I have been watching this RND and I am coming to the conclusion that many of these slebs are doing this for their own egos and own careers.

How much of their own money have they put into the fund ....

Compare the amount in my bank account with for instance (and he is not the only one) Chris Evans ....

OK - he has put in his time for free ..... but compare the ratio of his available funds to mine .... who has paid the most?

Me I think .....

He has a career that needs boosting too - and he is on BBC? A lof of this going on methinks ....

Maybe some certainly... but a lot of them have actually been to Africa and seen it first hand so I think it wouldn't be right to judge what other peoples contribution might be, as we don't know do we? IIRC Chris Evans was practically bankrupt a few months ago anyway wasn't he?

Irrelevant ...

his house compared to mine today?
his bank funds compared to mine today?

He and other of these really well known comedians are, I feel, in this for their own selves.

Just how much has Brian Connolly in the bank too?

It really narks me off when he lectures me to give my money in such a crass manner, when he is a millionaire many times over .....

Easy to preach to others (who manage to eke a living week to week or month to month) when you yourself have millions in the bank .....

Who cares what other people have.. if they've worked hard for it? They've given their time and talents for free to raise awareness for a good cause. I'm on benefits but I managed a fiver.. it doesn't bother me what rich people give or even if they do.. That's for their conscience isn't it? I know I did my bit according to my means and thats what matters to me

The Tsunami donations proved how generous people can be without a lot of prompting. This glorified bullying is little more than an insult - who isn't there for their own self-interest?

I think with all these things, there are some who "believe" and others who think it would be a bad show if they didn't take part. You can't knock Lenny Henry who clearly believes in this and throws himself into it. You can't knock someone like Nick Knowles who is a relatively minor sleb and though wealthier than you or I isn't exactly stinking rich and has clearly been moved by what he's seen.

But then when you see wasters like Chris Evans who've got far more money than they can pi55 up the wall or sh00t up their arms, making his TV comeback on the back of this, it does kinda make you want to reach for the sick bag.

How can giving high, however uncomfortably intense (at times), public profile be considered "glorified bullying"? ...The nature of the Tsunami cause and the concomitant public response towards it was exceptional...justly; that, however, does not make the nature of the work done by comic relief any less deserving and no less worthy of support.

Those who took part, at whatever level, in tonight made a conscious choice to assist in the raising of funds for 1000s of worthwhile projects. To have been any part of tonight is to have truly HELPED. The satisfaction Chris Evans may take home tonight [e.g.] is as valid and significant as that of the volunteer phone-operator or one of the thousands to which the phone-operator spoke tonight.

Those with higher profile (media) are in a greater position to ensure a wider and entertained viewer/donator base...some [few, imo] use that profile opportunity for their own ends...tonight, for me, was imbued with a sense of people (pleb and celeb) genuinely attempting to do all they could to assist where help was needed. Hell, if they'd been worried about their career-shit they'd have been a damned sight funnier and entertaining than they were (by and large)

There is a philosophy which suggest that all who are gifted and reap the benefits of said gift ought to negate all by refusing to accept the rewards offerred...a couple here seem to suggest that all those 'celebs' tonight ought to simply donate all to charity and have done...projection studies on this mode of charitable philosophy have been done a-plenty...the result being that, within a very short time-frame, no charity benefits a-plenty...indeed the economics and charitable psychology of diminishing returns results in greater suffering and hardship.

exactly, that Abramovich guy should put a couple of hundred million towards the fund instead of spending it on stupid footballers.

Glad I wasnt the only one thinking it. As soon as the show started and the usual susects came on I felt this was more about which agent had been most successful in getting their celebs the top spots. Dermot and Davina with the same agent did very well last night.

Previous events havent felt so forced but last night it really did seem like the BBC was twisting everyones arm or celebs really needed the exposure.

The event was a shambles anyway - the sound problems were appalling.

How can we be bullied when we're able to turn the programme off?
Those clips of real suffering break my heart in a way that posters & news items wouldn't & I feel I have no excuse not to contribute.

I don't mind contributing and I did, I wish I could have afforded more, however, I do resent a washed up (I had a few other adjectives but I want to keep it clean and not express any general prejudice against ginger people) ahem, person using it to relaunch a career.

I also resent the fact that part of the reason for the diease in Africa is that the drug companies enforce their copyrights and won't cut their profit margins in these poor countries. Part of the reason for poverty is the bribery of multinational corporations to get peasant farmers to switch to "cash crops" rather than "food crops". If a food crop partly fails, you end up with poor quality food but you can survive. If a cash crop partly fails you're broke and have no food.

One bank which is screwing a country in the third world for compound interest payments could donate more than all of us put together. But not good for business, eh?

I also resent companies like Walkers who smashed the Trade Union at their factory and forced down wages/working conditions getting free publicity for donating a small proportion of what they robbed from their workforce.

BTW I'm not bitter, just a bit cynical. I am an old git, after all.

Don't forget though, that one of the reasons that so much money was donated to the tsunami appeal, must surely have been the fact that the pictures and the news from the distater were on our tv screens/in our newspapers 24 hours a day. I'm sure that sort of blanket coverage had a stronger effect on the public than tv presenters asking us to contribute for a mere six hours.

I don't think it was glorified bullying at all. People don't have to watch or donate if they don't want to. However, the program was being aired for a reason - to raise money - and therefore I'd expect the presenters to keep going on about it ..... that was their job for the evening!

Totally agree agingrocker - me and Mr Darcevarch had the same conversation last night re poverty in Africa.

It didn't really occur to me to think about what Chris Evans' motives, but, given that he just did the Brits I guess a career re-launch is in motion.