ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

Helping The Less Fortunate Than Ourselves

Updated on April 4, 2016

Doing it For The Right Reason

Charitable work is all well and good as long as it is all done for the right reason, a genuine reason that the chosen charity will benefit from the work being done, either by raising the money, or the increase in volunteers. However, I can sometimes be very "skeptical" about charity work, but its true, I have to see the good that comes out of the work. With everything being covered by the media, be it TV, or the Internet even the tabloids, people, or some people, find it as a way to get themselves seen, or benefit their own gain. That is what creates the negativity towards people doing charity work. I will take this TV Programme as one singular example, with what I saw. How I felt about what was going on, and about the people who were there, even the personnel representing the charities concerned.

Aired on BBC 2 The Auction Hero, starting on Monday-May-13th then running successive nights for Tuesday and Wednesday. It was antiques dealer Andrew Lamberty that was tasked with the challenge, of buying and selling antiques to benefit two charities. The charities concerned were, a Dementia Support Charity based in Surrey, and an Animal Shelter (Sanctuary) based in Cornwall. Being filmed over a three month period, during which period he was running his own successful antiques business, as well as, buying and selling pieces for the chosen charities for a profit. With all this in mind was a true representation given to the amount of time spent on raising funds for the charities. Or, did the programme makers get runners, and researchers to do all the leg work in-between.

Andrew Lamberty was under constant pressure, with a tight time frame, also, visiting various Antiques and Trade fairs in Avignon France and Parma Italy. Being fluent in the languages is a huge advantage, as he was able to haggle and get the best deal. This became prominent when Andrew bought a designer 1950's table for next to nothing. However, all didn't go according to plan, as Andrew purchased art-decho mirrors,once home he just could not sell them. Travelling to Paris, he managed to secure a pair of vintage diamond earrings at an auction, along the way revealing his secrets on how to bid to get the best price. Finally, he was back in London, where he undertook his own black-tie Charity Auction.

Selling Beautiful Objects For a Profit

Maximize Profit

All this seems fantastic, buying antiques to sell for a profit, then, giving this profit to a charity, or charities of choice. However, is this a true reflection of what, and how, it actually happened, what are the costs involved, not only in generating the funds but for the charities themselves. Do people get side-tracked once involved in any form of charity work, are we truthfully honest about our motives for our involvement with a charity.

I know this is an extremely contentious issue, and that people can take it to heart, in believing that people are cruel towards charitable work. I am not being, insulting or being cruel towards any charity whatsoever, all I am doing is being honest. Andrew Lamberty was supporting two charities, a Dementia Support Group in Surrey, a fantastic cause to be supporting, that, there is no doubt at all. Yet, on seeing how this charity was being managed it was hard to see how the funds could be distributed consistently, and beneficial for the actual recipients. With new transports, a squad of volunteers giving their time, supposedly, for free. What were the costs involved, not only for the Dementia Support Group but for the BBC in creating the programme? Is this the best way for a charity to raise funds. Television exposure cannot be beaten, that is when it is done with proper good intention. Otherwise, I personally feel that it gets done with an ulterior motive in mind, for getting publicity and being on TV. Not all charity workers are painted by the same brush, yet, I feel that there are people who do take advantage and see an opportunity for self-publicity, which, defeats the objective.

Both Charities Being Helped

Both Charities Should Have Benefited More

His second charity was an Animal Shelter/ Sanctuary in Cornwall, I am an animal lover, as I have written many times before, I am a Horse lover to the core, probably I am a little obsessed with them. However, when watching the Animal Shelter/ Sanctuary, I kept searching within myself how can this one person afford to feed, and care for all these animals. Donations were being made, but, the impression given was they were few and far between, surviving was stressful, and hard work to the extreme. So how was the proprietor of the Shelter, in not only feed the animals, but feed herself, she was working, and financing the Shelter with her own money? Now I know exactly how much large animals cost to feed, even when they are out, as we have Horses of our own. Animals can be a financial burden, especially large animals, not only to feed, but general welfare, the tasks of making sure they are healthy, and reasonably free of ailments. There was one man who was fixing this and that for her, he was there daily, working, fixing doors and the fences, whatever that needed doing he would do it. Let us be honest, was he doing it free, if so how did he survive with day to day living himself, food and electricity to name but two. There were two young women coming there to help, they were in college and coming on their free time, that is understandable, and many young people do similar things. Both charities were the same, they had a varying amount of people popping up from nowhere it seemed, and all working for free is this realistic in this day and age when there are children going hungry in the world. How much did the three episodes cost the BBC, the filming, production, editing, all the outside broadcast that went on, following Andrew Lamberty on his various trips abroad? Wouldn't it have been much more cost effective for the BBC to have given money direct to both charities, the cost that went into the production would have probably been five times the profit that Andrew Lamberty was making? The aim was to give both charities £2500.00 each, that amount was swallowed up in fifteen minutes of filming, I think it is insulting to people's intelligence when big companies and celebrities pretend they are doing a good turn. Let us all be honest for once, it is fine for raising awareness for the charities. But don't put all this "kidology" into it, that these big businesses or celebrities do it from the goodness of their hearts, they don't! unless there is a hidden agenda for their gain. Sorry if I am too honest and blunt, but, that is how I feel, and that is my opinion, and mine alone, all I want is, for us all to be honest, and help those who need help for the right reasons. There are good people in this world, who help others without the need for recognition, or praise, if we carry on, then we will not only be betraying others but, we will betray ourselves. Thanks so Much for Reading. Until Next Time.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No comments yet.