Last nights Sports relief charity event raised almost £20m for the less fortunate in the UK. That is great but i do find these events quite hard to watch.
A glance at the line up reveals all sorts of stars from actors to musicians to sportsmen pleading with us to put our hands in our purses and donate and we do in our droves.
All night long we hear how pensioners are sending in a weeks pension money or kids are emptying their piggy banks to send in pocket money or even how someone dressed as a chicken for a week or something ridiculous to raise a few hundred pounds. All very commendable but it is the celebrities taking us on the guilt trip that i am uncomfortable with.
Maybe i shouldn't be seeing a footballer or singer who makes more in a week than the majority earn in a year, telling us to hand over our cash but instead see a charitable young man or woman willing to take the time to make a plea on behalf of our nations underprivileged.
It is said that the celebrities donate by giving up their time to appear on such events but the hoard of rich and famous could do more good by not turning up and giving over their appearance fee in cash.
For all i know some of these celebs did hand over some wads of notes but don't like to mention it but i think that if they are prepared to go onto the TV and make us feel bad enough to donate, they had better be practising what they preach because if anyone can afford it, they can.
11 comments:
Lucy,
Listen real close. I'll whisper so nobody else can hear. You know what, we could fix it so celebs don't have more money than other people... shhhh... did you hear something... must have been the cat... where was I? oh yeah... after all, why should they have more than us? We could have progressive taxes so that no matter how much money they make, when the taxes are finished, we all have the same amount... what do ya think? Hey, hey, we could make health care free for everybody. shhhh. The celebs could even get free health care. That way they won't mind paying for ours... shhhhh. Why would anyone be against this idea? But, just in case... don't tell anyone. This can be our big secret. So, from now on, no more blogging or email about it. The CIA and NSA are reading them.
Q
I think it's ok to use celebs as a lever. Those who give a lot to charity should be recognised - like Paul Newman and so on. Those who don't walk the talk should be excluded.
Celebs appearing at these things is a form of endorsement. I agree with Lucy that if they are going to endorse these charities, we are entitled to know just exactly how much they are donating. Privacy? They gave that up when they decided to sppear.
Q... Pssst! Check out these words of wisdom:
http://bruisefalling.blogspot.com/2008/03/is-that-back-to-front.html#c5792607248371767518
A friend of mine is artist liaison at Comic Relief and she's got lots of interesting stories about who gives their time the most willingly and graciously (Lenny Henry gets a great review, as does the more recent efforts of Leona Lewis) and those who'll only contribute if it's on their terms and it doesn't conflict with their social calendar (my lips are sealed)... However, it's a charity after all (i.e. there's no compulsion for anyone to give anything at all) so she's always grateful for whatever she gets (in terms of time or actual dosh).
And I'd have to check with her, but I'd guess that she wouldn't be supportive of any plan to 'out' the donation level of any of these celebs. Aside from any privacy issues, it would probably ultimately affect the success of each campaign... And after all, the bottom line with these charities is the bottom line - it's all how much they can raise for the cause.
I don't disagree with the cause and i don't really have a problem with celebrities fronting the campaigns but i don't really like people who earn more money than they could possibly spend guilt tripping people with far less to send in donations if they are not prepared to put their own hand in their pocket.
I guess it all comes back to Terry Wogan and his pay of £10,000 for a nights work fronting Children in Need.
I am uncomfortable hearing the likes of Jonathan Ross with his £18m 3 year contract reading out pledges from £65 a week pensioners.
Cheezy,
I think I gave you a touche a few days ago. So, touche again. And people call me a troll...
Lucy often states that things should be "free" to all. She also often implies and explicitly states that people with money somehow owe a debt to other people. NO QUARTERS TAKEN BY HER. Not a critism. BRAVO Lucy for sticking by your ideals (even if they are unachievable at any sacrifice and impact).
More importantly, did I misrepresent her thinking? Doesn't she advocate a leveling of the wealth thru any means, and especially via taxes?
It seems to me, that like the Deomcrats in the U.S., Lucy wants the government to be very pervasive and very powerful in redistributing wealth, while at the same time not wanting the government to interfere in our lives. ISN'T THAT AN OXYMORON?
Logic doesn't work.
Logic doesn't work.
Logic doesn't work.
I fell back on classless sarcasm. It does sting. My appologies to all that felt the sting. Especially Lucy and Cheezy.
I'm not sure how to counter the thoughts presented here when logic doesn't work...
Q
Q- No apology needed in my case, old son. I was just amused by the irony of what you said on this post here (i.e. as a counterpoint to what you said on the post I linked to), so I thought I'd share my amusement with you. I thought that you'd find it funny too. I'm sorry if you didn't.
Anyway, the rest of your post indicates that you may need to pause for a moment, take a nice deep breath, and realise that not everyone is going to agree with your opinions, infallibly logical though they no doubt are...
"I'm not sure how to counter the thoughts presented here when logic doesn't work..."
Hmmm, you sound frustrated, I think... But there's really no need. For what it's worth, I agree with not-a-lot of what Lucy says in terms of the world economy, but I try not to let it bother me...
And I suspect a lot of other people who post here are in the same boat... but somehow we manage to couch our differences in more respectful, less testy terms than you have so far managed. It's actually not difficult.
Anyway, I'm not trying to tell you what to do or alter your behaviour, my friend...(I'll take a wild guess at this point and say that people have tried this with you in the past, and failed, cos you know best, right mate?)... but I just thought I'd enlighten you as to the impression you're giving here.
You can take it on board - or not -as you please, and have a nice day :)
Cheezy,
i only know what is best for me.
Q
Apart from mentioning filling out my tax form a few posts back, i don't recall ever mentioning taxes or taxing anyone unless you are counting the Familt Tax credits which is a misleading name because it isn't a tax at all. Don't ever recall stating that things should be 'free' either. If i have said either and you can point.
I really don't mind what style you choose to bash me over my head for my illogical thoughts as long as you bash me for what is said rather than because it was i who said it.
Use logic or wit or sarcasm but if you don't make me say, "wow, you know what, Q is right about that" then i will always stand by my original thought.
Post a Comment