Heartland

So for Pudsey Bear...are any of you sweethearts getting bad things done to you for Children In Need?...

i've been given two options...either a leg wax or a hair cut with clippers

now i've asked for a condition if i get selected for the waxing...i want to repay the girl who does my legs...with a bikini wax ...




the hair cut now seems to be the prefered option

Another Islander thing I presume?


IZ.

No offence intended to either your good self, Burn, or to any of the other thousands of people who are trying to raise money for this.

But...

For one thing, I despise the way that charity TV events are an excuse for overpaid celebrities to foist their "talents" on us as an excuse to soothe their fevered egos. I don't want to see Terry fucking Wogan wiggling his arse on a trailer for the god-damned thing!

For a second thing, the same fevered egos are giving what? Their time? Oooh whoopy-fucking do, that's mighty big of you Wogan; a few hours free work salves your conscience for ripping off the license-fee payers for several million quid a year does it?

For a third thing, They're asking the wrong people. I am willing to wager that no matter how much money Children In Need raises, it won't even come close to 1% of the Government's expenditure in Iraq this year. I for one would rather my tax money went towards helping people than towards killing them, but hey, this is a democracy, right? And I guess I was outvoted.

The same thing goes for fucking Band-Aid. No I won't give you my fucking money Geldof. When you've got someone like Paul McCartney involved, who is worth £450 million, well that's a fuck of a lot more money than I have. How much is that cunt giving?

</rant>

So in answer to your question, Burn, no, I'm not doing anything.

i make monthly donations to oxfam, friends of the earth and amnesty international. i have been for a few years now (except for oxfam which i only started a few months ago)

markfiend wrote:No offence intended to either your good self, Burn, or to any of the other thousands of people who are trying to raise money for this.

But...

For one thing, I despise the way that charity TV events are an excuse for overpaid celebrities to foist their "talents" on us as an excuse to soothe their fevered egos. I don't want to see Terry fucking Wogan wiggling his arse on a trailer for the god-damned thing!

For a second thing, the same fevered egos are giving what? Their time? Oooh whoopy-fucking do, that's mighty big of you Wogan; a few hours free work salves your conscience for ripping off the license-fee payers for several million quid a year does it?

For a third thing, They're asking the wrong people. I am willing to wager that no matter how much money Children In Need raises, it won't even come close to 1% of the Government's expenditure in Iraq this year. I for one would rather my tax money went towards helping people than towards killing them, but hey, this is a democracy, right? And I guess I was outvoted.

The same thing goes for fucking Band-Aid. No I won't give you my fucking money Geldof. When you've got someone like Paul McCartney involved, who is worth £450 million, well that's a fuck of a lot more money than I have. How much is that cunt giving?

</rant>

So in answer to your question, Burn, no, I'm not doing anything.

I do give to charities, fairly regularly in fact. But it will be the charities I choose, when I choose. Not when some tw@t on the idiot-box tells me it's time to.

markfiend wrote:For a second thing, the same fevered egos are giving what? Their time? Oooh whoopy-fucking do, that's mighty big of you Wogan; a few hours free work salves your conscience for ripping off the license-fee payers for several million quid a year does it?

absolutely. if every star that volunteered 2 hours of their life donated £10k as well, i'm sure their efforts would seem a lot less patronising.

markfiend wrote:For a third thing, They're asking the wrong people. I am willing to wager that no matter how much money Children In Need raises, it won't even come close to 1% of the Government's expenditure in Iraq this year. I for one would rather my tax money went towards helping people than towards killing them, but hey, this is a democracy, right? And I guess I was outvoted.

yep, the banks' stance on international debt does more damage than any charity events will ever be able to undo.

Little Felix is doing a 'sponsored bounce' at his nursery tomorrow, and we've rounded up about fifty quid for that. I think it involves suspending him in a baby bungee, and watching his little legs go. Aaaah! We also donate monthly to an aid charity, but not as much as I would like. I'm trying to persuade MrsChris to increase the amount, but it's the subject of continuing negotiations. And yes, I'd also take Bono, Macca, Sting et al more seriously if they had a few less houses - but I'm glad that someone's talking about it, rather than no-one.

It's a vicious circle: no celebrity involvement/endorsement means little or no public interest, so the problems remain because there's no cash.

Celebrities then get pilloried for using the events to push themselves and appear whiter-than-white and everyone accuses them of making a career move.

Governments are asked to spend more, but no-one votes for more taxes.

We're all full of fine words, but our actions tend to let us down.

Here's an idea: if you've ever said you'd be happy to pay a ring-fenced rise in tax to support health/education/morris dancing or whatever floats your personal boat, why not donate £300/year to your local school/hospital/church hall? If you earn £30k, that's equivalent to a 1p rise in income tax. Vary according to your salary if you wish.

Funnily enough, I've not had many takers for that when I've suggested it in the past. Apparently it's not the done thing when we can write letters to other people's governments telling them how to do things.

Very few people have a charitable bone in them. It's the me me concept. Then they attempt to justify their lack of giving/participating by having a rant at anyone who actually does gets off their arse/yacht/lear jet (for whatever reason) to do something. C'est la vie.

andymackem wrote: Here's an idea: if you've ever said you'd be happy to pay a ring-fenced rise in tax to support health/education/morris dancing or whatever floats your personal boat, why not donate £300/year to your local school/hospital/church hall?

Spot on - that's pretty much the approach I take right now and its a lot less painful then sitting through a telethon!

smiscandlon wrote:I do give to charities, fairly regularly in fact. But it will be the charities I choose, when I choose. Not when some tw@t on the idiot-box tells me it's time to.

Yeah, me too.

andymackem wrote:Here's an idea: if you've ever said you'd be happy to pay a ring-fenced rise in tax to support health/education/morris dancing or whatever floats your personal boat, why not donate £300/year to your local school/hospital/church hall? If you earn £30k, that's equivalent to a 1p rise in income tax. Vary according to your salary if you wish.

Good idea. Can I stop the proportion of my taxes that go to the military though?

JB wrote:Very few people have a charitable bone in them. It's the me me concept. Then they attempt to justify their lack of giving/participating by having a rant at anyone who actually does gets off their arse/yacht/lear jet (for whatever reason) to do something. C'est la vie.

Well, fair point. It is, I suppose, cynical of me when I doubt the motives of those involved. But I'm not ranting to "attempt to justify [my] lack of giving/participating". (Although I understand given my rant why you might think so.)

I suppose one thing that I object to is that charity events like this are even needed. One example is the advertising for the Live-aid box DVD: "The day music changed the world". IMO it can't have changed it that much or they wouldn't need to do it again.

Quiff Boy wrote:the banks' stance on international debt does more damage than any charity events will ever be able to undo.

Indeed. For every pound that the original Band-Aid sent to Ethiopia, the banks took back £16 in debt repayments.

I agree that criticising people like Bono is often self-serving. People wrap themselves up in arguments -

people like that are only seeking publicity
nothing will ever change
charities just waste our money rather than sending it where it really counts
I'd love to help the third world, but there's so much corruption that it's pointless to give
I don't think I can make much difference

- that when you look at them closely don't justify a damned thing. If there's someone starving who you can help - and yes, you CAN, because there are some very good charities out there if you get off your arse and find them - and you don't give, then you're just selfish. The rest is window dressing. Fess up to it. Yes, the global system is iniquitous and no-one can perform miracles at the drop of a hat, but that doesn't justify total inaction.

FFS I'm not trying to justify total inaction! I'm just objecting to "charitable" efforts by celebs that are asking people with far less money than they have to donate, when all the celebs involved are donating is their time.

FWIW even though Bono can be an unsufferably self-righteous cunt at times, IMO he's probably one of the least objectionable, in that he doesn't just join in with a celebrity-o-thon once every two years and think that's all he needs to do.

As any child will tell you:

It's easy to give money you can afford. Giving your time is much more of a sacrifice.

Whilst on the subject of charity can you all go here and buy your Make Trade Fair t-shirt. They're rather groovy and would make a wonderful stocking filler. I promise you will not have to listen to any Chris Martin Snoozeplay. They have loads of designs; unlike Heartland which has, umm ...one.



They even have a mug.

My school's having a non-uniform day and charging £1. Fair enough.

I would wear my second hand 1991 tour top, but I've worn it to a few before. I think my black top with red and silver runes and a giant silver and white pentagram on each side should convey the general idea of gothness.

who let a Goth in here?

It is unfair to rant at 'celebrities' because they 'want to be in the spotlight and in the meantime salve their conscience'

These celebrities ofttimes worked hard to get where they are now, and to earn what they possess nowadays.

What strikes me the most is, that a celebrity always has to keep his wallet open for charity. After all, he has enuff to spend, no?

What about picking the fruits of his own work?

Building up a career does not involve arse-kissing and sleeping with the right persons alone.

Let these people have their villas with fifty-something different rooms, their private jet, their yacht, their own golf course, their whatever...

When you, as a 'normal' working person, earned enough to buy that new furniture, the new car, or that widescreen-tv, why shouldn't you just go out and buy it! And enjoy a bit of your well-earned money? How would you feel when another person is furious at you 'coz you could have given that money to charity?

Money alone doesn't make life perfect, but no money at all surely makes it more miserable, after all...

I really think it is nice to see that these celebrities do something to lessen the burden of other less fortunate human beings. Please do not calculate their charity money from their huge incomes. At least they do something besides bitch and whine.

Oh and MarkFiend, what happened to your profanity settings?

IZ.

I don't do much. But as self employed, I pay almost 70% in tax. I hope that some of it goes to people who needs it

James Blast wrote:who let a Goth in here?

I think the real questions are:

1) How did you not notice before?
2) Why have I not been shut out before now?

hehehehehehe Dark

I mean, the clues are a little abundant. A Pentagram picture (now changed to a nice tasteful pair of goths holding some song lyrics), the sig, the fact that I've said in the past I am..

Perhaps I should make it clearer for anyone in doubt:

Dark = Goth


There we go. Anyone not understand?

Dark wrote:I mean, the clues are a little abundant. A Pentagram picture (now changed to a nice tasteful pair of goths holding some song lyrics), the sig, the fact that I've said in the past I am..

Perhaps I should make it clearer for anyone in doubt:

Dark = Goth


There we go. Anyone not understand?

Eh?




IZ.

@ QB - Any chance of initiating the Goth Removal Squad? Ta.

James Blast reporting for GRS duty, Sah!