Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It seems to have spread to various charities now. I saw one video of a woman having a real go at MacMillan because she'd shaved her head for them a week before, but thought it was disgusting that they were now trying to jump on this and take money from another charity. I've also seen several people saying they're donating to Mind.


So it seems to be more of a do it and just donate to a charity of your choice kind of thing now.



I like Patrick Stewart's video best. He writes a cheque, then takes two cubes from an ice bucket and pours whiskey over them before raising his glass to the camera. The point being that when this challaenge originated, the idea was that you were nominated, and you donated OR did the ice bucket as a punishment for being tight.

That's true-- before it was do it OR donate. I think its good that the people participating in the challenge organically changed it to do it AND donate, which kind of undermines the entire argument that those doing it are not charitable...


People actually changed the rules so that the challenge would raise more money and still people are complaining about them...

The British Red Cross and UNICEF must be squirming in their seats watching all that clean water go to waste. I'm all for charity and think its brilliant they've raised so much awareness and money but I do feel it's a slight kick in the face to fund one charity by wasting a resource that another charity is so desperately trying to provide.

You gotta love Patrick Stewart.

I imagine it is El Pibe and it's fair point. I just think it's a little unfair to the charities who are trying to provide clean water such as water.org. But it has managed to make a Scottish Island a drought zone http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/als-ice-bucket-challenge-demand-leaves-island-without-water-9694074.html

:)

this thread has gone fully cycle- from outrageous OP, through the angy retort, bluster, lies,counter lies, kidology, class strawmen, sweeping generalisations and finally is settling on a near balanced reality. Just chuck in some cats, a sprinkling of hipters and a touch of waitrose and you have all of ED contained in one succint thread.

I liked the Patrick Stewart one too and now I've been nominated (arghhhh) think I will do the same.


Some of the videos are funny and most I have seen have explicitly mentioned the charity/cause first, urging people to donate. I see similarity between this and the no-make up selfie, yes its sad that charities should have to go to great lengths or gimmicks to encourage donation but I think its simply making best use of the *sheep-like mentality of human nature (which is ideal for spreading the word far and wide on social media).


Didn't like the one with the wee toddler swearing although I know a lot of people found it hilarious.


*not sure this is the right word I'm looking for but I can't think at the moment.

http://qpolitical.com/ice-bucket-challenge-end-like-rest-gotta-see/



Stop hating so much about things that you don't even have to watch. This has been a phonomenally successful campaign and long may it continue to raise the much needed money. I haven't done it and don't want to do it but I would to help this cause. Honestly people your whining is more painful than your so called friend's vanity. And as for the money going towards operational costs of charities, they couldn't run without the amazing people that work their nuts off coming up with ideas for fundraising events or the behind the scenes people that are NEEDED to run the charities.

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I've also seen a similar breakdown, but it's

> meaningless unless compared directly with other

> charities.

>

> Red Cross allocate 32% of their expenditure to

> similar costs, which is broadly in line with the

> ALSA.


Ironically my IBC donation was in aid of the Red Cross.


Most people now are not doing an ALS donation but choosing their own charity so I don't know why the big focus is on ALS anymore.


As for people pooh poohing it and doing neither an IBC or a donation - that's your call but don't slag off the people who think this is a fun way to make a charitable contribution.


Some people seem to want to take an opposing stance to what's popular - I suspect that's an illness in itself - I just haven't found a name for it yet, ideas welcome.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • This is why the NFU are so unhappy that Clarkson is involved as it distracts from the issues for real farmers. Your assumption that all land is purchased as a tax dodge is a wide sweeping dog whistle generalisation and, I suspect, a long way from the truth but something to government would love for people to think. Again, read this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62jdz61j3yo          
    • Anyone got any feedback on Transgender Awareness Week over the last week? I don't. And neither has my wife. And neither have my sisters. And neither has my mum, nor my daughter   x
    • It's an estate that they have been gifted. They may choose to earn a living from it, or to sell all, or part of it. In many cases, the land will only have been purchased as a way to avoid tax (as is the case for people like Clarkson, Dyson and other individuals with significant land holdings) and has little to do with farming at all. The idea that if I give you land worth £3m + tomorrow Rocks, it's not an massive windfall, but simply a necessary tool that you need to earn a living is silly. It's no different from someone inheriting any other estate where they would usually be required to pay 40% tax and settle up immediately.  If you're opposed to any tax on those inheriting multi-million pound estates - I would be interested in who you would like to place a greater tax burden upon? Or do you simply think we should watch public services collapse even further.
    • Because it's only a windfall if they sell it - until that time it is an asset - and in this case a working asset but, as far a the government is concerned a taxable asset. The farm is the tool that they use to earn a living - a living that they will be taxed on in the same way a nurse is - it's just to do their job they are now expected to pay extra tax for the privilege - just because the farm was passed to them. Or are you advocating nurses pay tax on the tools they are provided to do their job too? 😉  Now, if they sell the farm then yes, they should pay inheritance tax in the same way people who are left items of value from relatives are because they have realised the value and taken the asset as cash.  Our farming industry is built upon family business - generations of farmers from the same families working the land and this is an ideological attack and, like so many of Labour's policies, is aimed at a few rich farmers/farm owners (insert pensioners on Fuel Duty), but creates collateral damage for a whole load of other farmers who aren't rich (insert 50,000 pensioners now struggling in relative poverty due to Winter Fuel) and will have to sell land to fund it because, well, they are farmers who don't earn much at all doing a very tough job - the average wage of someone in agriculture is, according to the BBC around £500 a week and the national average is £671. Do you see the point now and why so many farmers are upset about this? It's another tax the many to get to the few. Maybe farmers should wear Donkey jackets rather than Barbour's and the government may look on them a little more favourably.... Some good background from the BBC on why farmers are fighting so hard. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62jdz61j3yo
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...