Comic Relief

[MK Shrimper]

When the kind & generous people of Britain reached £50 million for Red Nose Day it will equal 1% of what big 3 UK banks will pay in bonuses in 2011.

The poor are always more generous than the rich. Nothing new there.

 

[Crabby Shrimper]

The poor are always more generous than the rich. Nothing new there.

Probably in part why the poor are poor, and the rich, rich

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

The poor are always more generous than the rich. Nothing new there.

You don't half spout utter bollocks. A couple of years ago Warren Buffett donated more to one charity in one contribution (£20bn) than Comic Relief has raised in its entire existence. Philanthropy amongst the rich is a well established practice - think Carnegie and Rockefeller in the US and Salt in the UK - with billions being donated each year to worthwhile causes.

I'm sorry if this doesn't fit in with your socialist agenda, but try taking off your blinkers once in a while.

 

[MK Shrimper]

You don't half spout utter bollocks. A couple of years ago Warren Buffett donated more to one charity in one contribution (£20bn) than Comic Relief has raised in its entire existence. Philanthropy amongst the rich is a well established practice - think Carnegie and Rockefeller in the US and Salt in the UK - with billions being donated each year to worthwhile causes.

I'm sorry if this doesn't fit in with your socialist agenda, but try taking off your blinkers once in a while.

Warren Buffet is one man...I agree philanthropy existed back in the 19th century, but it's hardly a common place now. Maybe the Rockerfeller's of this world remembered where they came from?

It's a FACT that the gap between rich and poor is growing day by day, year by year.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Warren Buffet is one man...I agree philanthropy existed back in the 19th century, but it's hardly a common place now. Maybe the Rockerfeller's of this world remembered where they came from?

It's a FACT that the gap between rich and poor is growing day by day, year by year.

It's also a FACT that the poor are getting richer day by day, year by year. Now I'd like to see them get richer quicker, but there are plenty of rich people out there who are giving generously and it's pathetic to refuse to acknowledge this just because it doesn't fit in with your political prejudices. Many choose to give anonymously and you have no idea of the wealth of the individuals who donated to Comic Relief. How do you know that the vast majority of that amount wasn't donated by your favourite rich bankers?

Buffett is one man, but over 40 billionaires followed suit last year and publicly pledged to give away over half their wealth.

 

[MK Shrimper]

It's also a FACT that the poor are getting richer day by day, year by year. Now I'd like to see them get richer quicker, but there are plenty of rich people out there who are giving generously and it's pathetic to refuse to acknowledge this just because it doesn't fit in with your political prejudices. Many choose to give anonymously and you have no idea of the wealth of the individuals who donated to Comic Relief. How do you know that the vast majority of that amount wasn't donated by your favourite rich bankers?

Buffett is one man, but over 40 billionaires followed suit last year and publicly pledged to give away over half their wealth.

Well this could run and run, and you're right, I have no proof, but then again neither have you. Let's call it a draw? :peace:

 

[osymandus]

It's also a FACT that the poor are getting richer day by day, year by year. Now I'd like to see them get richer quicker, but there are plenty of rich people out there who are giving generously and it's pathetic to refuse to acknowledge this just because it doesn't fit in with your political prejudices. Many choose to give anonymously and you have no idea of the wealth of the individuals who donated to Comic Relief. How do you know that the vast majority of that amount wasn't donated by your favourite rich bankers?

Buffett is one man, but over 40 billionaires followed suit last year and publicly pledged to give away over half their wealth.

To be fair YB ive seen teh evidence that tha gap between rich and poor is widning , not that pooer are getting wealther . Access to better services eventually yes.

You can donate resources all you wish , however if you influence is used to maintain ideologies that are flawed or inhibit certain types of peopel or world views because of your own , this potentially makes the donations worthless.

Also teh time of Rockefellers and Jp Morgans was also about ostentation and as much displaying how their donations mattered and immortalisation of their names

 

[Hotman]

The poor are always more generous than the rich. Nothing new there.

Sorry mate but this is bollocks - I know you've stated that than none of us have a way of measuring it... But I know that I donate more now I earn more than I did 10 years ago. And not just financially - time and skills as well. Which at least disproves the "always" part of your comment. I'd imagine that it's not even a "usually".

 

[osymandus]

Sorry mate but this is bollocks - I know you've stated that than none of us have a way of measuring it... But I know that I donate more now I earn more than I did 10 years ago. And not just financially - time and skills as well. Which at least disproves the "always" part of your comment. I'd imagine that it's not even a "usually".

I think thats MK's point . Historically , those seen with less finance's would give more of themselves to charities. Though it may also be a slight peek through socialist red tinted classes in the same way that 1950's Ealing comedy England appeals to middle England ;)

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Well this could run and run, and you're right, I have no proof, but then again neither have you. Let's call it a draw? :peace:

OK, let's forget the empirical side of things (even though there is evidence that the standard of living of the poor is getting better) and concentrate on the philisophical side of things - is this not Cameron's Big Society that you are endorsing?

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I think thats MK's point . Historically , those seen with less finance's would give more of themselves to charities. Though it may also be a slight peek through socialist red tinted classes in the same way that 1950's Ealing comedy England appeals to middle England ;)

I quite liked Whisky Galore and especially Passport to Pimlico.Not to mention The ladykillers.Does that make me part of middle Engand?:unsure:
(Worried.Sant Cugat).

 

[osymandus]

I quite liked Whisky Galore and especially Passport to Pimlico.Not to mention The ladykillers.Does that make me part of middle Engand?:unsure:
(Worried.Sant Cugat).

I'm sorry .... the Daily Mail subscription is in the post ;)

 

[pickledseal]

I always think charity is a very personal thing.

I'll often throw a fiver someones way on JustGiving regardless of the charity, but to support a mate who is doing a sponsored run/cycle/burpathon.
Equally the main charities I support are CAFOD and HCPT, yet equally have done runs for Cancer Research UK too.

I don't often give to Comic Relief, just because during Lent I give extra to CAFOD. As a school we support CAFOD rather than Comic Relief - there is a deabte about whether funds from Comic Relief go towards the costs of abortions (link).

I don't expect anyone to do or think the same as me, as I said I think how much and to whom you donate is a very personal thing.

 

[MK Shrimper]

OK, let's forget the empirical side of things (even though there is evidence that the standard of living of the poor is getting better) and concentrate on the philisophical side of things - is this not Cameron's Big Society that you are endorsing?

I think charitable giving was around long before Cameron tried to run the country on the cheap, and it doesn't really cover such vast topics as providing food for babies that a literally starving to death.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I think charitable giving was around long before Cameron tried to run the country on the cheap, and it doesn't really cover such vast topics as providing food for babies that a literally starving to death.

That'll come under International Aid - one of the few areas that was ring-fenced by Cameron.

 

[MK Shrimper]

That'll come under International Aid - one of the few areas that was ring-fenced by Cameron.

Well kudos, but it's obviously nowhere near enough sadly.

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

The best thing we could do for the third world is recolonize it.

 

[Rayleigh Weir]

The best thing we could do for the third world is recolonize it.

Not sure how intestinal surgery will help?

 

[Davros]

Although bank bonuses are excessive, does not the amount raised through income tax go someway to housing a mother with 13 kids and no job in Wapping?

 

[canveyshrimper]

I always think charity is a very personal thing.

I'll often throw a fiver someones way on JustGiving regardless of the charity, but to support a mate who is doing a sponsored run/cycle/burpathon.
Equally the main charities I support are CAFOD and HCPT, yet equally have done runs for Cancer Research UK too.

I don't often give to Comic Relief, just because during Lent I give extra to CAFOD. As a school we support CAFOD rather than Comic Relief - there is a deabte about whether funds from Comic Relief go towards the costs of abortions (link).

I don't expect anyone to do or think the same as me, as I said I think how much and to whom you donate is a very personal thing.

Exactly this, charity is a purely personal thing. I am sure that the majority of charities are truly worthy causes, and deserving of financial support, and therein lies the problem I've a limited amount of disposable cash to donate. I've often been accused of being tight fisted because I won't donate to a particular cause by a colleague, and I've tried to explain my stance with no avail.