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.

I'd do it in a heartbeat sangria, I think it would be an amazing experience to go and see a way of life that is so spectacularly different from your own. Especially when you have the security backing of an organisation like the BBC, and someone else is paying for it.

YANBU. It's largely about their profile. Yes, they're moved by what they see when they're out there cradling tiny babies in Malawi, but then they go back to their super-fabulous and entitled lives. We never here most of them mention what they saw and did after they've done the Hello! spread.

*hear

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

I don't understand that thinking at all.

I support a charity if I think it's a cause I believe in. I don't care who else supports it. If it's something I think needs my money then I will give.

I don't have a large house and haven't been on holiday abroad for decades, but I also don't give much to charity either beyond pounds in charity boxes here or there, tins of food for cat charity or food bank etc.

Let's not forget that being seen as philanthropic and being a large giver to charitable causes does not necessarily equate to being a nice person. Jimmy Saville anyone?

I work for charity and have had a whole range of experiences with celebs, from the downright awful to the fantastic ( low profile, nothing in it for them sort of thing).
It can be a two edged sword, but on the whole the public are more likely to attend an event, for example, if there will be a big name there.

Let's not forget that being seen as philanthropic and being a large giver to charitable causes does not necessarily equate to being a nice person. Jimmy Saville anyone?

So he alone wipes out all the good that others do?

Nanny It's because I (personally) feel that the use of a celeb (and it's the same for all forms of marketing) somehow detracts from a cause.

I also don't support charities who have employees paid more than I am. I'm not against those charities, it's just I think that they've become so slick (and almost self-serving) that they crowd out the smaller charities. I think this will really come to the fore even though I've been banging on about it for years

I also don't support charities who have employees paid more than I am. I'm not against those charities, it's just I think that they've become so slick (and almost self-serving) that they crowd out the smaller charities.

I understand that thinking, although I am prepared to accept that if (if) a high salary equates to much more revenue then it is perhaps acceptable. That presumes that you are paying for real expertise. I'm not sure that that is always the case though (RSPCA I'm looking at you).

My Winning the Lottery philanthropy dream is to have a foundation that supports the smaller, pushed to the side charities, but I don't begrudge the ones where endorsement works for them. Each has to do what it can to grab the share of the pot.

If the celebs paid all of the taxes they owed without any sneaky accounting whatsoever, the whole country would benefit, particularly the NHS.

I agree OP but I also think most charities are just big business now

We aren't big business. we are very small business, as are the majority of charities in the the UK. It's a bit like judging Tesco against your family owned corner shop!

But we still raise over £1m a year for the health-related cause for which we were set up. And the majority of you or your families will, at some point benefit from what we do. We receive no Government funding so are utterly reliant on the generosity and goodwill of the public.

The current "fad" of charity-bashing is so very disheartening for those of us who work in the sector.

Nanny calm down. It doesn't wipe out the good that some celebrities do but it also doesn't mean that every celebrity that is held up as an 'all round good egg' for their charitable work, is a nice person.

Most acts are selfish. Even giving to charity can be selfish because you are paying yourself in the back and getting a warm fuzzy feeling into the bargain.

I don't get this mindset at all. Would you prefer it if they didn't?

Of course people with money, power and influence should put some of it to good use. Not many people's motives are purely altruistic in any walk if life.

*patting yourself on the back

Nanny calm down.

Perfectly calm thanks. Bit bewildered at the meanness of thought expressed here and there, but calm nonetheless.

I think it's difficult. I know many people who give lots of time and money to charity but will never get public recognition, so why should a pop star get awards etc for doing the same thing? They turn up once a year for a few hours and everyone thinks they're great. Then again, it raises profile of the work done for the rest of the year.

FWIW I volunteer for a few hours every week.

I have no objection to celebs doing charity work/fundraising/raising a charity's profile.

However, I DO object to them simultaneously 'investing' in dodgy tax avoidance schemes. If they (and big businesses) paid their dues into the public purse, there would be less need for all this charity work.

I also object to The Sunday Times Top Giving List. It seems a bit icky "Look at all these rich people giving away a relatively small proportion of their wealth'.

Good. It's just a discussion on a message board, not worth getting too excited about. Celebrities will continue giving to charity and being applauded for it for a long time to come, a few differing opinions on here won't change that.

I think the current "fad" of charity bashing I've been doing it for years is as a result of charities being (to an extent) victims of their own success. They are now (rightly) coming under increased scrutiny as they move beyond a handful of old ladies selling cakes at a jumble sale. It is now big business, and people's attitudes are changing to reflect this.

Much of my gripe (and that of others) is that charities - particualrly the larger ones- do receive government taxpayer funds and often lose sight of their original objectives!

I'm more likely to support your charity Dido than I would say MacMillan who behaved discracefully in hi-jacking the ICE Bucket Challenge thing which was frankly just ridulous (although successful)--

YABU. The charity gets money, the charity gets their profile raised, the celebrity gets publicity. I'm not sure who loses out here?

People will always be adulated for bizarre and undeserved reasons. I don't think admiring someone for giving to charity is really up there with the worst of them.

I'm torn on this as well.

OT one H, I'm sure a lot of them do it to raise awareness about lesser known charities, potentially to inspire others to give their time/money as well.

OTOH, I think there will be some who do it to make themselves look good. Rather like the ALS ice bucket challenge. I saw so many people doing that challenge and donating to the WRONG charity. It's painfully obvious that they're not sincere in what they're doing if they don't know anything about the charity.

I also dislike it when people harp on about their charitableness on Facebook/twitter etc. I think it's good to see people promoting charities on social media, but there are some people who clearly do it to show the world how amaaaazing they are.

Perhaps I'm cynical. Anyway, I think most celebs do their charity work for the benefit of the charity, rather than their images. A lot of them don't even make it that well known IMO.

Actually I think it says more about the general public that celebrities are 'needed' to generate funds for charities, rather than the pull of the good cause itself being sufficient to inspire people to donate.

Malice you make a really good point. Perhaps people are becoming cynical regarding the slickness of many charity campaigns and because of that people are more jaded. I also think most families having less disposable income now, post-recession, doesn't help.

I'm a SAHM and if I have the TV on in the day there are a succession of charity adverts each break, all more tragic and heart breaking than the first. Paul O'Grady pleading with me to give money to a dog charity, crippled donkeys, children being married off at age 12 to men in their fifties, most of these adverts narrated by a famous voice. It's overwhelming and I switch off.

I am more likely to give to charities close to home that I feel a connection with personally than I am to charities affiliated with a famous face.

Dianna was often praised for her charity work, which was good but in her own words "what else could I do?". I'd love to be so rich I could spend my time helping others , but like most people its hard enough just keeping my head above water, I support a few local charities where I can actually picture what the money does.