JWL wrote:

Sorry to be such a grumpy old fart but with Children in Need "raising" £46million what's the message that all the scammers, con men, government, retailers, local councils and other money grabbing ba**ards in this country are given? Ordinary people have still got too much money!
A lot of these people have felt pressed to fork out "all in the name of charity", yes, there are some really good works being done for the kids in this country but isn't that what our Social Services are supposed to be doing anyway?
There are more than enough big cats lining their pockets through their charity work and they're really the only ones to benefit from the good natured British public.

Not sure I agree JWL. I haven't watched CIN for some years now, but unless things have changed massively I always seem to remember that the vast majority of the money raised came from large corporations. 100k from BT, 250k from Virgin etc etc, not individual donations. As such, whilst £46m equates to roughly £1 per head for everybody in the country over 16, the reality of who actually puts their hands in their pockets is far less. I'd be interested to know if the BBC has data on numbers of calls/texts/donations rather than total amount. I bet you it would be a surprisingly small percentage. I try some sort of charity event each year, yet never do all my contacts give money. This year I raised 3k for UNICEF, but the number of people giving me cash was less than half those I contacted. i.e. fewer people, larger amounts. Simply put, there are those that give and those that don't, whatever the reasons may be.

If anything allows the conmen and scammers to see the GBP have money, they only need to see the amount spent on the Euromilions (£1bn of ticket sales are required for a £100m jackpot), pop into Currys and watch people buying electronic goods this Black Friday, pop into any coffee shop and see how many people have tablets and £700 smart phones and take a wander down Oxford Street in the run up to Christmas. No doubt many people are genuinely suffering, but I am no longer surprised each time I head back to the UK to see the same people who on the one hand moan about 'times being tight' yet conveniently forget it when they head out shopping on a Saturday morning. No doubt spending the proceeds of the money they received for PPI which they claim they never needed nor asked for.

I do agree that the heads of many charities are vastly over paid, (as are many council leaders, union leaders and other apparently public sector leaders which I think is worse as you can choose to give/not give to charity, but public sector pay is 'our money'), but I think they and the councils, BBC etc are more than aware that by no means everybody gives to Charity and that the large donations, (whether for kudos, PR or tax avoidance), plus the General public's annual subscriptions, is where their bread and butter comes from. As such the £46m is a drop in the ocean when compared to the Social Welfare budget which last year was £230bn yet never seems to be enough. (btw this doesn't include tax credits or benefits, just child protection etc).

And whilst I agree with Barbara's sentiments that giving to charity should be for the betterment of everyone but yourself, but if the tax deduction wasn't offered many big brands might not donate, sad though that is. The donation is taken from the total business profits before tax is paid. As such, if BT gives 100k to CIN, the Exchequer will lose 20% corporation tax on that 100k. So is it better that 100k is donated to the wider charity pot for the benefit of a few or that the Chancellor gets 20k to spread amongst the entire population? Personally I think the former.....

And anyone who pays £1m for Take That is just stupid. Not that I wouldn't pay a million bucks for something if I could afford it, but take that? But actually if it makes his ego inflate who cares as long as the bulk of that cash goes to a good cause. Knowing Gazza Barlow, he'd do the go for free, so let's hope it does. As such, whilst I'm not a fan of Ginge and chums, that bloke's ego might have added £1m to the charity pot, which might never otherwise have seen the light of day. Everyone has their own motivator, that was his, even if it upset the spotty girl who offered her pocket money.

Just my 100k's (tax deductible) worth  Monsieur Le Grenadier

I've not been everywhere, but it's on my list.....

2011 Puma 110DC - Corris Grey

RFT wrote:

All this Black Friday is driving me mad - I have recieved at least 25 emails from companies and suppliers (including some major Middle Eastern Airlines!) offering me deals... if it can be cheaper today then you ripped me off yesterday!!

What would it cost to get DHL to parcel up "Black Friday" with "trick or treat" and send it back across the Atlantic

As you say it's just another shallow import from the supposed land of the free. The amazing thing is people fall for it  Steve.
Owned numerous Land Rover vehicles of all shapes and sizes over the decades.
Current Defender: A non tarts hand-bagged Puma 110 XS USW.

[Insert something impressive here such as extensive list of previous Land Rovers or examples of your prestigeous and expensive items, trinkets, houses, bikes, vehicles etc]

http://forums.lr4x4.com

I used to be Miserable ...but now I'm ecstatic.

RFT wrote:

Re Terry Wogan, just to clarify he was paid by the BBC (i.e. from our taxes) not by CIN funds. It was still not the most sensible thing to do by either party.