Re: Lower National Membership Fee or More Services from HQ?
- From: Bill Oldroyd <bill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:04:38 +0000
Ewan Scott wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:57:00 -0000, "Dave Mayall"
<dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Ewan Scott" <ewanscott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:bdv2v25obio1gi9nejue2ml6li31v9r6cn@xxxxxxxxxx
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007 13:47:12 -0000, "Dave Mayall"It isn't any more or less deprived, but the deprivation is uneven.
<dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Over the years, the membership fee has grown substantially in real terms,I have no real experience of your locale, save passing through
and now represents a significant burden on groups (yes, I know the members
are responsible, but many of our YP are in difficult financial
circumstances, so unless the group raises the money, the kid isn't going
to
join).
en-route to Manchester. I wouldn't say that it was any more or less
deprived than many other Northern towns.
Some groups are OK, some have more than their share of poverty, depending on
catchment area.
I'm not convinced by the lack of money argument. Sure, there will beThat rather brings us back to visiting the sins of the father etc.
some who will live a life of poverty but... poverty is often self
imposed. I've spent some considerable time unemployed, or self
employed on low earnings - but my family never went without, we never
missed a mortage payment, we never missed a credit payemt. Instead my
kids didn't get to wear the latest football top, or the latest fashion
trainers form Nike or whatever. We didn't go on holiday, we stayed
here, mucked in and kept our kids busy at school, and involved in the
activities they wanted to do. We have always beaten poverty by setting
priorities and making things happen for our kids. Money is not the
sole issue.
You can cut the fees to some kids, they still won't come. The funds go
to mum and dad's interests, football fashion etc..
At that level the kids are out of our reach in our present format.
We cannot solve every problem, but if we can keep the cost of Scouting as
low as practical, we ensure that fewer children are denied Scouting for
having feckless parents.
I understand what you are saying, however I cannot see that any
reduction at HQ, is going to make any material difference to those
unfortunate kids.
I think you are confusing the issue of returning the reduction in
capitation fee to the individual scout rather than the group,
which is who actually pays it. A group that has difficulty raising
funds might find the extra money quite useful especially if they
can make it against support from other sources on a £ for £ basis.
I think you are quite right that returning it to the individual
scout is not going to make much difference to whether a youngster
can afford to be a scout as there are so many other costs apart
from membership fees to take into account.
What I think is a rather risky idea is spending the the money on
centrally defined schemes.
Bill
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Lower National Membership Fee or More Services from HQ?
- From: Ewan Scott
- Re: Lower National Membership Fee or More Services from HQ?
- References:
- Lower National Membership Fee or More Services from HQ?
- From: bulpitt
- Re: Lower National Membership Fee or More Services from HQ?
- From: Dave Mayall
- Re: Lower National Membership Fee or More Services from HQ?
- From: Ewan Scott
- Re: Lower National Membership Fee or More Services from HQ?
- From: Dave Mayall
- Re: Lower National Membership Fee or More Services from HQ?
- From: Ewan Scott
- Lower National Membership Fee or More Services from HQ?
- Prev by Date: Re: minibus d entitlement
- Next by Date: Re: Community Police visit
- Previous by thread: Re: Lower National Membership Fee or More Services from HQ?
- Next by thread: Re: Lower National Membership Fee or More Services from HQ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
