AIBU to think that Comic Relief is a bit crap?

[Trills]

I know it's for charideeeee and a good caaaaause and everything.

The idea is all well and good, but the execution is crap.

I don't want a t-shirt with Marilyn Monroe's face partially covered by a red circle.

I don't want to wear my onesie to work.

I don't want to watch TV presenters perform crap sketches.

And I don't want to see or hear any more about it.

I would use the rationalisation that there shouldn't need to be charities for children and people to include animal charities, there shouldn't need to be animal charities either. But there are both kinds, in RL, and we need to support both.

I think it was just an observation though.
I don't think anyone here has said they wouldn't give to a charity on the principle that it shouldn't be this way. ie: charity forming a huge part of the funding for basic child protection. It is this way, and while it is this way people will give, of course. It's just a shame this is the way it is.

Lot of is's and way's and it's there

ThingummyBob I hate attitudes like yours. Why should anyone have to justify which charities they choose to support?

My thing is animal welfare but I also give to human rights charities, children's charities and anything that friends happen to be raising cash for at any given moment. We all have something that strikes a chord with us for a particular reason. Demanding that we explain ourselves is just not on.

I don't agree, wombling. Parents are responsible for their children, end of story. Where extra care is needed, the costs of that should be met from an 'earmarked' and obligatory fund requiring no 'z-lebs' to fundraise for it.

Ditto lifeboats, medical and hospice 'charities'. All of those should have proper, established, staged funding, properly accounted for and administered to save costs.

Animal charities, whilst equally deserving, can fundraise quite successfully and, without the pressure of competing with 'people' charities, could raise more.

A whole different thread on the rights and wrongs of giving to animal charities whilst there is still a need for charity for humans.

As a teen i had a bit of a heated converstaion with an uncle who declared there shouldn't be any animal charities allowed while there were people starving in the world. Personally i felt he was wrong, but was too young to articulate why.

Cant even now, tbh actually

Well in an ideal world we'd all have everything we needed for a comfortable life and charity woudn't need to exist.

But we don't and never have. Charity is as old as time itself. Civilisation has grown round the concept of altruism and charity towards those less fortunate than ourselves.

Still wonder how anyone can be a 'giver' only to animal charitys and I've met a few I genuinely do not get it

I can't either, fluffy and, when it's 'charity', NOBODY has the right to dictate to others, whom or what they will give for.

It's none of yours or anybody else's business ThingummyBob. Ponder away and, if you see gaps in other people's giving, feel free to plug them yourself.

Lurked you are misrepresenting me.

Melika quite clearly said that she/he gives happily to the dogs trust but then says

There shouldn't be charities to protect and help children, the government and parents should be.

Whats to hate that I questioned such a callous attitude towards childrens charities?

Lying I think you are protesting too much about the rights of anyone to give to whichever charity they choose and being deliberatly obtuse.

I am not criticising animal charites, ffs, i give to them myself.

I am questioning the attitute that animal charities are ok but that childrens charities are less worthy because 'parents and government' should be taking care of that.

ChairmanWow, the so-called celebrities are plebs, surely everyone understands that, no?! Just look at them or better yet, try to listen to one without cringing - impossible. Ghastly, ghastly creatures, the lot of them.

''Plus the mutual back-patting of the slebs is vomit-inducing. 'Look at us! Aren't we so kind and worthy donating our precious time to make the plebs part with their money'. Yeah, and getting a load of TV exposure while they're at it. If the slebs donate 1% of their years earnings I'll consider doing the same''

Nobody said that; not Melika either. You comprehended what she wrote wrongly and you're running away with your miscomprehension. You could take it that actually, 'people' charities are MORE important (to perhaps a wider segment of the population) if funding is secured in a more formal way, couldn't you?

I don't think that most people would question anybody else about whom or what they donate to. Rude ones might.

What about children who don't have parents Lying, for instance?

Also where would the funding come from? More taxes? Not spending on something else? I genuinely don't understand why Animal Charities should be treated differently?

I obviously meant POOR people. Not pooey people. Bloody autocorrect.

Not m intention to get into a bun fight, just interested in the debate, however, this is getting away from Comic Relief, so I am out.

I am not keen on Comic Relief or Children in Need as I prefer to choose and donate directly to charities that interest me. However, there is no doubt that they get people who would not otherwise donate to do so. They raise the profile of a range of charities that would not otherwise get any media coverage. They also fund a range of causes, some of which are less popular and would struggle to raise the funds from individuals themselves.

I work in the voluntary sector and the charities that I work with that have benefited from these include: support for older people in rural areas, support for children living in a women's refuge, support for young refugees and asylum seekers in areas where there are no other projects for them, support for women affected by domestic abuse.

So ... no matter my personal feeling - on a profesional level, then I think that they do do an awful lot for the sector. So YANBU to not want the wackiness but YABU to want them to go away.

Why not just take it at face value? - you don't have to watch the programme or do any of the 'crazy' things, you can just donate (or not)

My children are really into the whole thing, my dd is involved in doing sponsored activities with a group of her friends at school, one of her classmates organised the Red Nose packs and they are enjoying being involved (Year 4)

The dc's will also want to watch the programme, think some of it is funny and have empathy with some of the great causes the donations support. Don't really see what is not to like but hey, if it's not your bag just do something else! It's only one evening after all.

What I hate is the assumption that people who choose to give to animal charities are being callous towards children's charities. Taking it right back to the OP and the dislike of the forced jollity of Comic Relief, surely we've all got the right to choose which charities strike a chord with us for whatever reasons that may be and donate for that reason?

Lurked, I didn't make any assumptions. I read what the poster had written. She/he has not been back to clarify.

Of course we all have the right to choose or not choose to donate to any charity at all. I have not questioned that at all.

I didn't mean to de-rail thread re Comic Relief which I agree is a bit shit.

YANBU. I donate to the charities of my choice and hate being almost forced into giving to a charity I don't actively support. DS's nursery has a 'bring 50p and wear silly nose' day on Friday and I will send him with the 50p but only because I don't want to use him to make a point and potentially cause him confusion or embarrassment. I really resent it though.

I'm old enough to remember when these telethon first occurred: they were new and exciting, and the high level of support and participation was unprecedented.

The snag is that it's no longer exciting and does not command the participation it once did.

But, even with the question marks over how efficiently it spends, it still raises an enormous amount of money. And his money does make a difference.

And putting the plight of those caught in absolute poverty overseas on prime time telly every couple of years (within a format that gets better viewing figures than a typical "worthy" programme) is far too little, but at least it exists.

I would have more time for them if the more close-to-the-bone causes of poverty were talked about, like corruption, EU agriculture subsidies, 1st world exploitation of 3rd world resources, colonial legacy ...

but I still end up reaching for the phone when the heart-strings video is shown at about 8.18pm on the night.

and YADNBU if only for the prancing newsreaders

YANBU. It will pass unnoticed in this house. I am fortunate to have grown up children and work for myself so I don't have any pressure from schools or workplace. Because if there's one thing that makes me rage, it's "zany" goings on at work.

I can't stand it either - Comic Relief is even worse than Children in Need.

How much did it cost to send One Direction to Africa? Even if they don't get paid and the airline donates the tickets the:

camera crew
security
PRs
etc aren't doing it for nothing.

Something about having some of the most privileged people in the country begging for our money pisses me off. Plus I hate the way it's seen as a good career boosting opportunity by some.

I've been backstage at Comic relief once and it was a joke: endless champagne, piles of food and limos lining up to ferry stars around - all paid for by the BBC and taxpayer.

nancy That's exactly what it's like backstage at Children in Need

Anyway, these things raise alot of money for charities so that's the main thing. But will I be watching? Hell no.

I'm interested to know which ones of this years featured slebs - Miranda, Jesse J, Dermot, Ricky Gervais, French and Saunders - contribute financially and how much, as well as the ones who're always involved like Emma Freud.