to dislike pop stars being applauded for their charity work / philanthropy

[mls3]

When actually they are doing the job they love, and the charity work boots their profile and is often used for tax avoidance purposes.

I see Chris martin and photos of him using a private jet despite his work with green charity's, bono is always going on about giving dispite him avoiding paying tax. 1d to a charity gig and all of a sudden they are philanthropists.

Yabu.

Chris Martin/Coldplay gives masses of support to Kids Company - money, they played a concert & probably more.

They could do nothing & just have parties & watch films in their home cinemas, I'd rather they did something than nothing.

Yabu

They do inspire others to give and raise the profile of the charity. Even if they themselves are pure evil the act itself is good.

I give money to oxfam but occasionally have to chuck out food I bought on a whim.

OK I know I'm still going to be killed on here.

But what I mean I think the average joes 10 a month dd is probably a greater relative deed than most popstars input to charities.

YANBU OP. I cannot stand this, its all just to shine up their public image. Don't get me started on Vorderman/Holden crying and carrying on at these bravery award things, it sickens me.

Its all oooh look at me giving to charidee!

mls3 let us be flamed together

I'm torn on this one.

On one hand, any charity giving has got to be a good thing, and I can see why it's good for certain charities to have high profile celebrities draw attention to their cause.

But on the other, I do think some celebrities are more about raising their own profile than that of the charities they support, and charity is such a personal thing I'd have more respect for celebrities who publicise charities that are especially meaningful for them for some reason, rather than just supporting one that's going to get them the most attention.

Comic relief et al irritate me immensely, because I do think there are celebrities involved in that that wouldn't be if it weren't for prime time telly spot and the backing of the BBC through our licence fee. IMO, it can take away from smaller charities because they can't ever hope to have as much media support, and there are only so many charity pounds to go round. I also dislike the way celebrities on these things make out as if they are doing an amazing thing by visiting poverty stricken countries, when actually they are having a very enriching experience, and it's been paid for by other people.

I think you are not being unreasonable as a whole, but there are a few out there who I really think care about their cause. Angelina Jolie for example, I didn't have too much time for her after the affair and was very much camp Jennifer but I truly believe she is a woman who wants to use her fame and wealth to try and action change and help others.

I read yesterday that Kid's Company had asked Coldplay for an advance on their annual gift of £1m++. I had no idea they were such HUGE supporters of such a small charity. Did you OP?

Ask Camila Batmanghelidjh what she thinks.

Without the wealthy 'stars' that support Kids' Company they'd struggle even more than they already do. And a lot there give their time as well as their money.

I'm assuming OP, that you give as much as you can afford to miss each month?

YABU.

Presumably this is a thread that came out of the Ellie Goulding thread which descended into a discussion about celebs and charity.

There will be SOME celebs who get involved with a charity for some self promotion. But an awful lot do it to give something back for one specific or several causes they strongly believe in. A lot of celebs specifically choose smaller charities that need more publicity or ones close to home and do a lot for those but because they aren't the big major ones that advertise on TV you don't hear about it. A lot of celebs do things very quietly or sometimes anonymously.

There was a bit of a to-do when Penelope Keith was made a Dame because, acting wise, she isn't a heavyweight like, say Maggie Smith or Judi Dench. But it was also for a serious amount of charity work that she does, she just doesn't do it publicly. When Jeremy Beadle died, it was revealed that he had raised over £100 million in his lifetime for charities.

What I DO object to is Sport Relief and being lectured by premiership footballers urging us to donate money when the salaries they are on are, quite honestly, offensive.

Thanks silence, glad I'm not totally alone!

This sums up my thoughts on 99% of celebs and their charity work
Watch "Kim Kardashian: Philanthropist Extraordinaire - A…" on YouTube - Kim Kardashian: Philanthropist Extraordinaire - A…:

Its like when they did that live earth or whatever concert they did a few years ago private jets galore and big limos it seemed really hypocritical but some of them do raise profile s of charities so it cant be a bad thing its the bonos and gary barlows who bask in the glory that gets on my wick so to an extent I am agreeing with you.

I'm not convinced celebrities can 'win' with this.

If they do it publicly they're attention seeking whores

If they do it privately then people think they hoard their wealth

Seems that you can only be found to be a good egg after death

If I won 100million on the lottery I'd give way more than half of it away and I'd make damn sure it was a top story as it would encourage others. And folk would still bitch that I'd kept millions.

Can't win, looking like a twat comes easily if you're uber rich

The Royal family do the same.
Pisses me right off- not that they do it, but that these privileged few are so lucky to give so much . I imagine some must feel embarrassed at the applause.

You ae right laurie damned if they do and all that which is a shame well except for gary barlow and bono

It does rankle when you see or hear extremely wealthy 'stars' pleading with the general public to give money.

I understand that lots of people giving a little will raise more than one person giving a lot. But it does make me think that if they really cared so much about African orphans they would sell their multiple homes around the world, give up the private jet and live a quieter life to be able to give as much as they could to others.

I think we can all agree that most of these celebrities want the prestige that goes with their status and all the trappings but also want to be seen to be generous and caring so the public will continue to support their career.

And kim kardasian wtf isher you tube about the woman is a plank

Damn those famous people giving a bit of money away.

Of course it raises their profile.

But nobody actually makes them do it, do they?

Comic Relief etc astounds me and makes me re-evaluate slebs I had on the knobber list every time. No-one forces people like Robbie Williams to go and sit covered in flies surrounded by dying children. I wouldn't fucking do it, no matter how much it raised my profile. And I doubt they sell more songs because they've done it.

Maybe, just maybe, it's because some of them, apart from being uber-rich, are just a bit nice as well?

I understand that lots of people giving a little will raise more than one person giving a lot. But it does make me think that if they really cared so much about African orphans they would sell their multiple homes around the world, give up the private jet and live a quieter life to be able to give as much as they could to others.

What have you given up? How nice is your house? Could you downsize? If you could, why haven't you? Do you tithe x% of your salary each month? Do you go on more than one holiday each year? Why?
Etc, etc...

YABU

Have you any idea how much money and recognition is brought into a charity when 'slebs' front stuff for them?

Have you any idea how much any of them do behind the scenes?

Nope. Thought not.

I often feel a bit about the very wealthy giving to charity.

I can remember seeing something about...I think it was Richard Branson...giving a couple of hundred thousand to a charity, with a huge hoo-haa about how brilliant and generous he was etc etc.

I mean, really? Yes, i'm sure the Charity were glad of the money. But seriously, the likes of RB giving £200k of his money is the equivalent of me doing my monthly £10 DD. Not money you miss so hardly an act worthy of people falling at my feet in gratitude.

This does annoy me. I know I'm cynical, but it's so self-serving. I remember once in Borders (that great bookstore that insisted on employing semi-literate bellends becasue they 'looked cool') when the chap behind the counter tried to get me to buy the live aid (not the first one) CD. I refused for the reason the OP states. The bellend behind the counter launched into his "it for charity" speech; though his case was somewhat undermined by the fact that that alongside the official carousel with the cds on, was an entire bank of CDs of all the artists that were on it. Right next to the till.

For me personally, I'm less likely to support a charity if it's endorsed by a celebrity.

Bet it still made a huge difference to the charity concerned though CrazyTypeOfIndifference either directly from the money or through the publicity.

Ends justify the means here I think.