Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I've seen lots of references on social media in recent weeks regarding the so called "Ice Bucket challenge". It's for a fabulous cause, and I totally support the idea of doing something fun if it's raising money for charities. I believe it's raising money for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, a debilitating disease. I think Macmillan Cancer charities have also encouraged donations for something similar. However, I have noticed a lot of people doing it for fun without realising that it's for charitable causes. This makes me extremely angry and these people should be forced to do the "pi$$ bucket challenge" for being totally ignorant self indulgent scum bags. If I see one more video of people doing it for fun without any references to fund raising for charity, I shall be nominating you for this special challenge. Be warned. Idiots.


Louisa.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/48273-ice-bucket-challenge/
Share on other sites

There is so much of this type of 'like if you think cancer is bad' type rubbish on Facebook. If you want to give money to charity do it. I reckon a significant number of people taking this 'challenge' couldn't tell you what it's for beyond being 'a right larf'.

LadyNorwood Wrote:

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

> I use water to wash, cook and clean and I'm

> eternally grateful....



However I don't condemn anyone for doing this and I think Louisa's comment is a bi'shi' - I walk to the shops every day but I don't do it for charity.......

I hate everything about it (other than the fact that it's apparently earning money for a charity).


The look-at-me attention seeking nature of it. The fact that these dorks putting their vids up on facebook usually seem oblivious to the charity. And also... pouring a bucket of cold water over yourself (in the summer) is hardly the most difficult or unpleasant task I can think of.

Absolutely Jeremy. It's a purely self indulgent thing with charity and donations apparently an after thought. If you really cared, you'd donate without doing the challenge, and post the screen shot of your donation onto social media to shame the vain attention seekers.


Louisa.

I'm torn on this. I wouldn't do it, and agree it's more about the attention for a lot of people, but as miga says, it's led to a lot of money being donated including by a lot of very wealthy celebrities.


And a couple of the vids have made me laugh, most notably Dave Grohl's Carrie tribute, and a rather buxom ex colleague who probably with hindsight would have chosen not to wear the bright red bra under her white t-shirt.

Louisa Wrote:

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

> I agree miga, but why in today's society do we

> need self indulgence band wagon jumping before we

> care to donate? Can't people donate anyway because

> they care?

>

> Louisa.



But it will have made a lot of people donate who wouldn't have donated. It's like they're paying a few quid for their moment of vanity.


I've also seen people doing it who I think are doing it more out of keeping face with their mates than actual vanity.

Otta yes it will have done, and any way to make money for charity is a good thing, but it will also have led to a large number of people doing the challenge and not donating at all. I'd love to see a donation screen capture of every person who's done it after they've completed the challenge. Many people aren't even making reference to the charity in their videos. These are the people I'm talking about.


Louisa.

JohnL Wrote:

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

> All the facebook videos I've seen explicitly say

> they will donate.

>


Exactly. Generally people are doing both. I quite like watching them except when they drone an about their nominees for 5 minutes first - just get on with the bucket bit :)

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> FFS - I've just been nominated to do this. Really

> don't like this BS, but I'm going to look like a

> real miserablist if I don't take up 'the

> challenge'. Any advice?



I've already decided that if I get nominated (I hope I don't because I'm skint) I am going to make a video of me making my donation via text, and post that.

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> FFS - I've just been nominated to do this. Really

> don't like this BS, but I'm going to look like a

> real miserablist if I don't take up 'the

> challenge'. Any advice?


Pretend you're going to do it, then throw the water over the camera and give your viewers the finger.

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

    • Do none of you go abroad.  Tourist taxes are really common in continental Europe and do vary a lot city by city. They are collected by the hotels/rental apartments. They are usually a  tiny part of your holiday costs.  In Narbonne recently we paid €1.30 per person per night.  The next town we went to charge 80 cents per person per night. By comparison Cologne is 5% of your accomodation.
    • Hey Sue, I was wrong - I don't think it would just be for foreign tourists. So yeah I assume that, if someone lives in Lewisham and wants to say the night in southwark, they'd pay a levy.  The hotels wouldn't need to vet anyone's address or passports - the levy is automatically added on top of the bill by every hotel / BnB / hostel and passed on to Southwark. So basically, you're paying an extra two quid a night, or whatever, to stay in this borough.  It's a great way to drive footfall... to the other London boroughs.  https://www.ukpropertyaccountants.co.uk/uk-tourist-tax-exploring-the-rise-of-visitor-levies-and-foreign-property-charges/
    • Pretty much, Sue, yeah. It's the perennial, knotty problem of imposing a tax and balancing that with the cost of collecting it.  The famous one was the dog licence - I think it was 37 1/2 pence when it was abolished, but the revenue didn't' come close to covering the administration costs. As much I'd love to have a Stasi patrolling the South Bank, looking for mullet haircuts, unshaven armpits, overly expressive hand movements and red Kicker shoes, I'm afraid your modern Continental is almost indistinguishable from your modern Londoner. That's Schengen for you. So you couldn't justify it from an ROI point of view, really. This scheme seems a pretty good idea, overall. It's not perfect, but it's cheap to implement and takes some tax burden off Southwark residents.   'The Man' has got wise to this. It's got bad juju now. If you're looking to rinse medium to large amounts of small denomination notes, there are far better ways. Please drop me a direct message if you'd like to discuss this matter further.   Kind Regards  Dave
    • "What's worse is that the perceived 20 billion black hole has increased to 30 billion in a year. Is there a risk that after 5 years it could be as high as 70 billion ???" Why is it perceived, Reeves is responsible for doubling the "black hole" to £20b through the public sector pay increases. You can't live beyond your means and when you try you go bankrupt pdq. In 4 yrs time if this Govt survives that long and the country doesn't go bust before then, in 2029 I dread to think the state the country will be in.  At least Sunak and co had inflation back to 2% with unemployment being stable and not rising.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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