An Englishman Loves a Sporting Gamble
On reading through the annals of charity gambling prosecutions and moralising, it isn't difficult to find a sweeping generalisation should you be in need of one. Back in the 20th century, the nuances were lost on those both for and against charity lotteries. Take the instance of a 1943 court case. Two men connected with a lottery that had been regularly taking place in Staffordshire were fined a total of £45 between them. The pottery worker that had organised the lottery was fined £20, while the licensee of the pub where chances were being sold was fined £25 for allowing his premises to be used in such a way. 140 people were found to have been taking part in the lottery at 6d a time, and the proceeds were going to the Red Cross, local hospital and Prisoner of War Comforts Fund.
In summing up, both sides gave an opinion. The defence solicitor said that when lotteries are stopped, charity is the loser. "An Englishman loves a sporting gamble and that's what makes us the nation we are."
The prosecution maintained that this was a pessimistic outlook and that surely people were not moved to give to charity on the condition of a chance of personal gain. He did not believe that charities and hospitals would suffer if there were no lotteries.
Both appear to be taking the same line but for different ends - that this lies in the nature of being English. To be English is to be a sportsman, and to be English is to be inheritantly charitable. That the two characteristics can go together and be present in the same personality is lost in the black and white naivity. What is never discussed is the fact that those with the least want to gamble the most - the chance of winning something then trumps the charitable aspect. That better off people can also give both straightforward donations and enjoy a flutter on top of that. That the arguments against charity gambling were so weak is why they ultimately failed.
Comments
Post a Comment