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

    • Girls In Your City - No Selfie - Anonymous Casual Dating https://SecreLocal.com [url=https://SecreLocal.com] Girls In Your City [/url] - Anonymous Casual Dating - No Selfie New Girls [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/vanessa-100.html]Vanessa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/vanessa-100.html]Vanessa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/molly-15.html]Molly[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/cheryl-blossom-48.html]Cheryl Blossom[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/carola-conymegan-116.html]Carola Conymegan[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/pupa-41.html]Pupa[/url] [url=https://secrelocal.com/girl/mia-candy-43.html]Mia Candy[/url]
    • This is a remarkable interpretation of history. Wikipedia (with more footnotes and citations than you could shake a shitty stick at sez: The austerity programme was initiated in 2010 by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government. In his June 2010 budget speech, Osborne identified two goals. The first was that the structural current budget deficit would be eliminated to "achieve [a] cyclically-adjusted current balance by the end of the rolling, five-year forecast period". The second was that national debt as a percentage of GDP would fall. The government intended to achieve both of its goals through substantial reductions in public expenditure.[21] This was to be achieved by a combination of public spending cuts and tax increases amounting to £110 billion.[26] Between 2010 and 2013, the Coalition government said that it had reduced public spending by £14.3 billion compared with 2009–10.[27] Growth remained low, while unemployment rose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_government_austerity_programme From memory, last time around they were against the LTNs and competing with the Tories to pick up backlash votes - both failed. They had no counterproposals or ideas about how to manage congestion or pollution. This time around they're simply silent on the matter: https://www.southwark-libdems.org.uk/your-local-lib-dem-team/goosegreen Also, as we have seen from Mr Barber's comments on the new development on the old Jewsons yard, "leading campaigns to protect the character of East Dulwich and Goose Green" is code for "blocking new housing".
    • @Insuflo NO, please no, please don't encourage him to post more often! 😒
    • Revealing of what, exactly? I resurrected this thread, after a year, to highlight the foolishness of the OP’s op. And how posturing would be sagacity is quickly undermined by events, dear boy, events. The thread is about Mandelson. I knew he was a wrong ‘un all along, we all did; the Epstein shit just proves it. In reality, Kinnock, Blair, Brown, Starmer et all knew as well but accepted it, because they found him useful. As did a large proportion of the 2024 intake of Labour MPs who were personally vetted and approved by Mandelson.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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