Results tagged “uk” from Uncivil Society

My last post featured a BBC satire of charitable fundraisers typified by a calculus of moral nihilism. Here's an upcoming event that's far more thoughtful: the Disabled and Sexy fashion show for the UK's Jennifer Trust for Spinal Muscular Dystrophy.

Unlike the ersatz porn stars of the Ladies Guild of Kneesley, this Notting Hill event isn't just about doing anything for cash. The fashion show reflects how the charity does more than treat a disease, an effort that itself can make people feel as if they've been reduced to a set of symptoms. Rather, the initiative celebrates the participants' full humanity, an aim that is as meaningful as providing medical care.

Sit through one of my social enterprise classes & you'll hear me chat about co-ops, which in the U.S. seem to have been erased from the collective memory of folks who claim that blending social benefit and business is a revolutionary innovation. As I'm wont to say, folks outside the U.S. have made the connection--indeed, for some in Europe the term "social enterprise" is synonymous with co-ops--and this week The Guardian has a nifty article on the historical significance of the co-op/social enterprise link in light of the upcoming British elections:

Regardless of who wins on Thursday, it seems certain that Britain faces a revolutionary change in the way local services are run and delivered. The Conservative party has made mutualisation a central pillar of its election strategy, promising to "unleash a new culture of public-sector enterprise". Its manifesto, entitled An invitation to join the government of Britain, contains proposals for millions of public-sector workers to set up co-operatives and sell their services back to the state. Employee-owned co-operatives would be able to decide on management structures, innovate to cut costs and share out any financial surpluses among staff.

Labour is similarly enthusiastic about co-operatives. Its "mutual manifesto" puts the emphasis on people running many of their own services, from health and social care to council estates and Sure Start centres. The Liberal Democrats would go even further, introducing a new mutuals, co-operatives and social enterprises bill to bring the law up to date and give responsibility for mutuals to a specific minister.

But why the sudden enthusiasm for a mutual model – and will the plans work?

I'm still immersed in some other work, but in the meantime anyone who feels the lack of a critical perspective on social enterprise should read this poignant post from The Social Business, which reflects on the disjunction between the movement's rah-rah boosterism and real-world failures.

The signage from the shop, (which cost a small fortune) hacked down and thrown to the floor by the organic retailer that we'd invited in to take over our lease. (I'm not suggesting they shouldn't have done that - it was just a brutal image for 10am on a Sunday morning). . . .

It's a story I've told in parts before - but we basically couldn't make it pay - and eventually we went into administration. From £250k a year sales of fair trade goods to nothing. It's why I am how I am. I'm a great enthusiast for finding entrepreneurial ways to change society. But I can't stand some of the nonsense that surrounds the social enterprise movement - the hype, the spin, the cosy consensus that appears to exist amongst many with influence in the sector.

It's why my to do-list for the blog this week involves reading the Coalition's new research about the state of the social enterprise sector, and finding out more about the failure of Secure, a social enterprise which was set up to deliver prison health services and which has now gone bust. I don't deliberately seek to find fault, to be cynical, or to point the finger. But if we are to really change society, we need to celebrate successes, but also learn from things when they go wrong, and challenge some of the exuberance.

A reflection by Jonathan Bland.

A UK charity has sparked a religious war with a comic strip aimed at promoting tolerance. The latest issue of Who Cares? Trust magazine Klic! features Standing Up For What You Believe In, in which a cross-wearing Christian bullies a Muslim girl for wearing a hijab. The key scene (image above):

In a cartoon strip, a boy wearing a large cross around his neck is shown telling a friend that a smiling Muslim girl in a veil looks like a terrorist.

He later confronts her and shouts: "Hey, whatever your name is, what are you hiding under your turban?"

She replies that the garment is called a hijab and that it is part of her religion "like the cross you wear".

The girl is then shown standing up for another boy, who is being bullied, and her behaviour is contrasted with that of the boy wearing the cross.

Some Christians are in an uproar over being stereotyped as bigots, and the fact that the charity receives a substantial amount of funding from the government is only stoking the fire.

The charity's intriguing response: the cross is not a reference to Christians.

Who Cares? Trust chief executive Natasha Finlayson described the cross as "bling" rather than a religious symbol.

Via Robot 6