talkFORUM

carcinogen wrote:You don't need to justify yourself by listing the things you do. This is part of the problem: The Guilt Trip

As a modern tax-paying society we do more than enough to stipend those less unfortunate than us.

If the government choose to piss it all away on fuck knows what blame them.

Actors and musicians bolstering their careers on the back of charity is fucking sickening.

Donate anonymously like the rest of us.

Except that if celebrities ask for the public's support, then the reality is that a much higher sum of money will be raised.
I agree with you that some celebs undoubtedly do it to raise their own profile, but if the end result is a shitload more money raised, is that a bad thing?

subsub wrote:... but if the end result is a shitload more money raised, is that a bad thing?

It is if the money is going to a corrupt dictatorship.

It is if the money is raised is being spent poorly, ie: dropping bags of grain to people starving when what is actually required is the installation of basic farming infrastructure and a long term programme of skills education.

It is if you want to infantalize a group of people. Throwing money at the poor and needy ultimately humiliates them and compounds their sense of hopelessness and propagates a self-fullfilling prophesy of poverty.

It is if the person giving the money is totally ignorant of where the money is actually going and only doing so of a personal sense of wellbeing. The person donating is then less likely to donate money to local causes; they think "ok, I've done my bit because I've donated 50quid to Comic Relief". I just don't think the ends justifies the means.

It is if you want to continue the worrying trend of 'poverty porn' that seems to be pervading sections of the media.

It is if you want to the peddle the myth that money solves all problems, when in fact, it is actually time and human contact most people want.

It is if you wish to funnel money into huge global charities that eat up vast sums of money though excessive and poorly organised administion.

I mean ... I could go on this rant for weeks.

carcinogen wrote:

subsub wrote:... but if the end result is a shitload more money raised, is that a bad thing?

It is if the money is going to a corrupt dictatorship.

It is if the money is raised is being spent poorly, ie: dropping bags of grain to people starving when what is actually required is the installation of basic farming infrastructure and a long term programme of skills education.

It is if you want to infantalize a group of people. Throwing money at the poor and needy ultimately humiliates them and compounds their sense of hopelessness and propagates a self-fullfilling prophesy of poverty.

It is if the person giving the money is totally ignorant of where the money is actually going and only doing so of a personal sense of wellbeing. The person donating is then less likely to donate money to local causes; they think "ok, I've done my bit because I've donated 50quid to Comic Relief". I just don't think the ends justifies the means.

It is if you want to continue the worrying trend of 'poverty porn' that seems to be pervading sections of the media.

It is if you want to the peddle the myth that money solves all problems, when in fact, it is actually time and human contact most people want.

It is if you wish to funnel money into huge global charities that eat up vast sums of money though excessive and poorly organised administion.

I mean ... I could go on this rant for weeks.

So, the message is: do nothing, never donate to charity, right, assuming all of the above is true?

carcinogen wrote:

subsub wrote:... but if the end result is a shitload more money raised, is that a bad thing?

It is if the money is going to a corrupt dictatorship.

It is if the money is raised is being spent poorly, ie: dropping bags of grain to people starving when what is actually required is the installation of basic farming infrastructure and a long term programme of skills education.

It is if you want to infantalize a group of people. Throwing money at the poor and needy ultimately humiliates them and compounds their sense of hopelessness and propagates a self-fullfilling prophesy of poverty.

It is if the person giving the money is totally ignorant of where the money is actually going and only doing so of a personal sense of wellbeing. The person donating is then less likely to donate money to local causes; they think "ok, I've done my bit because I've donated 50quid to Comic Relief". I just don't think the ends justifies the means.

It is if you want to continue the worrying trend of 'poverty porn' that seems to be pervading sections of the media.

It is if you want to the peddle the myth that money solves all problems, when in fact, it is actually time and human contact most people want.

It is if you wish to funnel money into huge global charities that eat up vast sums of money though excessive and poorly organised administion.

I mean ... I could go on this rant for weeks.

Don't need to, you have hit the nail on the head enough times in one post.

Sub OBLITERATED and realistically can never post again

Zambo wrote:

carcinogen wrote:

subsub wrote:... but if the end result is a shitload more money raised, is that a bad thing?

It is if the money is going to a corrupt dictatorship.

It is if the money is raised is being spent poorly, ie: dropping bags of grain to people starving when what is actually required is the installation of basic farming infrastructure and a long term programme of skills education.

It is if you want to infantalize a group of people. Throwing money at the poor and needy ultimately humiliates them and compounds their sense of hopelessness and propagates a self-fullfilling prophesy of poverty.

It is if the person giving the money is totally ignorant of where the money is actually going and only doing so of a personal sense of wellbeing. The person donating is then less likely to donate money to local causes; they think "ok, I've done my bit because I've donated 50quid to Comic Relief". I just don't think the ends justifies the means.

It is if you want to continue the worrying trend of 'poverty porn' that seems to be pervading sections of the media.

It is if you want to the peddle the myth that money solves all problems, when in fact, it is actually time and human contact most people want.

It is if you wish to funnel money into huge global charities that eat up vast sums of money though excessive and poorly organised administion.

I mean ... I could go on this rant for weeks.

Don't need to, you have hit the nail on the head enough times in one post.

A hell of a lot of assumptions in just one post, too

Red Nose Day is more about a bunch of wanker "celebrities" and the BBC saying "look at me" than it is about charity.
Such behaviour is covered in the Bible, and we are told that the man who donates publicly and shouts about his good deeds in the market place will receive his rewards in this world. So it seems in this case actually.
With all big charities, most of the money goes to provide expensive "administration " -jobs, expense accounts and company cars for otherwise unemployable people.
It's the same wicked con as socialism and our current government system, including the BBC actually- "Look, we're doing great stuff for you. Give us your money and we'll take all the suffering and problems away - pay up and do nothing yourself because we will take responsibility for everything, and whether we actually do it or not, you will be absolved because you have passed your duty over to us".

When you see a poor man or a man in trouble, go quietly over and see what you can do to help him. Do not shout about it though, or try to take his dignity in exchange for your money. Don't wear a badge or a red nose to tell others that you've been so generous and kind, but walk quietly away and be grateful that you've been allowed to act as a small tool of the Lord.

£71m raised for charity. Fantastic achievement. Congratulations to everyone on this thread for doing their bit.

Not the fucking BBC again. I thought there's another thread for everyone's BBC gripes.

Royal24s wrote:Red Nose Day is more about a bunch of wanker "celebrities" and the BBC saying "look at me" than it is about charity.
Such behaviour is covered in the Bible, and we are told that the man who donates publicly and shouts about his good deeds in the market place will receive his rewards in this world. So it seems in this case actually.
With all big charities, most of the money goes to provide expensive "administration " -jobs, expense accounts and company cars for otherwise unemployable people.
It's the same wicked con as socialism and our current government system, including the BBC actually- "Look, we're doing great stuff for you. Give us your money and we'll take all the suffering and problems away - pay up and do nothing yourself because we will take responsibility for everything, and whether we actually do it or not, you will be absolved because you have passed your duty over to us".

When you see a poor man or a man in trouble, go quietly over and see what you can do to help him. Do not shout about it though, or try to take his dignity in exchange for your money. Don't wear a badge or a red nose to tell others that you've been so generous and kind, but walk quietly away and be grateful that you've been allowed to act as a small tool of the Lord.

LOL. Can't really imagine you doing that to be honest. You'd probably patronise him with a load of waffle clearly above your station, tell him you're better than him, kick him in the head and then then come in here telling everyone that people from Liverpool are backward cunts.

Royal24s wrote:Don't wear a badge or a red nose to tell others that you've been so generous and kind, but walk quietly away and be grateful that you've been allowed to act as a small tool of the Lord.

That you are, Royals. That you are…

Royal24s wrote:Red Nose Day is more about a bunch of wanker "celebrities" and the BBC saying "look at me" than it is about charity.
Such behaviour is covered in the Bible, and we are told that the man who donates publicly and shouts about his good deeds in the market place will receive his rewards in this world. So it seems in this case actually.
With all big charities, most of the money goes to provide expensive "administration " -jobs, expense accounts and company cars for otherwise unemployable people.
It's the same wicked con as socialism and our current government system, including the BBC actually- "Look, we're doing great stuff for you. Give us your money and we'll take all the suffering and problems away - pay up and do nothing yourself because we will take responsibility for everything, and whether we actually do it or not, you will be absolved because you have passed your duty over to us".

When you see a poor man or a man in trouble, go quietly over and see what you can do to help him. Do not shout about it though, or try to take his dignity in exchange for your money. Don't wear a badge or a red nose to tell others that you've been so generous and kind, but walk quietly away and be grateful that you've been allowed to act as a small tool of the Lord.

Proof positive that God is an idiot.

subsub wrote:

Royal24s wrote:Don't wear a badge or a red nose to tell others that you've been so generous and kind, but walk quietly away and be grateful that you've been allowed to act as a small tool of the Lord.

That you are, Royals. That you are…

Not sure that people necessarily have to wear a red nose or a badge to indicate they are participating in the spirit of RND so yet another salient point which Royals has got oh so wrong. Thank God we didn't have someone with such poor grasp of facts serving in our Police Force. Oh hang on...

It went down well then.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... elief.html

Zambo wrote:It went down well then.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... elief.html

Thankfully see so little of Brand but it's almost reassuring to know he's every bit a repulsive, untalented dickhead as he's been over the years. Sadly, the Beeb gets much needed publicity with shite such as RND with this fucking clown.