10/2/2009 9:40:50 AM #

That's slightly unnerving (she says with typical understatement).

Jax

10/2/2009 10:37:41 AM #

Well done Lisa for discovering this and bringing it into the open. I despair of this country, I really do

Tech

10/2/2009 12:06:50 PM #

I've volunteered for a handful of organisations and give 5% of my income to charity - I would like to give 10% but I can't afford to do so.

Now before I continue, I would like to make a caveat: Please do not assume that I'm talking about you. I would love to name and shame - so that not everyone is tarred with the same brush - but you all know the reality of naming and shaming. Sounds very cryptic but those in the know will know what I mean.

As I said, I volunteer for a handful of organisations. Establishing why people volunteer for an organisation makes for an interesting project in human nature. In my experience, the main reason for volunteering for a particular charity, is because the person has been effected by the charity in question or has a passion for the cause usually based on personal experience. I fall into that category - I support and volunteer for the charities because their cause effects me or my family and life in some way.

Nevertheless, I would say, that, based on my experience, a significant minority (at least a 1/3 of volunteers I've met) have an ulterior motive for volunteering. Other popular motives include: improving CVs or to make CVs look good or better, to obtain a job in the said organisation, to suck up to or impress a boyfriend/girlfriend etc (amazing how quickly they leave once the relationship has broken down!)

Ask any long standing charity volunteer and they will tell you the same thing: it is increasingly difficult to find reliable volunteers who are not afraid of hard work and who genuinely do not want anything in return, other than out-of-pocket expenses. This is particularly true in the under 30 age group. One charity I volunteer for is really struggling to find young volunteers who have their heart and soul for the cause. Ever wondered why it's often the older age group out collecting/raising funds in wet Saturday afternoons? One charity I volunteer is being criticised for being too male and too old, and should do more to attract younger females (like myself for example). I have shadowed one of these old males, and I can see why they struggle to recruit more young women. The work they do is hard, it's painful, it's boring, it takes a long time, and as it involves being out-of-doors in the North West, in other words, in often cold, wet and windy weather conditions. It can sometimes be costly, in terms of having to pay for your own equipment. Not very attractive, is it? I certainly could think of many other things I could be doing during that Saturday afternoon and, I’m somewhat ashamed to admit, I have not volunteered again. I would rather pay another volunteer! Where does the membership money go to, I hear you ask? Insurance premiums. The insurance bill is eye watering, made worse by the fact that only a few specialist insurance companies are willing to provide insurance cover.

As a result, I'm sceptical about the result that "Sixty-three per cent backed a compulsory service". Perhaps the other third are intelligent enough as to ask exactly what is involved? Another point: As many charities will tell you, most are nervous about taking on someone who is not interested or does not want to volunteer. Why? Because of the obvious reasons: They are unlikely to provide the level of service or skill required by the charity/organisation, and often can be more of a hinder than a help. I can cite a couple of examples, whereby we vouched to never again take on someone in that position. The individual made a mess of everything, and myself and another volunteer had to work another 7 hours on a Saturday (until 2am on the Sunday) to correct the mistakes and basically re-do the individual's work from scratch. Without any reward.

There is an old adage: you can take a horse to a drinking trough, but you can't make it drink the water. The sooner the likes of Ravi Chandiramani understand this, the better for all of us, not least those who will be at the receiving end of the "civic service".

Talking of desperation and volunteers, guess which charity asked for my financial help this morning.....no other than Barnardo's. So like me get this right: I pay into Barnardo so they can help so-called "needy" families like mine. I think it may be more simple if I just keep the money to myself?

Also, what is the difference between "civic service" and "civil service"? Especially when I read: Young people want reward for civic service .

Never mind.

As for the statements: Gordon Brown needs to read up on his history and find out why such institutions (they existed in the sixties and seventies) were shut down. I totally agree with Ed Balls when he says, "All right-minded people understand that an agenda of hatred, bigotry and intolerance has no place in education." So why is he still working in education? Tim Kelsey should emigrate to North Korea if he loves surveillance so much. David Lammy is entitled to his opinion but not to force it onto another human being.

Laura

10/2/2009 2:46:24 PM #

I am trying very hard not to believe the conspiracy theorists, this sort of stuff makes it very hard.

Maire

10/2/2009 6:32:31 PM #

"Lammy added he found it "bizarre we have a hang-up about compulsion when we have compulsory education""

His logic is impeccable, of course. If it is OK for the state to force young people into education until they are 18, then there can be no obvious reason why it shouldn't be right to force them into something else until they are 20, or 25 or 30 or whatever, as long as it is for their own supposed good.

People need to draw the correct conclusion, however - which is that if we have a 'hang-up' about compulsion, we should start to question compulsory education.

Young Mr. Brown