![Photo: Cory Doctorow (Flickr)](https://politikeruk.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/charitywristbands.jpg?w=690&h=504)
Photo: Cory Doctorow (Flickr)
The insidious culture of charity wristbands has moved from being the preserve of a ‘herd of independent minds’ into the centre ground, and now features on a yearly basis for fluffy, state-funded, bean-bathing Comic Relief. It is now very likely that you will, at some point in the next few weeks, (if it has not already happened) be accosted on the high street by some wholesome, brightly coloured space invader, jangling microbe-covered coins in a predatory way; asking if you’d like to join the elite club of band-wearers. This is marketed as one choice which will affect your whole worldview.
While the idea of a state-funded organisation campaigning to tell the very people who unconditionally support its continued existence to part with even more of their money is odd enough, my main problem is the cultish consensus which it all builds; which may not be challenged. Due to the apotheosis of Bob Geldof, it is considered in bad taste to suggest that money raised as part of Live Aid may have gone to slush funds for African dictatorships and may have even financed the forced resettlement which David Rieff suggests may have killed over 100,000 people.
All work of apparent charity is now exempt from criticism, and this is not in keeping with the idea of accountability for powerful organisations; which may have huge sums of money involved, and could have global reaches and a huge effect on the region that they work in.
An example of poor taste in the very well protected charity sector is the inordinately high salaries of executives, managers and high-fliers. That these people treat their jobs as an opportunity to advance their careers is not my main problem; it is the fact that their wages are paid directly by well-wishers who give their, often very generous, sums on the trust that it will be used to do good works: i.e. that which the charity advertises and is named for. For this money to end up in a pay packet is a sad indictment of the docility of the public, and the greed of those who claim to be helping humanity.
I would support Red Nose Day and all of its offshoots a lot more if it was hosted on a commercial network, although those who embody the universal hatred of anything Murdoch-shaped would probably blanch at such a spectacle. What it becomes is a tired, yearly, state-sponsored whip-round, which produces terrible TV, and loves itself even more than the rest of one of the most narcissistic industries around.
This is clearly not about charity, it is more about a desire to show off by wearing something supposedly symbolising your ‘caring’ attitude. It is a status symbol for pretentious pseudo-hippies who clearly see this as some achievement in itself. What it really does is relegate charity, one of the noblest aspects of British culture today, to a grubby financial transaction for a strip of translucent plastic. It is actively debasing the idea of charitable giving by making it yet another way of paying for a good.
But are they even effective? Probably not. They pretend, a lot like redundant internet babble such as KONY 2012, to be ‘raising awareness’, but this is impossible to measure and awareness rarely translates into action. Who among us can truly say that they have been convinced to donate merely because a holier-than-thou cretin has walked past, their arms festooned with polymeric tokens of their undying love for humanity?
It is, after all, just vanity; nothing else. Wearers could have just handed over the money, knowing that it was going to a good and worthy cause. But this is not enough for our image obsessed modern givers. No, only a visible physical manifestation will do.
They are also badly affecting the way we see people, as the example of Lance Armstrong shows. He is able to hide behind his foundation, created more as a marketing gimmick than out of actual conviction, to disguise his disgraceful record on mendacity. He shows that as long as you value style over substance, and pander to the needs of people, some will need that extra bit of yellow to set off their matching Gucci sunglasses and Louis Vuitton handbag. It was (and still is) built on a guilt trip and the clean cut image he has so sullied. Yes, let the bands, for all their worth, remain on sale. But do not allow him to skip the punishment by media he sorely deserves merely because of one lame idea which has less of a place in the history of battling cancer than most cigarette companies.
What we need to do is take back the charity sector, and make it more accountable. That executives can misuse the relative uncompetitiveness of the whole industry to further their own prospects and wage rates is disgusting. If we knew more about these charities; and demanded to know where our money was actually going, then we could have a proper and unbiased debate on the worthiness of the causes we chose to support. As for wristbands, they have become the agent of the happy-clappy neon consensus, where everything is rosy and you can change the world by displaying a single piece of unnecessary accessory on your arm.
James Snell. Follow on Twitter @James_P_Snell