I’m all for helping out developing countries, writes Rural Affairs Editor Nathan Rous. In fact, a close-up of a crying child with Tom Conti’s lilting narrative describing their inescapable plight provokes an involuntary stretch for both wallet and phone.

I am not the only one. My wife sponsors an Afghani child called Mohammed who works on a farm in the mountains and wears the best damn jumpers you’ve ever seen. Her monthly cheque helps Mohammed enjoy a more comfortable existence, assist his parents on the farm and regularly attend the local school.

Given the offerings we received from him a month ago, Mohammed could do well to pay more attention in art, though. I love rocks as much as the next person but a picture of one is hardly going to make it on to the fridge.

Of course, encouraging Kabul’s answer to Damien Hirst is not the point, even though I wish it was. Our children are a million times better off than Mohammed and no doubt a million times less grateful given everything appears to be on a plate for them in 21st-century Britain.

If my eight-year-old had to walk five miles to grab a glass of Tropicana and a chocolate brioche for his supper I’m sure he’d think twice about it.

But, like many of you, the emotional and financial demands are often overpowering, whether it’s a tear-strewn appeal to drill new wells, provide shelter or offer education to the billions of people less fortunate than ourselves.

And as the credit crunch begins to sink in, are we more likely to keep the pound in our pockets than pop it in the Christian Aid envelope?

Take Bangladesh as an example. The UK is giving £75 million to Bangladesh to help it prepare for the impacts of climate change. The country has been devastated by floods and experts predict environmental meltdown as the elements take control.

Aid workers say the vital cash will go on measures such as protecting houses, schools and farms against flooding, and introducing new crop strains, even though it’s a drop in the ocean. The money, that is, not Bangladesh.

But at risk of sounding like a xenophobic troglodyte, could some of that money be just as well employed on these shores?

After all, last year’s floods in Britain cost more than £500 million and many people in the north of England are still living in caravans with no prospect of returning to their homes in the near future.

Humberside, which was worst hit, received just £167,000* to get itself back on its feet. Do you think any of those people will be delighted to hear that more than 400 times that amount is whizzing out of their pockets and halfway round the world to those considered to be in greater need?

And what about this year’s floods? Do you really think Gordon Brown is going to ask Mr Darling for £75 million out of the Government’s fighting fund to help Britain’s farmers recover from the worst harvest in almost 50 years?

Shoppers may be quick to hammer farmers when food prices go up but there’s nothing they can do about it if they can’t get the crop out of the field.

Just as interestingly, do you think any of us would dig deep and pledge money by the bucketload if we saw an advert of a heartbroken Shropshire farmer standing in the middle of a waterlogged field with Tom Conti explaining how his business was now on its knees? I doubt it.

I’m not saying that Bangladesh shouldn’t be helped. Its people plainly need international assistance. It’s just that we have a rather blinkered approach to giving: we’ll happily chuck money in the direction of international charities because we don’t have to deal with the emotion on our doorsteps, but when it comes to giving to our own we start to wonder whether they deserve it or not.

How many times have there been letters and discussion on our website which trot out the tired cliché of never seeing a poor farmer?

Well, I can tell you, there are plenty of them out there. Just ask the Rural Stress Support Network which is fast becoming like the Samaritans, or the RABI which supports more than 65 families in the county with regular financial assistance.

They are inundated with calls from proud farming families desperate for help.

Money is needed all across the globe; always has been, always will be. But before we look after others we have to be able to look after our own.

* In a comment article written by Nathan Rous on September 15, titled “Let Charity Begin At Home”, we stated that Humberside received just £167,000 to help get itself back on its feet after last year’s floods. This figure in fact related to the amount given to Humberside Fire And Rescue Authority – the local authority also received a further figure of more than £5.6million. We are happy to clarify this point and apologise for any confusion caused.