Easy tiger.

Spenny, Binky, Mark-Francis etc are the best fooking comedy entertainment on tv.

It also raises an interesting question. It seems that some people place responsibility firmly at the feet of those who make documentaries/entertainment, but if we do that, we also patronise 'the rest' as being too stupid to look for things themselves, to think things through in the way that 'we' enlightened ones think they should, and having no responsibility in the equation themselves.

Whether we like it or not, we have a media that, for the most part and as it always historically has, serves the interests of the proprietors of that media. The idea of a separate and 'free' fourth estate is pretty much a daydream.

The overwhelming majority of journalists, for instance, do as everyone else does – what their employer tells them to do.

And the reality is that vast amounts of people easily believe the worst they're told, and they seem to like it that way, just as vast amounts of the population suck up the sort of drivel that you mention. And the market in TV (for instance) means that they have plenty of that to choose from and do so.

If we were a civilised humane planet, not being driven by greed, then we wouldn't need charity.
However the planet is full of ignorant selfish people, particularly in the G8 countries who through globalisation ensure there is no chance of the ripped off countries challenging them.
The "keep the natives in their place" is prevalent on this planet.

A fair point, although in situations of disaster/emergency it would probably still be welcome.



And it is often a sense of common humanity and shared citizenship that means that many millions choose to donate to charitable appeals, even when they have little to give.

But let's not big up the positives, eh?

And the overwhelming majority of people had no say in globalisation and what has accompanied it – there wasn't actually even a vote on it. Indeed, as part of the doctrine of neo-liberalism, its chief evangelists claim that, together with the de-industrialisation of the first world, it would allow other countries to industrialise and 'challenge' the G8 etc.

But hey, let's not let such niceties get in the way of a post that provides no positives but allows you to berate most of the population of a chunk of the world, while presumably, feeling smug yourself.

I know that there is a wider political and social agenda, but I still find it difficult to reconcile the situation of:

Cameron speaking about continued long term austerity in the UK then immediately pledging £50M for the disaster in the Philipines.

I loathe the TV spectacle of Children in Need.

Nonetheless, with such a bunch of selfish, heartless 2@s in government, charities are even more necessary now than they should be in a "civilised" society.
Just because rich greedy baaastaaards are pushing us towards a feudal society is not a reason to abandon compassion.

"Charity" is a word that means love, compassion, caring for your fellow humans ... etc
"Charities" on the other hand, encompasses organisations spread across a wide spectrum that includes, at one end, genuine care for others and, at the other end, tax breaks for Eton College ... with a huge range of worthy/less-worthy causes (depending upon your opinion) in between.

There are charities where we all (or the majority of us) believe that they are vital causes, these should be funded by taxation according to the donors ability to pay.
The rest are matters of personal choice.

I have a couple of issues with "Charities", in so much as:

a. A large number of Charities sit on assests worth millions, yet are still allowed to fund raise. I think that they should only be allowed to hold a small 'emergency' fund then have to spend whatever they collect each year.

b. Smaller charities - loads of people seem to set themselves up as fundraising charities, then take a "directors" salary from the takings - or use the charity money to 'fund' their money making endeavours / stunts / chosen 'lifestyle' of do-gooding.

When you consider that Christchurch in New Zealand has a fifteen year rebuild plan after the 2011 earthquake(s) then you realise the truth of what you have written above.

But why should I have to put up with my local services being cut, restrictions on NHS spending etc, to pay for cyclical natural disaster relief that always happens somewhere else in the world ?

Yes, there is a big difference between a local library closing, and the devastation of an overseas settlement, but why do I end up losing out ?

Because ultimately no single country in the world operates in isolation (well maybe Burma and Albania) and a huge natural disaster that wipes out a whole country's infrastructure is important to all of us.

Why do you think the two are linked? It's government policy to follow Austerity as the way to reduce the deficit. That is why you see what you do locally not because we give immediate relief when there is a natural disaster. The Labour opposition (and the Lib Dems before they were blinded by power) advocated a different approach.

As I said there is also a difference between the Overseas Aid budget which is an ongoing thing and disaster relief. I think you could argue giving overseas aid to some countries is no longer justified when we face austerity here but not disaster relief.

Even then I am not sure cutting the overseas aid budget is really justifiable. We are something like the 7th largest economy in the world. The fact we see the cuts we do at home is very much down to the choices our current government makes. If they hadn't sent a penny to the Philippines you would still lose out with the loss of your library. Guaranteed.

It is all part of the deliberate and ideologically driven policies of the current government to reduce the size of the state using the banking crises and resulting huge deficit as the excuse.

With respect, that's an opener that belongs in the [iBook of Uh-oh Prefaces[/i.

Alongside "With respect..."