings comments are a little niave as many other charities have achieved there aim and then moved onto other issues. Also if they are not actually representing what they say they are in there application to the charity commision they would loose charity status. Charities are very hamstrung by charity law

A few individuals may feel they are not represented but it is impossible for a large organisation to please everyone all of the time

kenm
25 July 2007 at 11:02

In the case of the two main carer charities-they are not so much hamstrung by the law as by the fact that they are mainly funded by government and are never going to bite the hand that feeds them.

In my 37 years as carer for my wife they have done nothing that has made my life easier-in fact things continue to get worse.

Pansy
25 July 2007 at 19:15

The trouble with the 2 main charities is that the social climate has changed out of recognition since they were formed, but they haven't. They are still set up as mainly information, sympathy and support (if you can access their support groups. Fair enough, these groups are for carers, but what do you do with your caree while you attend?)

What carers need now is someone with clout to make sure their voice is heard, to complain about the appaling level of carers pittance, the overlapping rule, loss of care homes, respite and many essential services.

Charities mainly funded by the government are unlikely to do this in case their funding gets chopped, along with all other support that is carer related.

Clive (UK Carers)
26 July 2007 at 11:54

John as Cuk-biased as ever and spouting the usual 'get-out' excuse for charities doing whatever they please.

Naivety at best downright lies at worse.

Carers UK actively block Carers from taking part in government consultations, doesn't seem right really now does it?

Carers have to take whatever this questionable charity decides is best for Carers HOW PATRONISING how damn insulting that well paid clueless charity employees get to influence how WE are treated by the government of the day (their biggest source of funding). John naive isn't an accurate description of your view but keep it up, you will be made a trustee at this rate

wildthing
26 July 2007 at 12:45

CUK could get round anything put in their way to stop them fighting for what carers want but choose not to just because the government charity status rules stop them doesn't mean they have to lie about what carers want when the do questionaires, carers say money is their main worry but it never features in their top 5 on the replies they receive. On the CUK forum if you publish something that a few people disagree with they remove it saying it is insulting to others.

An example is saying immigrants have more rights than carers . If anything is insulting then it is the fact that CUK say they are the voice of carers when carers are screaming for more money while CUK say Carers want more respite and the chance to work. How stupid do you have to be to not realise that if you care 24/7 there are no hours left for you to go out to work , anybody know of a job that pays over £800 a week so we can pay a live in carer £400 and still have something to live on ? (these are net incomes not gross)

Clive (UK Carers)
26 July 2007 at 13:02

Spot on wildthing, also prisoners are paid more and get more social interaction.

We (Carers) are screwed by everyone from government to the charities that (have failed miserably) represent us (sic)

Message to Pansy, Carers UK WON'T ALLOW anyone to speak for Carers, ESPECIALLY Carers themselves, they actively block them from taking part in consultations, Carers UK are part of the problem not the solution

treborc
16 August 2007 at 11:03

While the carers fight who is best the disabled people are forced back into work or onto lower benefits, perhaps we will not need carers soon we the disabled will be dead, or in work.

I think the Carers although very important have lost the way a bit and forgot the people they are looking after.

vchandran
09 September 2007 at 06:43

I wounder why there is little respobse on issues relating to the life and plight of the differently abled brothers and sisters of our global family.

I am from India. I serve as a director of a NGO called Future India Foundation, which focus on the community based human development activities which highly includes the holistic services for the betterment of the disabled.

India being the developing country gives focus on the special attention needed for the betterment of the special section of the human life.

Now we are closely working with grass root level government departments and desinging new projects to address the different needs of the disabled.

I appreciate any kind of toughts, ideas, tips which helps in this mission.

I am more eager to get feedbacks from the bloggers.

with warm regards

Vijaya chandran.K

ians12
05 November 2007 at 09:11

Carers UK have their little "Summit" on Nov 8th at Canary Wharf. Amongst those listed as attendees is Anne McGuire, the minister responsible for Carers Allowance, currently set at circa £49 per week for working a minimum 35 hours. Well below minimum wage. When asked if CA could be increased (to minimum wage levels) in a written response to a question from our MP, Anne McGuire says that there will be no increase in CA beyond the statutory RPI linked annual increases. Now, CUK have repeatedly failed to answer the question put to them by me about putting the increase in CA to a legal level at or above minimum wage rules on the agenda for that "Summit".

They either do not care or have already agreed with Ms McGuire that it will not be an issue.

This and other issues are what we struggle to make this supposedly helpful charity aware of every day. They are the ones who should be doing the fighting with the government, not us, after all, they claim to be our "Voice".

They are only a very quiet voice in my opinion.

Like Clive says, they are there to line their pockets as they all work for a limited company tied to the charity.

When you ask for money to help fight a case they turn you down, some help that is.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

About the writer

As a child, I was very successful in my schoolwork but found it difficult to make friends. I went to Cambridge University but dropped out after a year due to severe depression and spent most of the next year in a therapeutic community, before returning to Cambridge to complete my degree. I first identified myself as autistic in 1999 while I was studying psychology in London but I was not officially diagnosed until 2004 because of a year travelling in Australia and a great deal of NHS bureaucracy. I spent four years working for the BBC as a question writer for the Weakest Link but I am now studying law with the intention of training to be a solicitor. My hobbies include online poker and korfball, and I will be running the London Marathon in 2007. I now have many friends and I am rarely depressed but I remain single.

Recent Posts

Disabled on Big Brother

  • By James Medhurst
  • 05 August 2008

You don’t have to be mad to work here…

  • By James Medhurst
  • 20 May 2008

Nowhere to run

  • By James Medhurst
  • 17 March 2008

Incitement to Confusion

  • By James Medhurst
  • 23 January 2008

Making perfect babies

  • By James Medhurst
  • 07 December 2007

Scientific illiteracy

  • By James Medhurst
  • 31 October 2007

Looking for work is hard work

  • By James Medhurst
  • 24 September 2007