That Comic Relief was the biggest pile of crap

[Alwx1987GG]

I have just watched 2 hours of absolute rubbish. And I need to know if I'm going mad and my expectations are too high. A previous avid watcher, never again, not even for charity.

1. Aside from the Oasis Sketch (mildly amusing) nothing remotely funny
2. Years old sketches seemingly on loop. I know it's the anniversary but come on..it's like we are too safe to be funny anymore so have to rely on past sketches
3. No Lenny Henry. It just ain't the same.
4. A depressing long Eastenders Segment half way through, full of woe and doom
5. Pete Wicks and Vicky Pattison visiting 'random' people's houses to give Amazon parcels, and 'just happen' to knock on a BBC often used Trans activist's door. Typical BBC.
6. Presenters' cringeworthy auto cues - forced and uncomfortable
7. Most of the money goes in Director's pockets anyway - I'd bet hardly any goes 'on the ground'

You are being unreasonable: Stop being a miserable menopausal old git, plus it's raised loads for charity.

You are not being unreasonable: It's a pile of cringeworthy crap.

Read the BBC statement. .

It literally says most of the money is spent on delivery of service and research.

The OP is right.

The tv stuff is always dire. Make a donation and watch something else.

Maybe I'm missing the whole point entirely, but I'm not sure the car given away in the competition is the best plan.

Whilst it's obviously a magnificent, headline-grabbing vehicle, what would most people actually do with it? Where would you keep it? How would you afford to insure and maintain it?

I'm not suggesting that they should give away a shabby 14yo VW Polo, but a shiny new Merc or something on the fancy and luxurious side of normal and practical might be better received - or even 5 of them, if that would cost the same in total as the one supercar. Even if you won it and didn't want it or couldn't keep it, you'd easily be able to find a buyer.

Surely it makes more sense to raffle off something lovely that millions of people watching could realistically use, rather than a woefully impractical white elephant that only a few middle-aged wealthy people undergoing mid-life crises could and would practically use?

I never watch the TV part as I find it cringe but I really enjoyed the 5 ultra marathons challenge on Radio 1. The poor chap running was in bits by the end, although I do wonder how much of it is exaggerated for dramatic purposes.

I think it's great that celebrities use their platform for good. Angelina Jolie is a good example. As long as the person also donates to charity I don't see anything wrong with fund raising.

Agree, I asked for the football to be put on instead and that’s saying something !! Same old same old and Alison Hammond on everything now. Tom Allen isn’t amusing in any way in my opinion. I didn’t even realise it was Red Nose Day until I switched bbc 1 on. My dd used to like collecting the red noses but they are all on Amazon now and made of a weird material so the noses fall off.

Yes,, that's right. I was responding to someone who thought that anyone who was paid from a charity had their fingers in the till somehow, rather than being a legitimate employee.

As a freelancer, I have done the audit for a number of local charities, and been the treasurer of another, so am pretty familiar with the requirements of the Charities Commission.

No the OP is not right. How do you think these things work? Do you think charities should just give out cash to kids?

Maybe another way of looking at it is that they will continue making it until they have solved world poverty ?