Compassion, or just shame?
CHARITY should be a state of mind. When it takes the form of an impulse pur-chase I mistrust it. I'll explain.
The British have a kind of love affair with the idea of charities. Scarcely a day goes by when Smollensky's does not receive at least half a dozen begging letters. Then there are the annual appeals such as Live Aid, Fashion Aid, Comic Relief, Red Nose Day, Amnesty's Annual Secret Policeman's Ball, Aids Awareness Day. The list is endless. Now, our industry boasts its very own charity event - Dine-A-Mite.
Does our industry really need to add to the list of fund-raising events? Two years ago when the idea for Dine-A-Mite was mooted I heard it argued that our industry must be "seen to be doing its bit". Why? Is charity some kind of competition where each industry needs to prove it is more compassionate than the other? I also didn't like the implication that people in our business weren't doing enough. I know many people quietly and discreetly doing a great deal for charities who do not want or need to publicise their activities. That's how it should be.
On a personal level, I don't take kindly to being shamed publicly into participating in something, however "worthy" the cause. Yes, I am the one guy who won't put coins in the Variety Club tins as they are passed around in the cinemas. Frankly, I am a little wary of people who parade their compassion credentials. But such was the organiser's charm and sincerity that I found myself supporting Dine-A-Mite last year.
I suspect that no matter how well I put my case against mass-organised charity movements (and Dine-A-Mite in particular) I will appear cruel, cold-hearted and lacking in compassion to some readers. I am not. Nor am I opposed to the idea of the better off helping the less fortunate. I do, however, detest all mass appeals that depend on tapping momentary human emotions. If you find yourself wanting to put your hand in your wallet as an afterthought, or because you are ashamed to be seen not to, or because you are moved to tears by some fleeting TV pictures, I say resist the temptation. If you don't, then by your act charity is relegated to an impulse purchase instead of something meaningful. This might help you to feel a bit better, but it will not help the needy in the long term.
If you are serious about helping people in need you will do more good by covenanting a proportion of your annual income to an efficient and worthy charity than you will by reaching for your credit card for a one-off event. If money is tight, donate your time to a hospice or something similar. If you still think that going out to eat one night of the year for the sake of the homeless and hungry is the answer to the world's problems, I would ask you to think again.
I suspect Dine-a-Mite wasn't very successful for a variety of reasons. Its name was a liability, it promised restaurateurs incremental business which never materialised, and the media never liked it. Sunday was the wrong night, and there are just too many competing causes possibly inducing compassion fatigue. But its biggest failing may have been this. The sheer incongruity of stuffing yourself with food to help the starving might have made many people feel absurd and fraudulent. The irony of it gives me a big headache. It also makes me feel all too aware of and consequently slightly ashamed of my fortunate position. In short, I think its basic premise was misconceived.
I know that the organisers will not be scrapping Dine-a-Mite this year (though I think they should). Personally, I am of the view that their second attempt will not show a significant improvement on their first, though I could be wrong. Let's wait and see.
Oh well, there goes my knighthood. o
lThe views I have expressed are personal and not representative of the views of the executive committee of the Restaurateurs Association of Great Britain, of which I am a part. The RAGB supports Dine-a-Mite fully.
