Comic Relief - What happened....

rustyboy21

paulofessex wrote: »

I just don't understand why people choose to continue to have babies when in such poverty where they struggle to feed themselves let alone babies Yes people are entitled to have children, but why in those circumstances.

This is mostly down to 3 factors.

1. Both the Catholic and Muslim religions, both promote siring off spring to increase their flock. more followers, more dosh in their banks for corrupt use.

2. The way the male side of the population think that it is their given right to have unprotected sex with as many women as possible as many times as possible, with no thought of the risk of disease spreading , fully backed up by the same reason as point 1.

3. The declaration by the above 2 religions, that contraception and abortion are not allowed, so after the male population have raped and presurrised the women into having unprotected sex, as they are allowed to do, then they are unable to get help in unwanted pregnancies.

The sooner that contraception is allowed to be used within the Catholic church especially and promoted, then we will see the tide turning. Until then it is charities like Comic reliefs work which helps out with trying to make things a little better.

sillygoose

shop-to-drop wrote: »

Anyone else shocked by the 'Archbishop of Canterbury' sketch? So much earlier than watershed too with so many kids watching. Am I just really old fashioned?

Not just because of the swearing either I found it really disrespectful and I'm not even religious myself but was offended on behalf of those that are. Am baffled really?

I am a churchgoing Anglican, and not so much offended as saddened, that the woolly wishy washy Archbishop portrayed was far too near the truth of the 'disappointing' real one we are lumbered with currently. More than ever we needed someone with some passion and fire in their belly. We got a banker.

One old chestnut often comes up, but I find it hard to feel any guilt over what my ancestors apparently did to the 3rd world countries, any more than I expect Germans to still say sorry for the Somme, the Spanish for Mexico, the Norwegians for Hartlepool or the Romans for Chichester!

Robin_TBW

I watched it for all of five minutes, got bored and didn't donate. Now, if I could donate specific items rather than cash then I've got a bag of condoms I'd happily send them.

sillygoose

Robin_TBW wrote: »

I watched it for all of five minutes, got bored and didn't donate. Now, if I could donate specific items rather than cash then I've got a bag of condoms I'd happily send them.

I wouldn't admit to having that!

TheSaint_2

Truly awful. I got as far as the cowell sketch and turned off. It was offensive to me as a Christian and inappropriate for my eight year old.

I didn't laugh once, it used to be so funny. Shame.
Almost wished i could get all the money we donated back. Lets hope the bbc take note.

We are not amused!

ThumbRemote

Ratboy wrote: »

The 'charity', always shows Africa, but most of what I hear of Africa, is that dictators run their own part of the country, the rest of the 'charity' money is creamed off to the organisations running these events, as has been proven.

I used to work for a charity, unpaid, and 90% of what is given, in good faith is creamed off by Management, and paid staff.

Disgusting. The rest probably by our Government.

olias wrote: »

I haven't laughed so much in ages....(At the above comment, NOT at comic relief)

If you believe that charitable aid goes directly to the people that need it, then you are sadly deluded. I have worked for charities before, and as has been stated, the vast majority of the money goes in the pockets of the management (and to corrupt overseas organisations and governments).

Since you claim to have knowledge of this, please could you provide the names of the aid charities where 90% or the vast majority of their money goes to management costs?

olias

No, I will not, as the whole point of internet forums is a degree of anonimity as a lot of what I discuss, particularly with relation to finance etc, I want to remain private, therefore I do not want to disclose things that would identify me.

What I will do, however is give a few examples:

A large national charity who have a £30 million headquarters with waterfalls in the foyer, works of art and £1000 'executive' chairs in the offices, while the staff work in portacabins in carparks, and the management waste £100ks in pr stunts, while failing some of their core aims.

A regional charity pleading poverty and chasing pensioners for 50p a month donations, when the management are variously driving - an Audi TT, a Mercedes Convertible, a Jaguar, among others (all billed to the charity).

A small local charity, where the founder is jetting off to London, USA, South America, South Africa, Far East on 'fact finding' and PR jaunts that are more like glorified Jollies (at the charitys expense of course)

These are just three that I have been involved with.......

Olias

angeldeedee

I had hoped to be seeing some vintage comedy, especially since it was the 25th anniversary....
have to say i was extremely shocked at the language that was used so early on in the evening, was not impressed.

ThumbRemote

olias wrote: »

No, I will not, as the whole point of internet forums is a degree of anonimity as a lot of what I discuss, particularly with relation to finance etc, I want to remain private, therefore I do not want to disclose things that would identify me.

What I will do, however is give a few examples:

A large national charity who have a £30 million headquarters with waterfalls in the foyer, works of art and £1000 'executive' chairs in the offices, while the staff work in portacabins in carparks, and the management waste £100ks in pr stunts, while failing some of their core aims.

A regional charity pleading poverty and chasing pensioners for 50p a month donations, when the management are variously driving - an Audi TT, a Mercedes Convertible, a Jaguar, among others (all billed to the charity).

A small local charity, where the founder is jetting off to London, USA, South America, South Africa, Far East on 'fact finding' and PR jaunts that are more like glorified Jollies (at the charitys expense of course)

These are just three that I have been involved with.......

Olias

So, despite your claim that "the vast majority of the money goes in the pockets of the management" you can't name a single aid charity where this is the case. Further, the three non-aid charities you then criticise you won't name either.

Lets face it, your claim about "the vast majority" is rubbish, isn't it? You can't give a single example to back it up.

olias

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaawn, tollolloll. Goodnight......zzzzzzzzzzz

Olias