View Single Post
Old 28-02-2013, 08:08
grantus_max
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: East Riding of Yorkshire
Posts: 2,454
Out of all the worthwhile charities there are, she goes and gives it to one that's for prisoners families!! I'm sure the 'do gooders' will be very pleased.

They should all be giving money to the victims of their crimes, not the other way round. Their families have probably prospered with stolen money and goods anyway. Its ridiculous.
Personally speaking, as soon as someone uses the term 'do-gooder' in a derogeratory fashion, I tend to write off any ensuing opinions as reactionary, knee-jerk, lowest common denominator fodder, only worthy of Daily Mail editorial and Have Your Say comments.

I think we could do with a few more 'do-gooders' myself. People who don't just go for the easy answer, but who actually consider potential consequences and effects that others of a less generous nature may not. People, for example, who don't automatically apportion blame to others simply for being related to someone who's been punished for committing a crime, but who can see how they might be victims themselves - ironically, often due to the knee-jerk reactions of the sort of people who don't like 'do-gooders'.

Catherine Tyldesley has gone up a lot in my estimation since she said who she was donating her winnings to. It's a shame that those of a more mean-spirited persuasion can't quite manage keep their bile to themselves.
grantus_max is offline   Reply With Quote