|
Mutual Support
The decision to form a group
for those people affected by Multiple Sclerosis, was born of
conversation between myself and my cofounder Sue Smith. At the time
of conception, we had no idea if there were people, in the Services,
other than ourselves, affected by this spiteful condition. We knew,
from the outset, that we had to have a name. We toyed with numerous
acronyms, in an attempt to include the letters RN, RAF, Army and MS.
We spent hours with several, often obscene, combinations.
Eventually, I asked Sue what we were actually trying to achieve, it
was not to set up a fund-raising group, but Sue said we were trying
to, “Offer others a degree of Mutual Support.” Shortly after,
Suzanne Crighton (Ne Reynolds) happened to be co-located with me,
read our draft DCI, became our first real member, and thus the group
was born.
Mutual Support was set up to be a friendly group that, from the
outset, would not use ranks between members. Rank forms a natural,
and necessary, barrier between superior and subordinate, but in the
world of MS, the
condition ignores rank and strikes indiscriminately. Even when we
held meetings on service establishments, we tried where possible, to
stay within one mess. The Royal Engineers, Chatham, were superb in
this respect, at one of our early meetings, not only did they
construct ramps to enable wheelchair access where there had only
been steps, but the Colonel allowed the officers mess to be
inhabited, for the duration of the meeting, by all ranks.
We began with less than £200, we have been lucky to obtain grants,
donations and other funding to build up the reserves we now have.
The Charity Commission frowns on any charity that does not spend its
money for the people it purports to represent. There was some
discussion at the AGM, regarding those members and feel unable to
attend our six monthly meetings due to the cost. A suggestion was
made that we levy no fee for future meetings; however, this could
cause more problems than it solved.
We have to take a step back and ask why members do not attend. Being
a Service community, both active and retired, we do not like to ask
for assistance, especially when it appears to be a charitable hand
out. Mutual Support, by its very nature, is a charity, set up for
and by the Armed Forces, because we know better than any civilian
can, the ethos that we generate and within which we exist. From the
very start, our meetings have had an air of informality, combining
information, serious discussions with light hearted banter. Banter
that bonds us, in a way that is unique, and is to be celebrated.
Whereas, I personally commend the laudable aims of making the
meetings accessible to everybody, regardless of individual
circumstances, I can see the pride, of the Serviceman, and the
apparently high-cost of our meetings is an incongruity that is
difficult to overcome.
I have given this much thought since the AGM, and tried the
impossible, to look at the situation through the eyes of others.
This seems to be an impossible situation; however, I decided to try
for the sake of for whom the group really exists: the person who
does not know that they will become a member. That is a phrase I
first used in answering the same question, as put to me by Duncan
James. The strength of any group is within its membership. Where we
differ is, that when people join the services, they are fit, usually
in the prime of life and have often never even heard of Multiple
Sclerosis, let alone thought they would ever be members of a group
of disabled people. We are, when all is said and done, a charity,
within in the service community. As such, we are there to support
our membership. If that support is channelled through our meetings,
then it is incumbent, upon the committee, working on our behalf, to
ensure that these meetings are attended by as large a percentage of
our membership as possible. Our meetings should be analogous to
Disability Living Allowance, which I first claimed when still a
serving Officer. At the time, I must admit that I felt ashamed; I
was earning a good salary, and did not really appreciate the meaning
of a non means tested benefit.
When a Serviceman is chosen to represent, his or her, chosen Arm in,
say. A sporting event, he is not expected to pay for the whole
event. They’re playing their sports through choice, and think
nothing of going off going on a freebie trip. We have no choice, MS
chooses us, so why do we not get the perks that sportsmen get?
As long as I am
able, I would choose to contribute to the costs of these weekends.
Even when going through the very public trauma my wife and I did
about 6 years ago, we attended, and contributed towards, as many
meetings as we could. Had the costs become an issue, I’m sure I
could have approached the welfare committee for assistance towards
the cost of the meeting. In effect, asked for a non means tested
benefit. The committee, the welfare committee and our membership in
general, are all striving toward the same aim, to make the
transition from servicemen to disabled civilians as seamless and
natural as possible. It will never be easy to make the transition
from donors to recipients, but we must break the circle.
Personally, I do not favour making all meetings completely free;
however, there should be no stigma attached to any member who feels
the need to approach the welfare committee for assistance towards
their attendance. It is a proud boast that very few members have
attended only a single meeting, so we must be doing something right.
I think the way forward is to make all meetings open to all members,
and ask attendees not to pay up front, but to make a contribution of
what they think the weekend was worth to them. This could be an
anonymous cheque, or even a postal order. The group as a whole treat
confidentiality very seriously, and would never divulge names of
people who thought the weekend was worth nothing, nor those who
thought it worth £1000. To all of us, these weekends are invaluable.
Residential weekends must continue.
Kim Bartlett |
