I don't know about you (well, obviously I don't, I'm not even sure who you are) but Amazon and their associates have the happy ...
Sunday, 9 January 2011
And now, a word from our sponsor
The idea occurred to me as I was reading a Christmas Card from a distant friend of the family. In it he mentioned that he had just completed a 600 mile walk in a month in Italy and raised £1.500 for a very worthwhile charity. My initial reaction was, “Strewth, I would have paid that not to walk 600 miles in a month”, and then it struck me!
You see, my contention is that, whilst the world is full of earnest types, like our distant friend, who are never happier than when they’re tramping up hill and down dale, or risking life and limb in the name of charity, there are also a great number of those, like me, who would rather do nothing.
Now, don’t get me wrong. I have, in my time, shaken a tin on some windswept, God-forsaken, corner with the best of them. I have also endured a 10 mile sponsored dog walk, which the dog managed a damn sight better than I did. However, on each and every occasion, the amount of money raised was so pitiful in comparison to the pain, suffering and general embarrassment endured that I would gladly have contributed twice that amount to have avoided it altogether.
Therefore, my modest proposal is as follows. Charities should still run these sponsored events and those who are sufficiently motivated should continue to complete them. However, there should be a separate category for those, like me, who ‘can’t be a*sed’. This group should be given the opportunity to indulge in a little reverse sponsorship. The charity should estimate what they could have raised, had they been sufficiently a*sed, and they should then pay this amount to avoid having to do it. Ah yes, I hear you cry, but what happens if the individual concerned does not keep their end of the bargain. After all , the ‘can’t be a*sed’ are, by definition, not very well motivated. Well, I’ll admit this does involve the charities in a little expenditure, but you have to speculate to accumulate, as I think Bernard Madoff might have said. Charities would need to employ a few teams of thugs (there can’t be any shortage if Crimewatch is anything to go by). These thugs would then be charged with visiting any reverse sponsor who had not coughed up the readies and ‘persuade’ him/her to either part with the money or do the activity anyway (getting themselves sponsored in the process). It’s a win/win scenario.