The organising Swim Committee have decided to cancel the 2002 event because, as
they put it on their web site, "We have been unable to get insurance for the
event this year".By that, if the words of Swim Committee member Lawrence Chapman, as reported
very widely in the UK press, are to be believed, doesn't mean they weren't
able to get insurance, but were unwilling to pay the premium asked.
Chapman, says insurers wanted a premium of around 1,200 GBP to insure the
event which normally raises between 8,000 GBP and 10,000 GBP, and attracts a
couple of hundred participants and thousands of spectators.
Neither Chapman nor the Swim Committee have explained why the event can't go
on, other than to say the insurance premium would take away over 10% of
the money raised for charity.
That's certainly true, but is cancelling the entire event, and losing the 90%
or so raised which would go to charity, a sensible course of action ?
Chapman says that, "It's totally ridiculous that it can't go ahead", and
indeed it is.
And there's been absolutely no explanation as to why the premium, as excessive
as it may be, couldn't have been paid and the event undertaken. The only reason
I can imagine is that there simply isn't enough money in the kitty to pay
for the insurance up front, but it should surely not be beyond the capabilities
of an organisation, which has a quarter of a century's experience of running
the Christmas Day swim, and has shown recognised success in the past, to find
a guarantor for the money, or even a sponsor or two.
Okay, no one forces people to participate in charitable events, nor in
organising them, and it's fair to say that if you don't think someone or
some body is doing it right, then you should get up there and do it yourself,
and not sit back and criticise when things go tits-up. But that doesn't mean
there are not valid grounds for criticism of the current turn of events.
Maybe the Swim Committee decided to cancel the event because they felt that
losing over 10% of money raised for charity to a commercial, capitalistic,
insurance company was offensive, and made a mockery of the whole thing.
Perhaps they thought that losing such a large amount of the money raised made
the whole event not worthwhile, or non-profitable, but that seems to be a very
short sighted view, given the money which could still have been raised for
very deserving causes.
Possibly the committee just threw in the beach towel because they were
working in
isolation, without support or advice, and could see no solution other than to
cancel the event. If that's the case, the local businesses and the community
at large which benefits from this charitable event must take some responsibility
for failing to support the organisation, and for the loss of the event in
2002.
Perhaps businesses, and others, would have helped to support the organisers,
provide money guarantees, and act as sponsors had they known there was
a risk of the event being cancelled, but were not given the opportunity to
do so before the cancellation was announced as a fait-accompli.
The wide-scale news and press coverage of the story across the whole of
the UK has shown that bringing problems to the attention of the media often
puts them into the public arena, and has provoked much discussion about the
event, and its cancellation.
Had the Swim Committee gone public and raised headlines along the lines of,
"B-----d insurance company Scrooges jeopardise Charity Christmas Swim", then
they may have been able to secure finance to cover insurance costs, or twist an
insurer's arm to show some yuletide charity themselves, and reduce the
premiums, maybe even providing insurance for free, or in return for
advertising, or, as the marketing luvvies would call it; "bilaterally
beneficial commercial sponsorship".
Of course, this may have opened up the debate, and people would have asked
if the insurance premiums were even unreasonable in the first place, and
did the gains from running the event despite the costs outweigh the wholesale
cancellation of the event. I suspect that many would have come to a
conclusion entirely different to that which the existing committee came to.
I believe that the committee were wrong to cancel the event, especially at
such a late date, which has probably left many people disappointed and has
created the problem of dealing with money already raised in sponsorship of
those planning to partake in the event; hopefully, contributors will allow
their money to head charity bound, even though those sponsored will not be
suffering hellish torture in a freezing cold sea off Suffolk.
Although I think they were wrong to do what they did, I cannot blame the
committee for doing it. As I said earlier; if you think you could do a better
job of it, then get out there and do it.
I complain not of the committee itself, and the people who have undoubtedly put
a lot of effort and commitment in trying to make the event a success, but of the
situation which has arisen, and the opportunities lost.
It is a salutary lesson that charitable events don't just happen by themselves.
They take time and effort to organise, involve commitment and cost, and long
term dedication. And even the most committed and enthusiastic can wane under the
strain and make mistakes, without support from others.
It is a call to arms for those who want to see those small, but significant,
events which happen around the country continue. Without support, these events
will slowly fade away and die out. Leaving the organising of events to others,
and hoping it all works out ( and complaining when it doesn't ), is no way to
proceed.
When the people of the UK sit down and try and work out what defines them
culturally, we rarely get beyond "Beer", "Chips", "Roast Dinner", "Football",
"Monarchy" and "Morris Men".
In truth, our culture is more locally based than national, and events such
as Christmas Day swims, worm charming, cheese chasing, egg and spoon races,
conker and marbles competitions, and numerous other activities, which many
outside the UK would term, "F--king weird", define what we are.
It would be a shame if we lost such a great variety of strange, but
characteristically British, events, simply because no one can be bothered
to get off their a--es and make sure they continue.
