# Why I am speaking out about the FPS

- Link: https://fundraising.co.uk/2015/10/28/why-i-am-speaking-out-about-fps/
- Published: 2015-10-28T10:26:12+00:00
- Author: Ian MacQuillin

**Even though it is not his fight, Ian MacQuillin explains why he is speaking out
so vociferously against the Fundraising Preference Service.**

Ever since Olive Cooke took her own life in May I have been writing and speaking
about fundraising ethics, self-regulation, media relations. Since September 23, 
when [Sir Stuart Etherington published his review of fundraising](https://fundraising.co.uk/2015/10/03/cabinet-office-accepts-all-recommendations-on-etherington-review-of-fundraising-self-regulation/),
I have been talking, debating, writing and arguing about the Fundraising Preference
Service.

I have been doing this so much, so rigorously and, on occasion, so vociferously,
that it has started to threaten personal relationships (at least two) I have built
since I first became part of the fundraising community in April 2001. Not only that,
the volume of my shouting might from some angles make me look like a lunatic standing
on the sidelines doing little more than bringing down what other people are trying
hard to build without offering any constructive solutions.

## Advertisement

> “I am not just stating my opposition to the FPS, nor criticising those who have
> proposed it, or are currently supporting and endorsing it, because I can do. I
> am doing it because I have to.”

So why am I doing it? Why am I bothering? After all, I am not and I never have 
been a fundraiser, and I can’t see a time when I will be. This is not my profession.
Why risk my friendships and my reputation by repeatedly announcing to the world 
that the Fundraising Preference Service is the most stupid, ill-thought through,
wrong-headed idea I have encountered in all my time with the fundraising profession,
when I am not actually part of that profession?Because for me this is a matter of
conscience and principle.

In my entire professional career, which started on 2 October 1988 on my first day
as a staff writer for _What Video_ magazine, I have never felt so compelled to speak
out and speak up on a issue of such vast importance. And not just that, an issue
that I feel I have at least a small chance of influencing.

I am not just stating my opposition to the FPS, nor criticising those who have proposed
it, or are currently supporting and endorsing it, because I can do. I am doing it
because I have to. Personally, I’d feel hypocritical if I didn’t; if I reined in
what I was saying just so I didn’t rock the boat, upset anyone, or – heaven forbid!–
offend anyone. This issue is – unfortunately – bigger than personal relationships.

I just cannot stay silent about this.

Anyone who knows me at least slightly well will know that I don’t proffer an opinion
about anything important without having thought it through from all angles to the
n^(th) degree. And so it is with the Fundraising Preference Service. I have thought
and thought about this more than is probably good for my health, and I cannot see
one good reason in its favour that is not outweighed by better reasons against it.

I am told that there are good reasons in support of the FPS. I am told that people
hold these good reasons, including senior figures in the fundraising profession.
So far, I haven’t heard any of these reasons articulated.

It also seems to be taken as read that the FPS is going to happen, that it’s a done
deal, and so there is no point opposing it any more. The best we can do is accept
that it’s happening and work with those who are going to ensure it happens (Government
and NCVO) to try to get the best (i.e. least worst) outcome for fundraising. It’s
even been suggested to me that the amount and tone of my criticism of the FPS might
make it harder for those working on behalf of the profession to achieve this ‘best’
outcome.

I will be happy to ‘tone down’ my criticism of the FPS as soon as I am presented
with coherent, consistent and logical arguments in support of it. If I’m confronted
with a knockback argument, I’ll even change my mind and start supporting it (if 
I am comprehensively out-argued, how could I not?).
 

## I am not a fundraiser, but…󠀁[⌊Screen Shot 2015-10-27 at 18.50.24⌉](https://www.fundraising.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Screen-Shot-2015-10-27-at-18.50.24.png)󠁿

[⌊Scan 2⌉⌊Scan 2⌉[

As I have said many times before, I am not a fundraiser, and to be perfectly frank,
I’m glad I’m not. I don’t know what it feels like to be a fundraiser in the current
climate under the current circumstances. But if I were a fundraiser, I think I would
feel let down and abandoned. I think I would feel that nobody is standing up to 
represent the core professional values that I believe in. If fact, I might think
that they were being given away on a plate.

I’m not a fundraiser, so I really can’t empathise with what it feels like to be 
a fundraiser in the autumn of 2015. But I was a journalist. Being a journalist was
so much a part of my identity. I was proud to be a journalist. I worked had to become
a journalist and got a sense of achievement I’d never felt before when I landed 
my first job. I had a strong worth ethic and a strong sense of professional ethics.
I was passionate about communicating the information my readers needed to know. 
And I was pretty good at it. For 18 years, when people asked me what I did, I replied:‘
I am a journalist.’ The day after I left the profession, I stopped being what I 
had been for the previous 18 years. I could no longer say: ‘I am a journalist.’ 
And it left a wound in my core sense of who I was that didn’t heal for two or three
years.

So I can try to envisage how a proud, passionate, committed, talented and ethical
fundraiser might feel in the current climate.

I’m still a member of the National Union of Journalists (NUJ). Let’s suppose the
Government were introducing a system whereby journalists were to be limited in how
and why they could contact people, and the types of questions they could ask them,
and the NUJ were saying, ‘OK, it’s a done deal, this thing is happening, so how 
can we co-operate with the government to make it works as best as we can get’. I’d
rip up my membership card on the spot.

> “I have thought and thought about the FPS more than is probably good for my health,
> and I cannot see one good reason in its favour that is not outweighed by better
> reasons against it.”

I would not want to be part of a profession where the people I paid to represent
my views and protect my working practices and professional values had surrendered
them so lamely.

The Institute of Fundraising has always considered that its interests and the interests
of the fundraising profession are one and the same thing. That is not necessarily
so. In this case, it is in the interests of the Institute of Fundraising that it
should be the IoF that represents fundraisers’ views _vis-à-vis_ the FPS to government.
It is in the interest of professional fundraisers that someone represents their 
views accurately.

What if the views of fundraisers are not those the IoF has an appetite for presenting
to government? What if most fundraisers want their professional institute to stick
two fingers up to the FPS and withdraw co-operation from the working group set up
to establish it. If the IoF followed this mandate from its members, it would certainly
lose a lot of its influence with the Office for Civil Society.

There’s probably a strong case that if fundraising’s views have already been ridden
over so roughly in the proposal to establish the FPS, then views of the profession
will count for equally little in setting it up, but I can’t foresee any situation
whatsoever in which the Institute of Fundraising would walk away from the negotiations.

## This is not my fight, but…

The fundraising profession needs leadership on the issue of the Fundraising Preference
Service. But that leadership does not necessarily have to be provided by the Institute
of Fundraising. It could come from a different source or direction.

I am not a fundraiser. This is not my fight. As director of Rogare, I can discuss,
debate, cajole, criticise, and perhaps even influence. I care about fundraising 
deeply and passionately. I have made more friends in fundraising than the rest of
my life put together. But I am not a fundraiser and this is not my fight. If fundraisers
want to oppose the Fundraising Preference Service, then it is fundraisers who must
do so. If the current leadership is not representing the views of fundraisers about
the FPS, then it is fundraisers who must establish an alternative leadership.

As professionals, you will get the outcome your profession fights for. Or you will
fail to get it, but at least you’ll know that you fought a just fight for what you
believed in rather than simply settling for being told what you can and can’t do
by Government and NCVO. And perhaps the next time the Government sets about imposing
restrictions on how charities can ask people for support, they won’t find the fundraising
profession such a push over.

But as I keep saying, I am not a fundraiser. And I can’t tell you what in your profession
is worth fighting for or how you should fight for it, if at all. That’s your call.

_Ian MacQuillin is director of **[Rogare](https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/schools/plymouth-business-school/rogare)**,
the fundraising think tank at Plymouth University’s **Centre for Sustainable Philanthropy**._

 * **[NI Charity Commission launches briefing paper on fundraising regulation](https://fundraising.co.uk/2016/02/18/ni-charity-commission-launches-briefing-paper-on-fundraising-regulation/)**(
   18 February 2016)
 * **[There will always be some disagreements but fundraisers are united on improving practice and regulation](https://fundraising.co.uk/2016/03/02/will-always-disagreements-fundraisers-united-improving-practice-regulation/)**(
   2 March 2016)
 * **[A 30 year old version of the Fundraising Preference Service?](https://fundraising.co.uk/2016/04/05/30-year-old-version-fundraising-preference-service/)**(
   5 April 2016)