We can't fail to be bombarded by charity organisations today. Be it full page spreads on the latest Cancer research in the Sunday papers, or TV adverts showing disadvantaged African children walking 36 miles for a cup of brown water. The fact is, and this has been niggling me for ages, why the hell can't they work with others like them? Take for example, cancer. Now admittedly this dreadful killer needs two things, a cure and support. And that's where a charity is good. But, do we need more then one? Be it Macmillan, Cancer Research UK (which means presumably there's a version for every other country), Clic Sargent, Breast Cancer care, the list goes on. Now presumably these charities all are trying to find a cure. Surely they could all talk to each other, put the money all into one pot, and find a cure much quicker and more efficiently. The problem with this is they won't be able to claim all the glory for their own charity, so the human ability for selfishness has surpassed itself. Take another example...
Children's charities bombard us with guilt tripping paraphernalia, telling us that if we'd donated £3 a month, little Billy here wouldn't have been abused. And yet, we have Save the Children, the NSPCC, Barnados, Children in Need, the list goes on and on. Again, if they pooled their resources, surely the problem would go away quicker, the service would be better, the support stronger.
Until this happens, I'm happy to help out occasionally (with Children in Need just around the corner I'll be chucking my loose change into the bucket at the supermarket) but I know that only a fraction of what should be used will be because of the shuffling of the coinage from one place to another.
Maybe we need a charity to govern all other charities, and amalgamate them. Oh, hang on.
That Donald Trump handshake gif
4 weeks ago