Davina collapses with hypothermia
![[Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c8e50353c5f029e96f97b7b92ac1f329.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 68,508 Forum Member
✭✭
She doesn't look very well at all. 
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/davina-mccall-collapse-sport-relief-3130512 Get well soon, Davina.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/davina-mccall-collapse-sport-relief-3130512 Get well soon, Davina. 0
Comments
The conditions would have been terrible for even the most experienced triathletes to have completed today.
She was carried out of the water, ashore and off to a hotel/house like a rag doll, oblivious... as the cameras pursued and people clapped and cheered as she was carried passed them, - she was totally out of it. Really dangerous.
Yes you could tell she was not well during the link on Breakfast this morning, i saw her being interviewed, and then starting the swim, but was thinking to myself, even though it is for charity, maybe it should have been put back
When the interview ended they kept the camera on her (unknowingly I assume) and she burst into tears.
I felt kind of sorry for her, she obviously wants to do it, but can the BBC justify forcing her to do this when she's clearly not physically capable right now.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26117940
Why blame the BBC? She wasn't forced to do anything; she chose to do the swim even though she was terrified.
It obviously wasn't that serious if a mug of hot chocolate & a few blankets 'cured' her sufficiently to go on to do a 65km bike ride.
Saw all this with Walliams, and its more about look at me and boosting ailing careers then any genuine desire to help the needy.
Because the end justifies the means. The higher the public profile, the more money raised for the charity.
I'm quite sure these people could find a far easier way to raise their own personal profile if this was their main motivation.
I think those charities and individuals who benefited from the £2,501,240 Walliams raised might disagree with you.
The point of doing it so publicly is to raise as much money as possible.
Best of luck to Davina.
I think Bill has an important point, to be fair; and I think people shouldn't jump down his throat for making it. Of course it's great that money is raised for charity, but charity has turned into a career for some people (and a recent trawl through charity accounts left me all kinds of angry at how my money was being spent on administration and extremely generous wages).
When did Sports Relief turn into something that puts people's lives at danger? According to comments under that story, David Walliams has permanently damaged his back and had to have surgery after his swimming escapades. Why couldn't he just run a 10km dressed as a Little Britain character? Make it funny - people will still give generously and enjoy watching it.
It's all gone a bit too 'Hunger Games' for my liking.
The only people who benefit are the charities themselves and Walliams/Davina, a very small percentage of money raised would have benefited any needy person at an individual level.
I wouldn't be surprised if most of the Sport Relief money is invested in arms and tobacco share holdings as is the case with Comic Relief. IMO its all a sham.
Totally agree, charity is big business these days and something is wrong when a lot of these 'charitable' organisations have people on six figure salaries.
I also don't see the need of risking your health for something like this. Its only matter of time before someone dies of hypothermia copying the attention seeking antics of Walliams and Davina.
^ I didn't.
Agree on this. Massive effort doesn't have to mean doing things that endanger people's health and result in long-term problems. We'll have to agree to disagree re Walliams and eg. people like Eddie Izzard who I believe are sincere in their intentions.
I wasn't jumping down anyone's throat. It's a forum, I gave an opinion in response to someone elses opinion.
I agree that too much of the money donated to a lot of charities is eaten by administration, wages, perks etc. The big charities are now big business and unfortunately it seems that they now have to run as such.
Even so I would still rather give £10 knowing that £6 might reach its intended target, rather than give nothing at all. I tend to support local charities more than the bigger charities as I know that less is eaten up by 'administration' costs.
I suspect these extreme challenges bring in a lot more donations than single comedy sketches as you can watch 'funny' at any time. Of course I don't wish to see anyone get hurt or damage themselves in any way but I really do enjoy watching them. I find it fascinating to witness someone push themselves to their physical and mental limits - and then reward that person for their immense effort by making a donation.
Yes - she did look dreadful after the swim though. I couldn't help thinking of that Sport Relief ad on the BBC at the moment, saying it's meant to be fun.
I only give to small or local charities as I feel they need it more.
Good on her - I love Davina and hope she copes with the next couple of days ahead of her.
I really don't understand your point (BIB) other have posted ^^ the huge sums raised by 'celebs' in the past.
John Bishop raised £1,660,198 on his Paris to London trip ......I'm sure he would never be able to contribute anything like that out of his own pocket. If it takes stunts like this to encourage people to donate .............where is the harm? I find it quite admirable ...........there are far easier ways to raise a profile.