View Single Post
Old 31-01-2013, 19:51
missfrankiecat
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,805
That would be lovely but best to live in the real world where that doesn't always happen. And while it's not happening and life isn't fair, I can't see one negative thing about a charitable project getting 3.6M, regardless of who the donor is or whether or not the gesture has genuine altruistic motives behind it.
That's a very valid argument and one I used to agree with, but I'm less sure now. To take an extreme example, Jimmy Saville raised so much money for organisations and projects which needed charitable help to survive that without the money that flowed from him, units would not have been built and equipped and lives would literally have been lost - does that mean that it doesn't matter that his motives were to destroy other lives? Of course, David Beckham and the countless other celebs who like the world to know of their charitable donations do it for less immediately sinister motives like easy PR and tax avoidance but what is really interesting to me is how, knowing what we know about high profile celebs grand charitable gestures - Robert Maxwell? Jeffrey Archer? - the immediate reaction is so positive. Does anyone even know what this 'charity' is and who is benefitting?
missfrankiecat is offline   Reply With Quote