Do you think charities should work more together

[Deleted User]

I think we should think about working more together and speaking with one voice to many campaigns all at once let's concentrate on what is the important issues than go on to other things

Alex

Hi Tony,

Thanks for your post. I completely agree. At Scope we really believe this too! We work with lots of other charities. We're part of many groups such as:

Disability Charities Consortium – with NAS, Mind, Mencap, Leonard Cheshire, Action on Hearing Loss, RNIB, Disability Rights UK focussing on employment of disabled people

Disabled Children’s Partnership – with over 40 charities campaigning on improving care and support for families with disabled children  

Care and Support Alliance – With 70 other charities campaigning on a better social care system that works for disabled people  

Disability Benefits Consortium – With over 60 charities campaigning on benefits and welfare issues.

Thanks.

[Deleted User]

My point is we work together but let a sort of joint committee discuss the main topic instead of many charities talking at same time discuss main point together discuss with one voice

Geoark

@tonyarthur322

What do you consider to be the main issues that you want the charities to discuss?

The problem as I see it is that each charity will have its own unique focus and work it does. Some of these will have cross over work into different areas, hence the type of organisations mentioned above will often feed down through the various charities and help to build a wider picture.

To give an example:

Disproportionately many of the people who are homeless will have disabilities, particularly mental disabilities, but also within this a disproportianate number will be from within LBGT community and even within this community adverse effects will be felt by some sections more than others. So there will be charities that focus on homelessness, others on health and safety, those who will work on helping homeless people to transition to living in an accomodation and gaining employment and other who will focus on helping them to sustain their employment. Some will run the whole gauntlet. Some will focus on different groups within the homeless community. Many will also be involved in improving awareness, commissioning research to offer informed alternatives for politicians and their own work, or working together to provide better opportunities and outcomes for their clients. 

So which of these 'other things' should be stopped so that they can 'discuss' with a single voice a major issue and which of these issues should be discussed first and what should be ignored. How far does this go before they go on to do other things, like actually tackling those other things?

It is easy to be critical and make vague suggestions which individuals will interperate in their own way of thinking and underestanding. This is not a particular criticism towards you it is one I often see. So lets try to be specific, you don't have to use my example, as I am sure you have your own.

[Deleted User]

I am saying that when issues like universal credit comes up instead of having many people talking all at once maybe it would be better to have a major one voice we at the end of the day all want the same things a better life for all

[Deleted User]

a example at meeting we was talking about disabled people are not always off sick and at appointments than scope talkabout long term sickness we need to get more disabled people into work before talking about long term sickness it is just a opinion that is known as freedom of speech

Geoark

tonyarthur322 said:

a example at meeting we was talking about disabled people are not always off sick and at appointments than scope talkabout long term sickness we need to get more disabled people into work before talking about long term sickness it is just a opinion that is known as freedom of speech

Yes it is an opinion and one offered in an open discussion, and I have found in general that those who are quick to quote 'freedom of speech' are often trying to shut others down to reduce debate. I am sure though that this is not your intention?

Personally I would suggest your own example is a classic reason why charities speaking with 'one voice' is not a good idea, and unlikely to work.

Does Scope talking about long term sickness undermine the fact that disabled people are not always off sick and at appointments? No. So it seems to me that you are suggesting is that charities should shut up about some groups of society that they represent to give a better voice to other groups. Some disabled people have always been under represented in the working environment, and in likely hood alway will struggle to find work. Does this mean then that discussions over the needs of other parts of society should be deliberately ignored?

It also begs the question in the myriad of issues facing our society where in the heirarchy of social and physical needs should we be putting disabled people. Do we put thier needs before children in this country going hungry or being abused, do they go ahead of those who are homeless? Even how do we divide the disabled community to decide whose needs should we tackle first, and who comes last?

Geoark

tonyarthur322 said:

I am saying that when issues like universal credit comes up instead of having many people talking all at once maybe it would be better to have a major one voice we at the end of the day all want the same things a better life for all

And what would that one voice say?

I have never been shy in giving my support to the concept of the universal credit, my argument has always been with the way the Conservatives have chosen to implement it.

Even early on there were many people saying that it needed to be worked on. 
The earliest trials were with the groups that should have been the easiest to transfer to the new system and there were serious faults. Just about all the voices were saying that a lot more work was needed before it was roled out and yet the government has still pushed on with its implementation.

You complain that the joint discussions mentioned by Alex are often in joint committees and should be going further down, but people will discuss what is important to them. But here is the real problem I believe we have. People will complain about PIP and ESA but they 'don't do politics', there are lively discussions about blue badges but they 'don't do politics'. These and many more issues are driven politics 'but we don't do politics'. 

So yes it is your opinion that these things should happen and you are entitled to express them. Personally I find the approach too simplistic for what are complicated and competing issues.

[Deleted User]

I could not careless what your smart **** opinions are I do my bit for charity and my disability and have sat and spoke with employers and people from dwp I truly think you are just trying to pick a argument I think this discussion site is **** don't you know I am just winding you up so you can get on your soap box and think you have a answer for everything like you seem to have I could not careless about other charities so be careful with your replies you will end up with rsi

[Deleted User]

I find the process of giving people badges a insult how old do you think we are this discussion forum is not worth the effort please send me link to unsubscribe ASAP I can't be bothered to even read your crappy responses

Nystagmite

How rude!

I know there's a huge campaign (and I honestly wonder how shared surfaces were allowed to go ahead) by RNIB at the moment in regards to shared surfaces. It would be good for other charities to get involved in this. I know this doesn't just affect those of us with sight impairments.

They're also doing their bit with PIP and ESA assessments.

Geoark

@tonyarthur233 On the off chance you do read this:

Discussion is a two way process often incorporating different views.

Monologue is where you get to say what you think without a response.

You might find it easier if you are clearer about which one you want to do. I am really sorry that I was wrong about you though, so one again someone is using 'freedom of speech' meaning they get to say what they want, but don't want the same freedom for others.